I had a pretty harsh reaction to the administration’s claim that Congress in the 2001 AUMF authorized force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. (For a different view, see Marty Lederman’s post.) While I think the administration’s interpretation of the 2001 AUMF is unconvincing, I do not believe (as Bruce Ackerman appears to say today in the NYT) that military action against the Islamic State — to date or in the future — is unlawful under the Constitution.
Last night, after a productive meeting in Indianapolis, I flew home to Monterey. Well, not quite to Monterey. That was the plan. But the plan didn't work out. And the reason it didn't work out is a tale of regulation.
Last night President Barack Obama addressed the nation, ostensibly to describe a strategy for dealing with the burgeoning threat of the Islamic State. He claimed his administration has “consistently taken the fight to terrorists,” an assertion which failed to explain how the problem of the Islamic State burgeoned into such a threat.
Sarah Palin drinks defiantly from a 7-11 “Big Gulp” at the annual CPAC conference, mocking former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s campaign against sugary soft drinks. The audience cheers lustily, as if diabetes were an act of civil disobedience.
President Barack Obama’s announcement on Wednesday to strike the Islamic State militant group in Syria overlooked the other side of Syria’s double-barreled threat: President Bashar Assad. In taking out the Islamic State, experts say, Obama’s U.S.-led coalition might help Assad make territorial gains.
NOT everyone likes robust debate. The chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley recently provoked ridicule by warning staff and students that there was a distinction “between free speech and political advocacy”, and that “we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected”.