• rivermonster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Congress has wanted nothing to do with conflicts in an official capacity for the last 50-60 years. They want sound bytes in unofficial interviews for grandstanding and to be able to blame everyone else.

    This is actually a result of those decades of congress, regardless of party in control, abdicating their constitutional duty. For a recent example, check out post 9/11 and congress.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      This. A thousand times this.

      Both Obama and Biden have been more than willing to sign a repeal or massive overhaul of the AUMF, but both chambers of Congress and members of both parties therein are cowards who would rather cheer or criticize in front of a camera and microphone than perform their Constitutional duties of checking the power of the Commander in Chief.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        If they were willing to sign a repeal of it, nothing stopped them from simply not using it. The AUMF didn’t make them start wars.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago
          1. Not a war.
          2. They have a responsibility to carry out such actions in the presence of Congressional inaction and cowardice.
          3. As long as the AUMF exists and is in effect, it is both legally and effectively the role of the President to act under its grant of authority in accordance with its purpose.
        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Given that actual US Navy ships have been getting attacked and this is largely in retaliation of that, I think it stretches the imagination a bit to say that the US started this.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            From where did you get this opinion? None of the articles I’ve read about the US attack have mentioned an attack on the US Navy. The closest I could find in a search was missiles that landed 10 nautical miles away from a Navy ship in November. Which, at the scale of the ocean is sorta close, but it’s a stretch to call it an attack in need of immediate retribution. All the direct justifications presented by the US are that this is in response to and designed to deter their attacks on commercial shipping.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                This doesn’t seem to be in response to the thread. The Axios link doesn’t say anything about an attack on the US Navy. The second link has a mention by Biden of “US ships” (not Navy) as targets, but the linked story only says a British navy ship may have been targeted, but they weren’t sure. I’m well aware they’ve been attacking shipping, that’s not in question and not what I’m responding to.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      At the same time, we shouldn’t be defeatist when it comes to ethics and holding our government branches accountable. If they are arguing in good faith, we should support efforts for more transparency and secure processes.