Bolton (o.a. Trumps adviseur buitenlandse zaken) wil de Khashoggi tapes niet horen, hij is het arabisch niet machtig....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Oorlogsmisdadiger en superpsychopaat Bolton, de 'national security adviser' van Trump, die hem o.a. adviseert op het gebied van buitenlandse en militaire zaken, zei tegen reporters die hem ernaar vroegen, dat hij niet zal luisteren naar de Khashoggi tapes, die werden gemaakt tijdens de gruwelijke moord op Khashoggi in het Saoedische consulaat in Istanbul, daar hij de arabische taal niet machtig is.* 

Ofwel de adviseur van Trump wil alleen over zaken spreken en handelen, als men in het betreffende buitenland minimaal in het buitenland Engels spreekt...... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Wat een dolgedraaide gek, jezus! Was het maar waar dat de VS alleen haar illegale oorlogen voerde tegen Engelstalige landen, dan waren na 1945 miljoenen levens gespaard gebleven!

Kortom de VS zal geen maatregelen nemen tegen de reli-fascistische staat Saoedi-Arabië of haar werkelijke (bloedige) heerser, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS)..... Eigenlijk niet eens vreemd, als je ziet dat de VS de Saoedische terreurcoalitie helpt bij de genocide in Jemen, waarmee intussen al een enorm aantal mensen feitelijk is vermoord........ (zo sterft er elke 10 minuten een Jemenitisch kind door toedoen van de Saoedische terreurcoalitie.....) Dat gaat wel even wat verder dan de (verschrikkelijke) moord op Khashoggi, hoe lullig het ook is om dat vast te stellen......

Opperschoft MBS gaat overigens volgende week naar een G20 conferentie in Argentinië**. Human Rights Watch en een speciaal aanklager hebben onder de Argentijnse wet strafvervolging geëist van Saoedi-Arabië, dit vanwege oorlogsmisdaden. De Argentijnse wet staat dit toe, echter deskundigen hebben al gezegd dat het hoogst onwaarschijnlijk is dat MBS zal worden gearresteerd, niet in de laatste plaats daar een dergelijke aanklacht onderzocht moet worden, waarbij o.a. het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC) zal worden gevraagd te getuigen.....

In het volgende artikel dat eerder werd gepubliceerd op Middle East Eye (MEE), door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media, is een korte video van 50 seconden opgenomen, waarin Bolton zijn uitspraak doet t.a.v. de geluidsopnamen die gemaakt werden tijdens de moord op Khasoggi, jammer genoeg kan ik deze video niet overnemen, ga daarvoor naar het originele artikel op MEE. 

Bolton Won’t Listen to Khashoggi Murder Tape Because He Doesn’t Speak Arabic

November 27, 2018 at 9:39 pm

Written by Middle East Eye

(MEE) — US National Security Adviser John Bolton has said he doesn’t need to listen to the audio recording of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder because he doesn’t understand Arabic.

Speaking to reporters in a confrontational manner on Tuesday, Bolton asked: “Why do you think I should? What do you think I’ll learn from it?”

“I’m just trying to make the point that everybody who says ‘why don’t you listen to the tape’ – unless you speak Arabic, what are you going to get from it?” he said.

Bolton’s comments come as US President Donald Trump is under pressure from members of his own Republican party, as well as US intelligence officials and Democrats, to take decisive action to hold Saudi leaders accountable for Khashoggi’s murder.

Trump’s administration has defended Saudi Arabia and its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, since the killing of Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and prominent columnist for the Washington Post who was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.

As national security adviser, Bolton reports directly to Trump on matters relating to foreign policy and military affairs and leads the National Security Council, which dictates the White House’s national security policy to other branches of the federal government.

CBS News

✔@CBSNews

National Security Advisor John Bolton says he hasn't listened to the tape of Jamal Khashoggi's killing because it's in Arabic: "What do you think I'll learn from it?...Unless you speak Arabic, what are you going to get from it?"

2,499

8:08 PM - Nov 27, 2018

Last week, in a meandering written statement, Trump vowed to remain a “steadfast partner” of Saudi Arabia despite the murder, saying both Saudi King Salman and bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler, deny having any knowledge of the journalist’s killing.

The US president has also repeatedly cast doubts on the CIA’s assertion that bin Salman, also known as MBS, ordered Khashoggi’s murder.

Saudi officials have repeatedly denied that the crown prince had any knowledge of the plan to murder Khashoggi or cover up the crime, but human rights groups, journalists, UN experts and others have pointed the finger at MBS, saying it’s impossible he was not involved.

The case has caused a split between Trump and some prominent politicians within his own Republican party.

On Sunday, several US senators rejected the president’s attempts to discredit the CIA’s conclusion that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s murder.

“I disagree with the president’s assessment. It’s inconsistent with the intelligence I’ve seen” implicating the crown prince, Republican Senator Mike Lee said on NBC’s Meet the Press television show.

Other Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and Bob Corker, have been unsparing in their assessments of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Khashoggi’s killing, saying MBS must have been involved.

“I never thought I’d see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia,” Corker, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is set to retire next year, wrote on Twitter.

No confirmed Trump-MBS meeting in Argentina

Amid the controversy over the US’s response to Khashoggi’s killing, the White House said Trump has no plans to meet with bin Salman when the two leaders are in Argentina next week for a G-20 summit.

Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that an informal meeting may happen, however.

“I wouldn’t say we’ve ruled out any interaction,” she said, although she stressed that “the president’s schedule is pretty packed”.

Earlier this week, Argentina announced it was examining whether to file criminal charges against MBS over his role in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

Human Rights Watch said the inquiry was opened after the group and an Argentine federal prosecutor lodged a complaint against the Gulf kingdom for violating international war crimes laws, according to a New York Times report.

Still, officials in Argentina have said bin Salman’s arrest, while he is in the South American country next week for the G-20 summit, is “extremely unlikely”, the Times reported.

By MEE staff / Republished with permission / Middle East Eye / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

Stored Safely on Blockchain

This post is published to LBRY blockchain at lbry://@AntiMedia/bolton-khashoggi-murder-tape.

Try LBRY to experience content freedom, earn crypto, and support The Anti-Media!

=============================================

*  Opperploert Bolton wist wel te vertellen dat de tapes uitwijzen dat Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) niet aanwezig was bij de moord...... Alsof dit MBS, de opdrachtgever tot die moord, vrijpleit....... Clinton, Bush, Obama en Trump zijn ronduit oorlogsmisdadigers, die waarschijnlijk nooit daadwerkelijk iemand hebben vermoord, dit doet niets af aan het feit dat ze grote oorlogsmisdadigers zijn en voor het leven gevangen zouden moeten zitten....... Met die uitspraak van Bolton geeft hij aan wel degelijk op de hoogte te zijn van wat er in de Saoedische consulaat is gebeurd; ofwel ook hij wenst (zoals te verwachten was) geen sancties tegen Saoedi-Arabië vanwege de moord op Khashoggi. (waarschijnlijk is Bolton ook de persoon die Trump heeft overtuigd geen actie te ondernemen, immers hij is, zoals gezegd, de adviseur van Trump op dat gebied)

** Misschien 'een goed idee' om pampakoningin Maxima in Argentinie, haar vader/moederland, de 'honneurs' waar te laten nemen, ze kan het immers, als de rest van het koningshuis, prima vinden met massamoordenaars....... Zo heeft Maxima massamoordenaar paus Franciscus (massamoordenaar vanwege het verbod op anticonceptie >> miljoenen aids doden) meermaals geld geschonken.......

Zie ook:
'Khashoggi: VS prijs voor uit de wind houden van Saoedische terreurkroonprins MBS >> 450 miljard dollar'

'Trump geeft toe dat de VS niets te maken heeft met het beleid in andere landen >> 'gelukkigen' in deze: de moordenaars van Khashoggi.......'

'Trump weet het zeker, de top van de Saoedische dictatuur wist niet van de moord op Khashoggi....'

'Tony Blair weigert na de moord op Khashoggi een lucratieve deal met Saoedi-Arabië op te zeggen'

'Saoedi-Arabië vindt zich een baken van licht tegen het duister verspreidende Iran..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Jamal Khashoggi was geen groot criticus van de Saoedische dictatuur en bepaald geen held'

''Onderzoek' naar moord op Khashoggi in Saoedisch consulaat te Istanbul voorafgegaan door grote schoonmaakactie........'

'Khashoggi waarschijnlijk vermoord vanwege kennis over de 9/11 aanslagen'

'Khashoggi terecht groot in media, waar de aandacht voor Saoedische genocide op sjiieten Jemen amper wordt genoemd'

'Read Jamal Khashoggi’s columns for The Washington Post' 

'Saoedi-Arabië heeft 15 'psychopathische macho's nodig om één journalist te vermoorden'

Khashoggi: VS prijs voor uit de wind houden van Saoedische terreurkroonprins MBS >> 450 miljard dollar

Voor het door de VS geen actie ondernemen op de moord die de Saoedische terreurstaat liet plegen op journalist Khashoggi, in opdracht van kroonprins Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), moet Saoedi-Arabië snel een eerder met het fascistische beest Trump overeengekomen contract tekenen, een contract voor het achterlijk hoge bedrag van $ 450,000,000,000 ofwel 450 miljard dollar.......

