Is Endless War Justified ???

Obama ad-Dajjal seems to think it is:

A lawsuit filed earlier this year charging President Barack Obama with waging an illegal war against the Islamic State (or ISIS) was met on Tuesday with a motion from the Obama administration asking the court to dismiss it.

In its motion to dismiss, the administration argues that congressional funding for the war amounts to congressional approval for it.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. district court by Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence official stationed in Kuwait, in May. Smith has been assigned to work for "Operation Inherent Resolve," the administration's name for the nebulous conflict against the terrorist group ISIS.

"How could I honor my oath when I am fighting a war, even a good war, that the Constitution does not allow, or Congress has not approved?" Smith wrote. "To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria."

According to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, "when the President introduces United States armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where hostilities are imminent," Smith's lawsuit reads, "he must either get approval from Congress within sixty days to continue the operation, in the form of a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, or he must terminate the operation within the thirty days after the sixty-day period has expired."

The Obama administration has justified the legality of the war on ISIS by relying on the Authorization for the Use Military Force (AUMF) resolution, passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The single sentence, consisting of only 60 words, has now been relied upon by first President George W. Bush and now Obama to justify the unending wars waged by the U.S. in the 21st century.

You can read the rest @
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/13/attempt-dodge-suit-white-house-argues-funding-war-makes-war-legal

Here are the 60 words which allegedly justify our endless war:

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.

This brings up some interesting questions:

*Saudis were involved in planning and aiding the 9/11 attacks. Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?

*Both the Bush and Obama administrations have harbored the 9/11 attackers and those who aided them. Why isn't the President arresting them?

*A Presidential "determination" is a pretty low standard of proof for the killing of persons (including US citizens) and the destruction of entire nations. Why should we accept this?

My assessment is that Captain Smith is the only person involved who actually is honoring his oath. Both Obama ad-Dajjal and Congress are not, and they are using a twisted legal argument to get around the Constitutional and legal requirements.

Bottom line? This endless war should NOT be so justified, but it looks like they'll continue to get away with it.