U.S. Congress rethinks 9/11 law on military force

Should be an interesting debate.

Too little, too late. Knee-jerk reaction always seem like a good idea at the time. Just get the USA military out of those countries and JAPAN as fast as possible. Nothing good has happened or changed.

noriyosan73,

Just get the USA military out of those countries and JAPAN as fast as possible.

I don't think we need to worry. The U.S.A. is vastly overreaching itself, going rapidly down the road to bankruptcy like the USSR with military overspending. And Japan certainly cannot afford to support them with "sympathy money" for much longer.

@bertie

I don't think we need to worry. The U.S.A. is vastly overreaching itself, going rapidly down the road to bankruptcy like the USSR with military overspending. And Japan certainly cannot afford to support them with "sympathy money" for much longer.

The US is NoWhere near bankruptcy level as the USSR was. If anything, if the country went bankrupt, it would be because of Obama borrowing and not cutting spending, Obamacare, once implemented will add another 5 trillion to the deficit. But military spending, NASA, that's all been cut, NO thanks to this President. But don't worry, my cousin who is a very high ranking official told me a few months back. The US presence will be in Okinawa for a very, very, very long time. Personally, I think it's a good think for business and the locals, he was assured from the top, that they might in all probability might relocate the other forces in Germany and elsewhere to place the troops along the Pacific. As long as China might pose a threat to the region, the US will always be near.

The U.S. Congress is rethinking the broad authority it gave presidents to wage a war on terror after the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in light of how President Barack Obama has used the power to target suspected terrorists with lethal drone strikes.

Fact: In 2001, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that gave a Republican president "broad authority," which included invading a nation illegally -- a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Recall that this was the same Republican congress that tried to argue against the U.S. getting "entangled" in Bosnia (!!). Now that a Democratic president is using the power to make surgical drone strikes, many of the same Republicans are finding it necessary to "rethink" things. Perhaps because the drones have been tremendously effective at seemingly minimal financial cost, and thus greatly benefits the president who authorizes their use. (And they just don't want a Democratic president enjoying any benefits of success in what they used to call the "war on terror.")

Fact: In 2001, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that gave a Republican president "broad authority," which included invading a nation illegally -- a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Well, partial fact anyway. Definitely a Republican congress, but done with Bi-Partisan support. A whole lot of Democrats supported it. Also, I'm curious, when say they illegally invaded a foreign country, which one are you referring to?

By the way, yabits, I'm actually a little surprised at you. You were one of those who hated the Patriot Act. Wheres the outrage? If Bush is in power, then you hate it, but as long as the President happens to have a D next to his name, then what, you support total dictatorial powers? WTH?

Personally, I support the removal of this law, as well as most of the Patriot Act. I don't think any President, be they Republican or Democrat should be given so much unlimited power.

Definitely a Republican congress, but done with Bi-Partisan support. A whole lot of Democrats supported it.

The Democrats who didn't support it were correct according to the Republicans who are reversing course today. I can't recall any Republicans who opposed it -- not to say there wasn't a smattering, much to Herr Karl's dismay.

A "whole lot" -- LOL! A "whole lot" of Democrats voted against it at the time.

The Democrats who didn't support it were correct according to the Republicans who are reversing course today. I can't recall any Republicans who opposed it -- not to say there wasn't a smattering, much to Herr Karl's dismay.

You fail to answer my main question though. Why do you want to continue to give any President, even this one who you believe can do no wrong, so much power? You know eventually a Republican will be President again, it might even be Bush 3, god forbid. Why aren't you one of those supporting the repeal?