Trump weet dat een groot deel van de EU sancties wenst tegen Saoedi-Arabië, maar dat dit niet zal gebeuren als de VS dit niet ook doet....... Trump stelt doodleuk dat de belangen van de VS groter zijn dan de misdaden die deze reli-fascistische dictatuur pleegt....... Hij stelde het zo hard dat de echo werd gevoeld in Duitsland en men zich achter de oren begon te krabben over eerder gedane uitspraken.....

Zo kondigde Duitsland in eerste instantie aan dat het net getekende contract voor wapenleveringen aan Saoedi-Arabië te verscheuren, echter daar werd na de uitlatingen van Trump bijzonder snel een 'koelkast-contract' van gemaakt, m.a.w.: als de storm over Khashoggi gaat liggen zal Duitsland alsnog gaan leveren...... (dat dezelfde dictatuur een genocide uitvoert in Jemen is al een paar jaar lang geen probleem voor de hypocriete Duitse Merkel regering; wat dat betreft kan je nog 'enig begrip' hebben voor de openlijke uitspraken van het beest Trump....) 

Groot-Brittannië heeft als de VS al helemaal lak aan zware mensenrechtenschendingen, misdaden tegen de menselijkheid en uiteraard aan de zojuist genoemde door Saoedi-Arabië in gang gezette genocide in buurland Jemen..........

Hoe is dit allemaal mogelijk anno 2018??!!!

Trump’s Price Tag for Saving Mohammed bin Salman: $450,000,000,000

November 23, 2018 at 11:47 pm

Written by Middle East Eye

(MEE) — US President Donald Trump’s latest statement on Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder is an extraordinary example of political sincerity – although backed by a completely wrong analysis.

Trump departed from the usual empty and generic rhetoric made by former American presidents about Saudi Arabia. He made it very clear that the US will condone what Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did, i.e ordering the killing of Khashoggi, because the kingdom is containing Iran, purchasing American weapons and is helping to control oil prices in line with American interests.

In other words, when American values, such as defending human rights and the rule of law, collide with American interests, Trump will opt for the latter. In fact, Trump statement confirms indirectly Middle East Eye’s report on the US intention to offer a way out to the Saudi crown prince from the Khashoggi quagmire.

A dangerous place

The first sentence of the statement: “The world is a very dangerous place!” is probably the only one that reflects a correct reading of the current international situation. Of course, the president of the United States skips, or does not care about, the fact that his country carries a significant degree of responsibility for this situation.

Robin Wright

✔@wrightr

In a statement stunning &cold-hearted, #Trump gave #saudiarabia a pass on murder of #JamalKhasoggi. He sounded more like #Saudi lobbyist or defense lawyer than protector of US values. So much for American justice. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-utter-denial-about-saudi-arabia-and-its-crown-prince …

295

4:00 AM - Nov 21, 2018

Trump’s Utter Denial About Saudi Arabia and Its Crown Prince

The President has ignored U.S. intelligence findings and given Saudi Arabia a pass on the grisly murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

newyorker.com

The support provided – so far – to Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen, the bias shown on the Israeli-Palestinian question, the never-ending war in Afghanistan and before that the US’s toxic legacy in Iraq, are just a few examples.

The reasons provided to explain why the world is dangerous follow the usual American position, reductive and oversimplified to say the least: all roads lead to Tehran.

The reference to the Yemen conflict is quite puzzling, as well as the proposed solution: “Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen if the Iranians would agree to leave.” Even more puzzling is the president’s vision about the responsibilities for terrorism.

He considers Iran “the world’s leading sponsor of terror” and then he makes a reference to Saudi kingdom’s efforts in this field: “Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism.” Unfortunately, the historical and circumstantial evidence, as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, point in just the opposite direction.

$450bn price tag

Apart from the flawed analysis, Trump’s statement is an extraordinary demonstration of realpolitik. Because the world is a very dangerous place, the United States will continue to support Saudi Arabia, no matter what. But the real purpose of Trump’s statement on Saudi last night is actually to fix a price for this support.

