1984 The Eternal War - Congress Abdicates Their Power

 "In accordance to the principles of doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. 

The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact."

- George Orwell

"1984"

• Eternal War  -  The bipartisan Military-Industrial Complex has found the perfect eternal enemy: Islam.  If you follow the Constitution you declare war on Germany, Japan or Spain. But then you need to make peace with those nations once the war ends. 
• But 1,400 years of aggression by Islam all you need do is claim you are fighting amorphous "Terrorists". You never have to make peace because there is no one to make peace with. Plus you always use terror to justify expanding the 1984 Police Surveillance State.
• Congress has deliberately abdicated their power to declare war, but no matter what Congress keeps the $$$$ flowing to the Military-Industrial Complex to fund the wars they like to claim they are concerned about.

(Miami Herald)  -  Senators from both parties agreed Tuesday that it was long past time for Congress to enact a new law authorizing the evolving war against Islamic terrorist groups, while also raising questions about the legal basis for the Trump administration’s escalating direct military confrontations with Syrian government forces.

But over the course of a 90-minute hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, it was clear that policy disagreements that thwarted previous efforts to update the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — a law that three presidents have used to justify combat against foes and in countries far beyond al-Qaida in Afghanistan – remain daunting.

“Some members of Congress will use this debate for the singular purpose of imposing limitations on our president — it’s just a fact,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the committee. “Others may refuse to limit a president at war in any way. That’s a fact. And that is a wide gap to bridge.”

The hearing was the latest in a yearslong series of congressional debates over what, if anything, to do about the open-ended Sept. 11 war authorization. The executive branch has stretched the law to encompass war against enemies with only tenuous links to the original al-Qaida, which has proved controversial, and senators disagreed Tuesday about whether it covered the Islamic State, as the Obama administration first claimed.

Asked at a luncheon Monday at the National Press Club in Washington what legal basis the United States had to attack Syrian government forces, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., claimed the authority stemmed from the 2001 law because the U.S. military presence in Syria was predicated on fighting al-Qaida and the Islamic State there.

But on Tuesday, the ranking Democrat on the Senate committee, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, said, “The most recent use of this, in regards to activities in Syria, certainly had nothing to do with the attack on our country on September the 11th.”

Read More . . . .