Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 84

Authorizing the Use of the U.S. Military Against Islamist Terror Groups

Argument in favor

It is no secret that the U.S. is at war with a host of Islamist terror groups. Aside from authorizing military action against specific terror groups, this bill repeals and replaces the post-9/11 and Iraq AUMFs so they can no longer be used to justify military action.

bkrpec's Opinion
···
08/09/2016
If killing terrorist in other countries keeps them from coming to the United States and harming our citizens here, then I'm all for it! Dead people can't kill you.
Like (26)
Follow
Share
wsvickery's Opinion
···
08/09/2016
Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Yes, we still have the "biggest stick" in the world by far, but right now, our enemies have no reason to fear it. This bill isn't perfect, but it represents a potentially huge step forward in the war on terror. Islamist extremism is a very unique threat to us and our allies, and as such it requires a very unique solution.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
08/09/2016
If we are truly at war, then let the men and women who serve in our Military and who run towards the gunfire fight this war as if we are truly "committed" to win this war. Now I know that someone might read what I just wrote and lay claim that I am calling for cities to be carpet bombed, for villages burned to the ground, for innocent civilians to be killed, children to be orphaned, or some such hyperbole nonsense. Anyone who says that this authorization is too broad, that it sets no limitations on how the U.S. military would combat these terror groups, has never served in a forward operating area with a rifle in their hand. They have not seen the absolute evil that these terror groups are capable of. They have not seen the unbridled hatred they have in their eyes for anyone who does not bow down to them. They have not seen the demonstrations where they are chanting and shouting and yelling “Death to America” or “Kill the Infidels” They have ever experienced being shot at by someone who is trying with every fiber in their being to kill you and end your life, nor have they ever looked into the lifeless eyes of a friend and experienced what it feels like to have your soul shattered at that very instant. But if you have, such as I have, then you know that it is going to take a committed, orchestrated, and purposeful ground fight to destroy these groups. While airstrikes are nice, and they are a safe way to engage the enemy, it never has been and it will never be the answer. Anyone Veteran who has fought in Iraq or Afghanistan knows that this war can be won, but not in the manner we are currently fighting it. I have seen what accomplishments can be made with a can do attitude, I have also seen what losses incur when that attitude ebbs. So yes, put whatever terror group on this list that you want and pass this into law. But only do so if you are willing to let men with guns do what they do best and that is win wars.
Like (14)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This authorization is too broad, as it sets no limitations on how the U.S. military would combat these terror groups and their successors. It also gives the president and Congress the ability to expand the list as they see fit, which is misguided.

pgshpak's Opinion
···
08/09/2016
We've been at war with terrorism since 2001. This is an ideology that we're fighting, and an ideology cannot be defeated through military action. The fact of the matter is, the harder we push them back, the stronger their cause becomes. These Islamic Terror groups must be dealt with locally; if that fails, then the world must unite against them.
Like (107)
Follow
Share
Dave's Opinion
···
08/09/2016
The US should not be making unilateral decisions against stateless actors that do not threaten our borders. The continued unilateral decision making by the US is only creating more animosity towards us. Peace and education are the only paths to a success and peace in the region. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that stands by the non-aggression and non-intervention policies.
Like (47)
Follow
Share
Shaban's Opinion
···
08/09/2016
This is nice and all but is way too broad to pass. Needs to be refined and protocols need to be set. Otherwise this is just another PATRIOT ACT. There also has to be accountability somewhere that if the US crosses any lines (I.e. Mess with the sovereignty of another country) the appropriate measures are taken and the consequences are outlined.
Like (18)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 84?

This resolution would authorize the use of military force (AUMF) against a number of Islamist terror groups and their associates, while giving the president the ability to add more groups to the list subject to congressional approval. It would also repeal two AUMFs that are currently in effect — the 2001 law passed to target the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and a 2002 law allowing the use of force against Iraq.

The following groups (plus their affiliates, supporters, or successor groups) are specifically targeted by this legislation:

  • The Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL);

  • Al Qaeda (including its affiliates in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic Maghreb);

  • Al Shabab;

  • Boko Haram;

  • Al-Nusrah Front;

  • The Haqqani Network;

  • The Taliban;

  • Hamas;

  • Hezbollah;

  • Houthi’s;

  • Khorasan Group.

The president would be allowed to add other organizations to this AUMF, but they would first have to determine that the group supports Islamist extremism and Congress would have to enact a resolution authorizing the use of force against the group.

As a joint resolution, this bill would advance from the House to the Senate if passed and has the ability to become law following congressional approval and a presidential signature.