The hidden message that the statement was sending to the Saudi royal court is that to save himself the Saudi crown prince will be expected to disburse $450bn in investments.

(voor vergroting van het volgende document >> klik op de vergrotingsfunctie van jouw browser, meestal rechtsboven in het menu te vinden, of zie het origineel)

Senator Bob Menendez

✔@SenatorMenendez

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. @SenBobCorker & I are triggering Magnitsky Act AGAIN to defend human rights & free press. Now Pres. Trump must SPECIFICALLY determine if Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman himself is responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi

The astronomical sums discussed during Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia last year and Saudi crown prince’s subsequent visit to the US, that so far had remained at the level of a declaration of intent, have to be transformed into binding contracts very soon.

And in case the message coming from Washington was not clear enough for the Saudis, Trump is even perfidious enough to mention possible initiatives by the US Congress going in different directions, hinting at the possibility of examine them: “I will consider whatever ideas are presented to me.”

Translate: hurry up in drafting and signing the contracts!

Saving bin Salman

Trump is aware that the CIA has probably reached different conclusions on the responsibility of MBS in Khashoggi’s murder: “Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!”

Certain sectors of the CIA still regret losing the excellent cooperation they had with the former crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, and they could complicate Trump’s plan to save the current crown prince.

There is a risk that this affair will also turn into another struggle between the White House and the intelligence agencies as happened with the Russiagate. Trump has questioned the analysis of US intelligence agencies according to which Russian intelligence hacked the Democratic party and voting systems during the US presidential elections in 2016.

To make matters worse, on Wednesday, a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to Trump, triggering an investigation into Khashoggi’s disappearance.

The letter, written by Republican Senators Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham, and Democratic Senators Bob Menendez and Patrick Leahy, called for Trump to investigate Khashoggi’s disappearance under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (GMHRAA).

The Magnitsky Act allows the president to impose sanctions on a person or country that has engaged in a human rights violation. “It is a delicate situation when we have a longtime ally that we’ve had for decades, but we have a crown prince that I believe ordered the killing of a journalist,” Corker said in an interview.

In other words, saving Mohammed bin Salman will not be an easy undertaking, especially if further leaks from Turkey on Khashoggi’s murder should emerge with the smoking gun trail leading directly to the Saudi crown prince.

Hence, the Khashoggi saga is likely to go on.

By Marco Carnelos / Republished with permission / Middle East Eye / Report a typo

===================================
Zie ook:
'Khashoggi: 5 mannen ter door veroordeeld in Saoedi-Arabië'

'Bolton (o.a. Trumps adviseur buitenlandse zaken) wil de Khashoggi tapes niet horen, hij is het arabisch niet machtig....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Trump geeft toe dat de VS niets te maken heeft met het beleid in andere landen >> 'gelukkigen' in deze: de moordenaars van Khashoggi.......'

'Trump weet het zeker, de top van de Saoedische dictatuur wist niet van de moord op Khashoggi....'

'Tony Blair weigert na de moord op Khashoggi een lucratieve deal met Saoedi-Arabië op te zeggen'

'Saoedi-Arabië vindt zich een baken van licht tegen het duister verspreidende Iran..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Jamal Khashoggi was geen groot criticus van de Saoedische dictatuur en bepaald geen held'

''Onderzoek' naar moord op Khashoggi in Saoedisch consulaat te Istanbul voorafgegaan door grote schoonmaakactie........'

'Khashoggi waarschijnlijk vermoord vanwege kennis over de 9/11 aanslagen'

'Khashoggi terecht groot in media, waar de aandacht voor Saoedische genocide op sjiieten Jemen amper wordt genoemd'

'Read Jamal Khashoggi’s columns for The Washington Post' 

'Saoedi-Arabië heeft 15 'psychopathische macho's nodig om één journalist te vermoorden'

Voor meer berichten over de genocide in Jemen, klik op de betreffende labels, direct onder dit bericht. (na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst getoonde herhaald, dan even opnieuw op het gekozen label onder dat laatst gelezen bericht klikken, enz.)

Voorstel VS Senaat om Trumps oorlogvoeren te beteugelen, geeft hem juist meer macht om oorlog te voeren........ Noodsprong van het Vierde Rijk?

Een ongelofelijk staaltje volksverlakkerij waar je steil van achterover slaat: De Senaat heeft een wetsvoorstel ingediend waarmee de macht van Trump zou worden ingeperkt om oorlog te kunnen voeren, terwijl deze hem juist meer macht geeft om illegale oorlogen te starten...!!

