[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Here's the problem: who's defining terrorists?

Oh, that's right. The Executive Branch. Which means Trump (or Obama or whoever) can re-define any group as a terrorist group so they can use the AUMF to wage war without congressional approval.

Which they did to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in April of last year.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whether or not they've ever given material support to terrorist groups, are part of a sovereign nation's military.

Starting to see the problem yet?

The AUMF was supposed to authorize President Bush's use of the military to fight those involved with the 9/11 attacks. It was left so vague that it's been almost 20 years, and it's being used to justify new conflicts, whether that was President Obama taking on ISIL or, now, President Trump attacking a senior military commander of a sovereign nation on the soil of yet ANOTHER sovereign nation, in retaliation for their supposed support for an attack which had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is where I point out that the "right" move isn't necessarily either a legal or constitutional maneuver. He may well have been a threat to American interests. Unless the courts are willing to go full ostrich on this one and yet again abrogate their constitutional responsibility to check the executive, Trump still needed Congressional approval for this, and didn't seek it.

Hell, the House has been trying to tie his hands on this specific thing - attacking Iran without Congressional approval - for several months, and Republicans have repeatedly balked, saying that he'd never do something that silly so why are we wasting time on th--oh.

Like Jphillips alluded to earlier the members of Congress would much rather cede war powers to the executive so as not to effect their reelection chances if things go well/poorly. Why stand for something when there are 100's of wedge issues they can fall back on to rally their base?