Impact

The U.S. military; Congress; and the president.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 84

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) introduced this bill to simultaneously repeal the existing 2001 and 2002 AUMFs while authorizing the U.S. military to combat Islamist terror groups:

“For over a decade, the United States has been in armed conflict with Islamist terrorists. This agile and adaptive enemy, in a variety of organizations and forms, continues to wage war against the interests of both the U.S. and our Allies. My legislation takes into account the fact that this enemy can and does operate under the flag of al Qaeda one day, ISIS the next, and Boko Haram the day after that. As our enemy adapts, so must the legal authority by which we fight it."

The Cato Institute — a libertarian-leaning think tank — blasted this bill, calling it “a strikingly foolish piece of legislation” for going after Islamist groups, some of which might not pose a threat to America. It also points out a number of other Islamic groups that weren’t included, such as the Pakistani Taliban, Russia’s Chechens, the Muslim Uighurs in China, and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines that have committed similar atrocities.

This legislation has the support of two Republican cosponsors in the House.



Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: By Thomas R. Koeniges - LOOK Magazine, May 13, 1969. p.27, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1314879)

AKA

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Islamist Extremism

Official Title

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against organizations that support Islamist extremism, and for other purposes.

joint resolution Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedMarch 2nd, 2016
    If killing terrorist in other countries keeps them from coming to the United States and harming our citizens here, then I'm all for it! Dead people can't kill you.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    We've been at war with terrorism since 2001. This is an ideology that we're fighting, and an ideology cannot be defeated through military action. The fact of the matter is, the harder we push them back, the stronger their cause becomes. These Islamic Terror groups must be dealt with locally; if that fails, then the world must unite against them.
    Like (107)
    Follow
    Share
    The US should not be making unilateral decisions against stateless actors that do not threaten our borders. The continued unilateral decision making by the US is only creating more animosity towards us. Peace and education are the only paths to a success and peace in the region. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that stands by the non-aggression and non-intervention policies.
    Like (47)
    Follow
    Share
    This is nice and all but is way too broad to pass. Needs to be refined and protocols need to be set. Otherwise this is just another PATRIOT ACT. There also has to be accountability somewhere that if the US crosses any lines (I.e. Mess with the sovereignty of another country) the appropriate measures are taken and the consequences are outlined.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Yes, we still have the "biggest stick" in the world by far, but right now, our enemies have no reason to fear it. This bill isn't perfect, but it represents a potentially huge step forward in the war on terror. Islamist extremism is a very unique threat to us and our allies, and as such it requires a very unique solution.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    If we are truly at war, then let the men and women who serve in our Military and who run towards the gunfire fight this war as if we are truly "committed" to win this war. Now I know that someone might read what I just wrote and lay claim that I am calling for cities to be carpet bombed, for villages burned to the ground, for innocent civilians to be killed, children to be orphaned, or some such hyperbole nonsense. Anyone who says that this authorization is too broad, that it sets no limitations on how the U.S. military would combat these terror groups, has never served in a forward operating area with a rifle in their hand. They have not seen the absolute evil that these terror groups are capable of. They have not seen the unbridled hatred they have in their eyes for anyone who does not bow down to them. They have not seen the demonstrations where they are chanting and shouting and yelling “Death to America” or “Kill the Infidels” They have ever experienced being shot at by someone who is trying with every fiber in their being to kill you and end your life, nor have they ever looked into the lifeless eyes of a friend and experienced what it feels like to have your soul shattered at that very instant. But if you have, such as I have, then you know that it is going to take a committed, orchestrated, and purposeful ground fight to destroy these groups. While airstrikes are nice, and they are a safe way to engage the enemy, it never has been and it will never be the answer. Anyone Veteran who has fought in Iraq or Afghanistan knows that this war can be won, but not in the manner we are currently fighting it. I have seen what accomplishments can be made with a can do attitude, I have also seen what losses incur when that attitude ebbs. So yes, put whatever terror group on this list that you want and pass this into law. But only do so if you are willing to let men with guns do what they do best and that is win wars.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Showing "love and support" to Islamic Fundamentalists sure as hell won't accomplish anything besides getting non-Islamists killed.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Most certainly! It's evident that due to the contingency in the current and even passed leadership we have had in Washington that the intelligence capabilities on the behalf of the allied powers incorporating the United States from a general perspective has not confronted the problem (circumstances) that the United States is indeed at war with the matter of Islamic terrorism or more narratively speaking "A violent jihadist influence." The Islamic state is on organization in which their values and firm principals are to demonize the surrounding world that dose not exemplify their radical principals and beliefs. ITS ABUSRD. As I have stated in previous proposed bills, The iconic individual Martin Luther King Jr. Was an individual of integrity that comprehended the concreteness of a peaceful and civilized manner of conducting protest for an attempt to influence and flourish the nations mindset on equitability to equalize African Americans just as much under the eyes of the whites by conducting civilized verbal and physical demonstrations. In today's dynamic global society our universe is faced with an abundance of influences that both originate from the actions of civilized manners and uncivilized manners. The movement of promoting the religious values of