• thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yes, we call those “blank checks” to the executive branch. The Germans even have a word for it. We did it with Vietnam and it did not go well. One would have thought the generation in Congress would have learned their lesson given most of them lived through that shitshow.

    It goes without saying that military resources can defend themselves when fired upon, there’s plenty of precedent going back well before the formation of the US. The AUMFs were not that. They were very clearly blank checks to wage literal wars anywhere the executive desired while providing the flimsiest of evidence - and Shrub did just that. See: Iraq.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Merely an overly large check. There are limits, and we need the executive branch to be able to respond to urgent threats - the War Powers Act seems to do that.

      the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which further requires that presidents not only report to Congress within 48 hours when they deploy U.S. armed forces into hostilities without congressional authorization but also end U.S. participation in those hostilities within 60 to 90 days if Congress does not authorize it after the fact.

      Then people here are complaining about A U Military Force but I only see such a thing specifying Iraq. Iraq can’t be pulled into every possibility yeah, I agree Congress needs to get its shit together and constrain or repeal - the Iraq conflict that was created for is done.

      Meanwhile, the response to the Houthi terrorism/piracy seems exactly what these regulations provide for

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Go read the War Powers Act. Then tell me what decade long conflict the US has fought in without an AUMF since it was passed.

      Go on.