9/11 and Biden - Biden was against the raid that killed Bin Laden

[blah3]

Seems like that should only be limited in scope to people involved in 9/11 though?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

So bin laden and 9/11 had no connection????? He wasn’t behind other terrorism? He wasn’t a threat to do more????

[blah3]

Is it your contention that this act authorizes the executive branch to employ military force anywhere, any time, without further specific authorization, forever.

Because that seems to be the case.

The Congress abdicated it's specific responsibility to Declare War, and instead offered a general congressional resolution authorizing force. And that resolution has since been used by the executive branch for the employment of military force in more than a dozen different countries, for many different reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the original precipitating event of the resolution you posted. In short... the executive uses this authorization, and the extra-Constitutional War Powers Act, to do as it chooses with the military... in direct conflict with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

My challenge is to the legality of the methods Congress employed...

Not to whether or not they attempted a perfunctory nod in the direction of the Constitution... but whether they adhered to it.

I think you know this, and would prefer to be coy rather than address the issue forthrightly.

My contention is that it does declare war and did authorize the president to go ahead with the bin laden raid. So your puttin Obama on trial for it stance has no merit. You were wrong on that point and you know it

[Ortizer]

So bin laden and 9/11 had no connection????? He wasn’t behind other terrorism? He wasn’t a threat to do more????

The posts that you were responding to quoting the act referenced that authorization as being used as the justification for drone strikes and other actions all over the Middle East . Bin Laden was certainly connected to 9/11, but the connection in some of those other cases is tenuous at best.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

I guess that depends on how you interpret this:

(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza- tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It doesn't seem (to me) to limit it as such. Thoughts?

Aided would be involved in 9/11, yes, though I should have said actors I suppose? Would that capture states providing support as well?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk