Congress uses the term "war" four times in the 2001 AUMF. There was an extended public debate, as there was for Iraq's AUMF, which the present Vice President and Secretary of State voted for.

I beg your pardon? Below, is the text of the 2001 resolution commonly called the AUMF. The word 'war' can be found in it precisely three times, and those are there only because it is referencing the "War Powers Resolution" which actually limits previously perceived presidential power to wage war.

Extended public debate? The attacks against the towers and pentagon took place on September 11, 2001. This resolution was passed on September 18, 2001. If that's your idea of "extended public debate", I'd sure like to know what you consider a quickie. The attacks took place on a Tuesday and the resolution was finalized the following Tuesday. That means there were 3 working days for Congress to debate this, since they take Mondays and weekends off. THREE days is what you consider an "extended debate"? You're kidding, right?

Authorization for Use of Military Force

September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

I would submit that the only reason this is called a "war" is because the (then) administration wanted to hype it. What we are doing now, and what we've been doing since 9-11 is no where near a damned war. As a matter of fact, Congress went out of its way to NOT use the word 'war' to describe what caused this resolution. It used the words "treacherous violence" instead. Why do you believe, if they were declaring "war", they didn't use the word "war" to describe either what the 9-11 highjackers did, or what they were authorizing the President to do?

Calling it a "war" is bullshit. You know it, I know it and I'd guess that 95% of the readers here know it. The others are named bernbart.

Oh! By the way, Champ. Obama wasn't even in Congress on September 18, 2001. How did he vote on the AUMF?

Please provide a link to where the Congress of the United States ever authorized war within the last 50 years.

War, Salter. Not the use of whatever force necessary, War.

War is the word the Framers used in the Constitution and yet....Congress won't use it.

Why is that?

While I like your articles a great deal, it is inaccurate to agree with Krauthammer when he says Obama still sends people to be tortured.

And you know this? How?

Because Obama said so?

He also said he would join in a fillibuster over the FISA bill last year.

He also said he would roll back Bush administration excesses regarding rendition.

He promised he would close GTMO within 12 months of taking office. Do you believe he will?

The guy is a chronic and serial liar.

He is rendering people to other countries and then taking their word that they won't torture (wink) them (wink) to obtain (wink) information (wink) we believe we need.

Horseshit.

Just what substantial campaign promise has he kept?

This isn't exactly proof..

It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

If this were true, I'd stop being an Obama supporter PDQ!

It's true.

The resignation office is the first door on the right.

Please take that idiot bernbart with you.

link at sig

What's the difference between Obama and Bush?

The only one I can think of is that Obama can use multi-syllable words and know what they mean.

He's lied to us about just about everything he promised during the campaign.

Why shouldn't he be impeached?

Why are you here?

Wouldn't your time be better spent playing video games?

Seriously, if there's nothing which can be done, why are you wasting your time here?