Landen die Al Qaida, IS of de Taliban steunen kunnen met de vernieuwde Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) wetgeving, gesteund door Republikeinen en Democraten, simpel door de president als vijand kunnen worden aangemerkt, waarna deze kan besluiten het betreffende land (of zelfs landen) aan te vallen, pas na 60 dagen wordt er dan geëvalueerd...... Uiteraard zal men dan niet het onderste uit de kan halen en eisen dat de troepen worden teruggetrokken, immers je loopt dan al snel de kans te worden uitgemaakt voor laffe verrader van 'de heroïsche VS troepen (ofwel de grootste terreurorganisatie op aarde...).....

Bovendien kan de president ook nieuwe terreurgroepen aanwijzen als vijand in de oorlog tegen terreur...... In de lijst van 9 terreurgroepen die nu wordt gebruikt, is vreemd genoeg ook Al Qaida Syrië opgenomen, terwijl deze terreurgroep vorig jaar nog van de VS zwarte lijst met terreurgroepen werd gehaald, blijkbaar 'zijn de banden wat verwaterd', sinds dit feit bekend werd gemaakt........ De president kan deze groepen zelfs aanvallen als ze zich naar de mening van bijvoorbeeld de CIA in een bepaald land verbergen (zonder deze soevereine staat daar eerst in te kennen, waar bijvoorbeeld Pakistan als kandidaat voor een illegale VS oorlog kan worden aangemerkt.........).....

Lees hoe de VS tot in de (verre) toekomst oorlog zal blijven voeren en reken maar dat de champagnekurken hebben geknald bij dit nieuws (in de directie burelen van de wapenfabrikanten en het Pentagon wel te verstaan...)

SENATE PROPOSAL TO CONSTRAIN TRUMP’S WAR MAKING WOULD ACTUALLY EXPAND PERPETUAL WAR

Senator Tim Kaine introduced a new authorized use of military force resolution with Sen. Bob Corker. (Photo via AFGE on Flickr)

KEVIN GOSZTOLA

23APR2018

A new authorization for the use of military force proposed by Democratic and Republican senators would further entrench the United States in endless war. It would also streamline the ability of President Donald Trump and future presidents to expand the “war on terrorism” to additional countries and broaden a list of “associated forces” that are “co-belligerents” of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or the Islamic State.

Under the proposed AUMF [PDF], which was drafted to replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs still in effect, military force against the Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIS, and “designated associated forces” is renewed.

On January 20, 2022, and every four years after, the president is to submit a report on the “use of military force,” which includes a “proposal to repeal, modify, or leave in place” the current AUMF.
It removes some of the ambiguity previously in the phrase “associated forces” by naming the groups: al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qaida in Syria (including al-Nusra), the Haqqani Network, and al-Qaida in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

When the president determines that a “new organization, person, or force is an associated force covered,” a report should be submitted to the “appropriate congressional committees and leadership.”

A similar procedure is to be followed when adding new foreign countries to the list of places where the U.S. is at war. “New” countries are any countries other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya.

The AUMF proposal was put forward by Republican Senator Bob Corker and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine* with the bipartisan support of Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Todd Young and Democratic Senators Chris Coons and Bill Nelson.

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution as a response to the Vietnam War. The resolution was intended to ensure the President of the United States could only deploy U.S. military forces abroad through declarations of war, “statutory authorizations,” or in the case of a national emergency.

What the proposed AUMF would effectively do is cement Congress as the war clerk for the Executive Branch. It would represent a complete abdication of responsibility over matters of war, as granted by the separation of powers in U.S. government. The president would come to leaders of congressional committees with a report that is reviewed, filed, and updated accordingly, with Congress’ only task to make sure they can fit the latest war making into the parameters laid out for perpetual war.

Trump’s latest strikes against Syria renewed attention on Congress’ failure to assert authority over war making by the Executive Branch. Several Democrats, like Representative Nancy Pelosi, made process critiques and argued there must be an AUMF for Syria before Trump pursued more war. Yet, the proposed AUMF does not really deal with the issue of military action against sovereign countries.

It does not provide authority for the president to use military force against any nation state, but it also does not contemplate what Congress should do if the president is engaged in actions, like the strikes on Syria, which senators or representatives never approved.

Additionally, the proposed AUMF grandfathers in the war in Yemen, where the United States military has played an integral role in supporting a coalition led by Saudi Arabia that has brutally attacked Yemenis and blockaded civilians.