Islam would be more appreciated and respected if they were at a civilized level. Although, if there is attempted influences that promotes the hatred of homosexuals, patriotic Americans, citizens that don't attribute to Islamic beliefs that are readily executed on camera in front of live footage than there is a urgent issue that immediately needs to be diffused. We have seen the destruction that has been influenced by the Islamic state of terrorist. From a serviceman being severely burned to death in a cage, to the Paris incident, to nice France, and a plethora of more as well! It's disgraceful. An accurate statistic conveyed by our mainstream media claimed that the influence of radical Islamic terrorism has initiated well over 40,000 casualties. Individuals that are innocent and conducting their own paths and their own religious values. Families, successful entrepreneurs, toddlers, leaders in the globe, journalists and reporters and innocent citizens in general have been evidently incorporated in the brutal execution of the Islamic state. Authorizing United States militaristic forces against This wide spreading influence would be the equation that would equal the alternative of prosperity for the sake of human kind. The nation of America has enhanced its technological capabilities to combat our enemies and rise from darkness into light by enforcing military action ONLY IF NECESSARY. Negotiations is simply not the solution for this scenario. Additionally, under the regulations of the untied states of the department of homeland security that we will not negotiate with terrorist in any from of aspect. My point being is, the executive branch must comprehend that there are no more room for bureaucracies interfering with this manner and the United States being bystanders for such a sick influence of HATRED. Authorizing comprehensive military force in the lands of this particular organization would mark future intensions to not only abolish their ability for further flourishment by defeating their ground troops but liquefying their source of wealth such as oil and the trade of hazardous material incorporating (artillery, nuclear material, and radioactive materials) need to be abolish. We can easily have a prosperous future once we abolish this influence but first and foremost it behooves the federal governments of the abroad world to acknowledge and immerse the threat we are facing of radical Islamic terrorism in their minds to conduct impeccable military enforcement for the sake to alleviate the safety and security for future generations to come. Thank you for your time.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Ignoring the problem and letting it grow obviously hasn't worked. I'm not asking for another surge like Iraq but we need to do something.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    I vote in favor, not because I think that we should immediately and "unilaterally" as someone else put it, declare war on all of the groups listed below. However, I think the ABILITY to authorize force, on a case-by-case basis, is important. It pains me to see opinions that paint these groups as non-threatening to the United States. The truth of the matter is, our stake in this world goes beyond our borders. We have allies in other countries, that are important to us for more reasons than we can see in the present, who are dealing with the gruesome aftermath of what these groups can do. I'm not one to load the cannon and fire quickly, but these groups are no joke and I think it is important that the government have the ability to authorize the use of force against them.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Violence begets violence. We've seen the ripples from poorly thought out military action and peoples across the world have paid dearly for it. Time for either others to lead or for us to find alternatives that don't inflame the influx of people joining ISIS. More military action isn't one of them.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Liberal here. This misconception that the harder we push back, the worse the situation becomes, is just a complete obfuscation of reality. We help actual people and save real lives when cities are liberated from life under sharia law. We do real damage to the ideology of ISIL and we prevent its spread when we kill those most responsible for its dissemination. The most dangerous thing we can do at this point is to sit on our hands and just hope that our allies in the region can prevent the spread of this extremist ideology on our behalf.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    "America has been at war every day since Congress passed the AUMF after the 9/11 attacks. The result had made America less safe, creating new enemies and triggering new conflicts. Yet Representatives Perry, Salmon and Lummis would authorize open-ended military action against a host of new groups that are not currently at war with the United States. The threat of terrorism would grow accordingly. Instead, Congress should approve future military action only when Washington has no alternative course to protect America—its territory, people or constitutional liberties. The Founders wanted to restrain militaristic executives. They did not view war as just another policy option, but something to be avoided if at all possible. Wrote James Madison: “Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” If anything, that is truer today than when America was founded." -The Cato Institute
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Has this been working? No, your only creating more problems. And that is sponsoring terrorism allowing it to flourish. Our actions are un-American.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    While not perfect a new AUMF with specific entities targeted would be better then the currently vague AUMFs in play.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    When an American is killed by a terrorist group that group should automatically become a target for our military. If that means we bomb Gaza then we just have to tell Israel to go look at birds or something until we are done. You can't negotiate with evil, you must destroy it.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to do everything we can to protect ourselves and the rest of the world from terror.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    No! Quit dancing around the issue and declare war.....this would eliminate the President protecting the "Religion of Peace".
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    How about we change our foreign policy instead, by staying out of their business altogether.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The key to stopping ISIS and other Islamic terror groups, is to stop funding them with weapons like we have been doing for the past 20 or so years. We also must take away their supply of oil. But we also need troops on the ground to stop them. "If we want peace, then we must prepare for violence."
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE