Snark: to annoy or irritate

"Snark" has been in English language dictionaries since at least 1906, and Lewis Carroll used the word to describe a mythological animal in his poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1874). Most recently, the word has come to characterize snappish, sarcastic, or mean-spirited comments or actions directed at those who annoy or irritate us.

At first, this blog was just going be a place to gripe, but because it's more satisfying to take action than it is to merely complain, now most of the posts/reposts suggest ways to get involved in solving problems.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

No Blank Check for Endless War

No blank check for endless wars

Clicking here will add your name to this petition to Congress:
It was bad enough that George W. Bush dragged us into a disastrous war in Iraq when he was president.
But what if he'd had sweeping powers during his administration to make war anywhere in the world without the consent of Congress? It's what Dick Cheney dreamed of, and it's on the verge of becoming an all-too-real nightmare.
Congress will soon vote on a "sleeper provision" hidden inside defense legislation currently pending before Congress. If passed it would be what the ACLU describes as "the single biggest grant of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history."

In the Senate this legislation is being advanced by Sen. John McCain and in the House by Rep. Buck McKeon. 
The proposed legislation would allow the president to use military force anywhere in the world where terrorism suspects are purported to be present, even if no U.S. citizen has been harmed, the United States has not been attacked or is not under threat of attack.

The legislation would even allow the president to use military force within the U.S. against American citizens.
These are not provisions sought by President Obama who has made it clear that the executive branch already has the tools it needs to fight terrorism at home and abroad.
The power to declare war is clearly assigned to Congress in the Constitution. Even during the rush to war back in 2002, Congress held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined an objective, before authorizing war.
If Congress expands the president's power to wage war without checks from the legislative branch, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. No president — current or future — should have the right to wage war with no mechanism other than the ballot box to ensure accountability.

After the September 11th attacks, Congress launched a rollback of our civil liberties that is still largely intact despite the election of a new president. Authoritarian powers once given over are much harder to take back. That's why we must soundly defeat this legislation before it ever has the chance of going into effect.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
P.S. CREDO Action joined the ACLU and a coalition of civil rights and anti-war groups in sending a letter opposing this legislation to the members of the House Committee on Armed Services. You can read that letter by clicking here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.