Senators Chris Murphy, Mike Lee, and Bernie Sanders attempted to force a vote on withdrawing U.S. military support for the war in Yemen because Congress has not authorized war in the country. Corker took great offense to this, and through the proposed AUMF, he and other senators are ensuring Murphy, Lee, and Sanders cannot challenge U.S. military action in Yemen again by retroactively approving war.

Out of 535 members of Congress, Democratic Representative Barbara Lee was the only person to vote against the 2001 AUMF. She previously opposed bombing Iraq in the 1990s and committing U.S. troops to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s intervention in Kosovo.

Lee declared, “This resolution, even though it was focused on the World Trade Center attack, is open-ended. It doesn’t have an exit strategy; it does not have any reporting requirements. And the president already has authority to use force [internationally for 60 days without congressional approval] under the War Powers Act. So what was this about?”

Her caution went unheeded by elected officials. The Executive Branch used the open-ended AUMF to develop a targeted assassination program, where the groups it believed it could attack with drones or other aircraft under the AUMF were kept entirely secret from the public.

Lee opposes the proposal from Corker and Kaine because she believes it will “continue our state of perpetual war.”

“Rather than reining in the Trump Administration’s blank check for war, the Corker-Kaine AUMF would continue all current military operations, allow any president to unilaterally expand our wars, and effectively consent to endless war by omitting any sunset date or geographic constraints for our ongoing operations. This legislation also further limits Congress’s role in war making by requiring a veto-proof majority to block military action from the president,” Lee declared.

Republican Senator Rand Paul also outlined his opposition to the proposed AUMF while he was on CNN on April 17. “It is a good idea to debate whether we should be at war or not. Unfortunately, the [AUMF] they’re putting forward actually expands the president’s ability to commit war.”

He continued, “For the first time, it will list six or seven groups that we’re at war with. If you remember, after 9/11, we were at war with those who attacked us and who aided and abetted them. But now, this is for the first time gonna codify six or seven groups, maybe 10-15 countries that we can be at war in. Really it’s limitless.”

“If we detect any of the groups having any activity in any country, the president can go to war there. He just has to submit a notice saying, hey guys, we’re now at war in a new country. And that to me is not a limitation. It’s an expansion of war making, and I think, a huge mistake,” Paul concluded.

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley opposes the proposed AUMF for similar reasons. “This new AUMF has no sunset clause – meaning it can be used indefinitely by President Trump and his successors to continue expanding the scope and geography of U.S. military action around the world. The absence of a sunset clause all but guarantees that this AUMF will be stretched by the executive branch to avoid coming to Congress for future authorizations, which is completely unacceptable.”

“Even more concerning, this legislation allows the president to unilaterally expand the scope of the authorization, both in the specific groups being targeted and in the countries in which the United States takes military action. The clear constitutional vision was for Congress and Congress alone to have the authority to initiate war. This AUMF stands that on its head, giving the President that power and leaving Congress with the impossible task of overriding presidential actions.”

“I cannot support an authorization that gives a blank check for endless war and turns Congress’s power over to the president. The Senate should indeed debate a new AUMF, but it must be one that has built-in timelines, mandates congressional approval, and limits the scope of the conflict.”

That is, for the most part, the extent of public opposition to the proposed AUMF, as of April 22.
Its supporters, like former Democratic Party vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, actually contend it will end the notion that the president has a “blank check to wage war.”

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson is gung-ho about the proposed AUMF, sounding like President George W. Bush’s administration in the days after 9/11.

“Terrorists groups such as ISIS pose a serious threat to our national security. This bill will give the president the clear legal authority he needs to target these groups in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else they may be hiding,” Nelson said.

Efforts to repeal and update the AUMF have occurred multiple times in the past decade. Most prominently, in 2015, President Barack Obama provided legislation for an AUMF that would cover strikes against ISIS. The proposal lacked limitations like this recent proposal. Congress never voted on the authorization, and Obama continued to rely on the 2001 AUMF to claim authority for military action.

“Over the last sixteen years, we have witnessed the consequences of unfettered executive power in matters of war,” Lee stated. “Instead of further endorsing perpetual war, we need to insist on an AUMF that is narrow, clearly defined, and respects Congress’s constitutional duty to debate and authorize military action.”

Senators appear to be appropriately concerned about the ways in which Trump could abuse his authority, unlike under the Obama administration. But that concern seems increasingly likely to translate into a measure that will transform Congress’ efforts to challenge the imperial presidency into even more of a charade.
==================================

* Tim Kaine, de ex-running mate van hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton.