US Lawmakers Dispute over War Powers for Obama
Local Editor
As the "ISIL" militants released a grisly video this week of a Jordanian Air Force pilot being burned alive inside a cage, the democratic lawmakers announced that the US should "move quickly" to steer military aid to Jordan, which had stepped up a campaign against the militants, including a series of airstrikes in Syria.
This comes as the Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress would face some resistance in a vote to authorize President Barack Obama's war against "ISIL" militants .
Nevertheless, war authorizations were among the most difficult issues confronting members of Congress. Several Democrats would be reluctant to approve new war powers unless there was a clear deadline or some way to pay for the military operation. Some Republicans, strong foes of the president, would object to giving Obama the authority.
The White House declared that Obama was poised in the coming days to ask Congress for new authority to use US military force against "ISIL". But the top Republican in Congress warned it won't be easy to pass the measure. Republican House Speaker John Boehner said it weold be up to the president to rally support from lawmakers and the public.
Boehner declared, "His actions are going to be an important part of trying for us to get the votes to actually pass an authorization". He continued, "This is not going to be an easy lift."
However, in the US battle against "ISIL", Obama had been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Obama had insisted that he had the legal authority to send US troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces, and to launch airstrikes since September against targets in Iraq and Syria. According to the report, the administration wanted to get a new so-called "Authorization" for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, with bipartisan support from Congress.
Furthermore, White House spokesman Josh Earnest commented on the issueusing an acronym for the "ISIL" group,"The president believes it sends a very powerful signal to the American people, to our allies, and even to our enemies, that the United States of America is united behind this strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL".
Republicans generally want a broader authorization of military action against the militants than Democrats had been willing to consider. Obama had said he did not intend to deploy US combat troops, though many Republicans believe that option ought to be available.
Hence, Earnest declined to discuss specific provisions being considered, such as how long the authorization would last, what geographical areas it would cover and whether it would allow for ground troops. He said details were still being worked out with lawmakers from both parties.
On the other hand, top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California said talks with the administration were focusing on an authorization that would last three years, with other issues still being debated. Pelosi told journalists it would be a challenge for Democrats, the White House and Republicans to forge an agreement, but that she ultimately expected one to be reached.
Pelosi added that she hoped Congress would repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq but retain the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan. Earnest said the White House also supported repeal of the Iraq authorization replaced by the new authorization.
Late last year, Secretary of State John Kerry said whatever new authorization Congress passes should not limit US military action to Iraq and Syria or prevent the president from deploying ground troops if he later deemed them necessary. He also said that if the new authorization had a time limit, there should be a provision for it to be renewed.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
Comments
