Most, if not all, Email service providers like Gmail has an interesting feature where
you can add a plus sign (+) after your Gmail address, and it'll still get to your inbox.
The feature, often called as "plus-addressing" technique, is basically an unlimited number of e-mail
addresses to play with - within a single inbox.
It also works with a period in your email address.
Here's how it works:
let's say your email address is johndoe@gmail.com, and you want to automatically label all work
e-mails.
Add a plus sign and a phrase to make it johndoe+work@gmail.com and set up a filter to label it "work" - this
way all the emails sent to that address will automatically be labeled and you can further
filter them out with more customizations (like starring it, archiving, or auto-forwarding
it, etc.)
as mentioned, you can also add a dot a.k.a a period to create a distinct email ID and
it will still deliver it to your original gmail address.
To access your filters go to Settings->Filters and create a filter for
messages addressed to johndoe+work@gmail.com.
Then add the label "work".
This is not just to organize your inbox but you can also use it to find out who is spamming you.
Be sure to use plus-addressing technique for every form or mailing list you will fill out
and give each site a different plus address.
Gmail has amazing spam filtering that is built in.
. although, you do not need extra spam filtering for Gmail this is especially useful for things
such as mailing lists.
i hope you liked this video, if so, please share the love by sharing this video with your friends and families and make
their lives easier as well.
thanks for watching.
For more infomation >> How To Find Who Is Spamming Your Inbox - Plus Addressing Technique - Duration: 1:42.-------------------------------------------
How AI Is Being Used To Create Fake Porn - Duration: 11:51.
THERE ARE NEW APPS POPPING UP AND ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY
THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO ESSENTIALLY USE SOMEONE'S FACE INTO VIDEO
THAT THEY HAVE NOT FILMED.
SOMETIMES THAT VIDEO CAN BE SEXUAL AND EXPLICIT IN NATURE.
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE NAME OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AND I DO NOT
WISH TO DRAW PEOPLE TO IT, BUT I DO WANT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT
HOW MUCH THIS IS ADVANCED TO THE POINT WHERE THE VIDEO LOOKS
INCREDIBLY REAL AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL WHETHER
OR NOT IT IS FAKE.
ACCORDING TO MOTHERBOARD THAT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB REPORTING
ON
THIS:
THIS TECHNOLOGY ESSENTIALLY RELIES ON VIDEO, PHOTOS, STUFF
THAT YOU POST ON SOCIAL MEDIA ON A REGULAR BASIS AND YOU FEED
THAT INFORMATION OR THAT DATA THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY AND THEN
THE SYSTEM CAN'T ESSENTIALLY LEARN THE PERSON'S FACIAL
MOVEMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT AND THEN THEY JUST PUT INTO PORN.
INNOCENT PERSON, NEVER TAKEN A NAKED PICTURE IN HIS OR HER
LIFE, PORN.
THIS WAS NOT IN THE ARTICLES.
THE FIRST LAYER IS YOU DO IT TO CELEBRITIES DOTS LEAST
SURPRISING THING IN THE WORLD, AND WE ARE NOT UNAWARE THAT YOU
CAN LOOK IT UP, SECOND THING, AS I WAS READING THE FIRST ARTICLE
FOR MOTHERBOARD I WAS LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT TO PEOPLE IN
THEIR OWN LIVES AND OF COURSE THEY ARE DOING ITS PEOPLE IN
THEIR OWN LIVES, JUST GRABBING PICTURES FROM INSTAGRAM OR OTHER
PLACES AND USING THIS TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE PORN WITH SOMEONE THEY
KNOW NOW WHAT IS NOT IN ARTICLES IS I JUST REALIZED AS YOU WERE
TALKING, THEY CAN THEN TAKE THEIR OWN PICTURE, PUT INTO THE
GUY IF IT'S GOING IN THAT DIRECTION AND THEN ALL OF A
SUDDEN THEY HAVE A VIDEO OF THEMSELVES HAVING SEX WITH THIS
PERSON AND IT MIGHT BE A PERSON YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT MIGHT
BE A CREEPER THAT YOU MET ONCE OR AT A BAR OR WHEREVER, AT A
CONFERENCE.
ANYBODY CAN DO IT NOW AND YOU DO NOT NEED A COMPUTER BACKGROUND.
THIS HAS HUGE IMPLICATIONS AND THAT IS WHY WE'RE
DISCUSSING IT HERE TODAY.
EXACTLY.
THE REASON WHY HAS IMPLICATIONS IS BECAUSE OVER THE LAST MONTH
THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED SO MUCH THAT IT LOOKS INCREASINGLY
CONVINCING AND SO HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT A PORNOGRAPHIC VIDEO FEATURING A SPECIFIC
PERSON, WHETHER IT IS THIS LIBERTY OR A PRIVATE
CITIZEN IS REAL OR FAKE AND IT COULD HAVE REAL
RAMIFICATIONS TOWARD PEOPLE'S LIVES.
THEIR EMPLOYERS YOU MIGHT SEE THIS VIDEO OR COME ACROSS IT AND
DECIDE I AM NOT GOING TO HIRE THIS PERSON BECAUSE OF HIS OR
HER PAST AND LET'S KEEP IT REAL, THIS IS MOSTLY GOING TO
NEGATIVELY IMPACT WOMEN AND RIGHT NOW, I FEEL LIKE ONE OF
THE BIGGEST ISSUES IN AMERICA IS THE INABILITY TO
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN REAL NEWS AND PROPAGANDA, FAKE NEWS,
COMPLETELY FABRICATED NEWS ARTICLES.
IF WE ARE HAVING A HARD TIME DOING THAT, WHO IS TO SAY
AMERICANS OR PEOPLE IN GENERAL, NOT JUST AMERICANS WOULDN'T
HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FIGURING OUT WHETHER OR NOT
PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL IS REAL OR FAKE.
YOU ARE HEARING THE STORY AND YOU MIGHT HAVE READ THE ARTICLES
AND WE WILL PUT THE LINKS DOWN BELOW, BUT THE PERSON WATCHING
IT WILL NOT HAVE GOTTEN THE BACKGROUND AND BY THE WAY,
ANOTHER THING THAT EMPLOYERS MIGHT DO IS I DON'T WANT TO
TAKE CHANCES.
IT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE TRUE BUT I AM NOT TAKING ANY
CHANCES SO THEN YOU JUST RUINED TO THAT PERSON'S LIFE.
MAYBE THAT IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE AND NOT EVERYBODY'S LIFE IS
GOING TO BE RUINED BUT THERE IS ALSO THE THING THAT IT IS
DEEPLY DISTURBING FOR PEOPLE.
THERE'S A WHOLE RANGE OF HOW PEOPLE CAN REACT TO IT.
I REMEMBER ALL THE WAY BACK, LOOK, IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE
INTERNET CAME OUT WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING PEOPLE DEAD?
THEY TOOK CELEBRITY HEADS AND PUT ON NEW BODIES.
THAT IS AS OLD AS TIME BUT NOW THIS IS SOPHISTICATED THAT WE'RE
GOING TO SHOW YOU A VIDEO IN A SECOND, NOT PORN, BUT I KNEW
A GUY WHO HAD TAKEN MY PICTURE AND PUT IT ONTO NAKED BODIES.
ME, I DO NOT CARE.
I HAVE THICK SKIN, HAVE AT IT, WHAT DO I CARE?
THAT IS YOUR MIND, YOUR BUSINESS, I DO NOT CARE.
DO YOU, BOO.
LITERALLY I GUESS IT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIKE ME WHO WOULD BE
MORTIFIED, DEVASTATED BY THIS AND SO I KNOW THAT PEOPLE WHO DO
THIS KIND OF STUFF LULZ AND MEN ARE MEN AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO
THINGS AND FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IT IS NOT LULZ YOU JUST HAVE TO
BE COGNIZANT THAT IT COULD HAVE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.
I LOOKED INTO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING, THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THIS TECHNOLOGY AND THE PEOPLE
WHO LOVE THIS TECHNOLOGY.
I WAS READING CERTAIN FORMS WHERE THEY ARE TALKING
ABOUT IT, CONVERSING ABOUT IT AND YOU ARE RIGHT IN THAT
YES, IT IS GOING TO IMPACT CELEBRITIES.
THAT IS ONE THING, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT ABOUT
PRIVATE CITIZENS THAT THEY KNOW IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES?
SOME OF THEM ARE SAYING THIS COULD BE USED FOR BRIBERY.
OR EXTORTION.
WE CAN GO AFTER CERTAIN PEOPLE AND TELL THEM HEY, IF YOU DO NOT
WANT THIS VIDEO OUT THERE, THIS VERY CONVINCING
PORNOGRAPHIC VIDEO, MAYBE YOU PAY UP OR DO X, Y, AND Z.
THERE IS THE ISSUE AND ALSO SOME WORRY THAT THERE COULD BE
POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR SOME POLITICIANS.
YOU KNOW WHAT?
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE IMPLICATIONS BUT AS YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT IT I CAME TO ANOTHER CONCLUSION WHICH IS
TRUMP IS GOING TO BE THRILLED ABOUT THIS.
AND SO IS R. KELLY.
THEY CAN NOW SAY, THAT WASN'T US.
THEY AI-ED THAT THING.
THAT IS ANOTHER POTENTIAL NEGATIVE OUTCOME OF THIS.
THEY CAN DENY THE AUTHENTICITY OF AN ACTUAL REAL VIDEO.
THOSE ARE HUGE IMPLICATIONS BUT LET'S SAY THE VIDEO
PERSON AND TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THOSE IMPLICATIONS
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY WE PERCEIVE
THINGS NOT JUST ONLINE, BUT IN A LOT OF PARTS OF OUR LIVES
SO HERE'S A VIDEO OF THEM DOING IT IN REGARDS TO GEORGE BUSH.
JUST FACIAL EXPRESSIONS, JUST WATCH.
AS WE CAN SEE, WE ARE ABLE TO GENERATE A REALISTIC AND
CONVINCING REENACTMENT RESULT.
HE MOVES HIS FACE AND IT LOOKS LIKE BUSH IS MOVING
HIS FACE, TALK, ETC. AND I'M IMPRESSED THAT THEY GOT
SEBASTIAN GORKA TO PLAY THAT ROLE IN THE VIDEO.
HE LOOKED A LITTLE BIT LIKE HIM.
THE WIDER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS.
NOW YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, IF IT IS REAL OR NOT AND BY
POLITICAL, I DO NOT JUST MEAN IN THE SPIRIT POLITICS BUT FOR
SOCIETAL, CULTURAL, ETC.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME.
NO, YOU DO NOT.
SOMEBODY MIGHT'VE AI-ED IT AND NOW THEY CAN DO IT IN A WAY THAT
IS
ALMOST UNDETECTABLE AND SO NOW YOU WILL NEVER KNOW AND SO
THAT HAS SO MANY IMPLICATIONS, IT IS HARD TO WRAP YOUR HEAD
AROUND IT.
I AM NOT A TECH GENIUS AT ALL BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME
FORM OF TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN HELP PEOPLE DETERMINE THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THIS VIDEO, RIGHT?
AND I'M SURE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING OUT THERE ALREADY
OR SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED, BUT WHAT
WORRIES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING IS THAT IN THIS NEW AGE OF THE
TECHNOLOGICAL AND THAT ADVANCEMENTS, NOBODY REALLY
GETS TO DECIDE WHAT THE REPUTATION IS.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW WELL BEHAVED YOU ARE HOW GOOD OF
A PERSON YOU ARE DIE DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'VE NEVER
TAKEN A NEW BUT ON YOUR LIFE ARE DONE PORN, IT DOESN'T
MATTER IF YOU ARE AN HONEST PERSON.
THEY CAN PUT ANYTHING OUT THERE ABOUT YOU.
SOMEONE ELSE GETS TO DECIDE WHAT YOUR REPUTATION IS AND THERE
ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO JUST WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT
THE TRUTH REALLY IS, AND THAT IS THE PART THAT WORRIES ME.
NOT JUST OF OUR PUBLIC FIGURES OR WHATEVER, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, PRIVATE CITIZENS LIKE THE POWERLESS.
YOU KNOW, THESE HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WHO MIGHT HAVE TO
DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF.
THAT'S WHAT WORRIES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING BECAUSE I THINK
PUBLIC FIGURES, IT IS NOT THAT YOU SIGN UP FOR IT, BUT
ONCE YOU ARE A PUBLIC FIGURE, THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF
ABUSE THAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT TO DEAL WITH, RIGHT?
IT IS NOT RIGHT, BUT PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF IT BUT NOW DOING IT
TO PRIVATE CITIZENS IS ANOTHER LAYER AND LOOK, ONE MORE THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL EVER HAVE POSITIVE REPERCUSSIONS AND
I IMAGINE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME POSITIVE IMPLICATIONS OF IT
AT SOME POINT BUT IN THE BEGINNING AT A MINIMUM WHO
IS GOING TO USE A?
BAD GUYS.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PORN, I AM TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU CAN
HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS VERY JUSTIFIABLE THAT ANYONE WHO IS
DOING THIS IS A BAD GUY, BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT, IT IS NOT
LIKE LET'S TALK ABOUT IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE.
IS NOT LIKE BERNIE SANDERS IS GOING TO TAKE VIDEO OF
SOMEBODY'S FACE AND THEN PUT THEM IN A COMPROMISING
POSITION AND PRETEND IT'S A REAL.
THE GOOD GUYS ARE NEVER GOING TO DO THAT, BUT THE BAD GUYS WILL
IMMEDIATELY DO IT AND THEY WILL DO IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER
UNTIL PEOPLE CATCH ON BUT BY THE TIME THAT PEOPLE CATCH ON THEY
WILL HAVE RUINED HOWEVER MANY CAREERS.
AND ALSO, IF WE CREATE THIS ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE CAN'T TELL
WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S FAKE, THERE'S A SCANDAL INVOLVING
ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND PEOPLE JUST DON'T BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S FAKE.
IN SOME WAYS IT WILL FIRST DAMN THE INNOCENT AND THEN AT
SOME POINT, IT WILL PROTECT THE GUILTY SO IT IS A LOSE LOSE IN
THOSE WAYS AND I KNOW IF YOU ARE A YOUNG GUY YOU ARE
THINKING IT IS NOT A LOSE LOSE, YOU ARE THRILLED ABOUT IT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO THINK ABOUT
THE REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE PERSON YOU ARE DOING IT TO THE
THEY DO THINK ABOUT IT AND THEY DO NOT CARE.
I MEAN --
MAYBE THEY GET FOR THEIR PLEASURE FROM THAT, I DO NOT
KNOW BUT IT DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
NOW
IT IS UNLEASHED ONTO THE WORLD.
-------------------------------------------
While Congress 'Sits on the Sidelines,' President Trump Is Makin - Duration: 14:11.
While
Congress �Sits on the Sidelines,� President Trump Is Making Some Tough Decisions
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis told a Senate committee in October that a 16-year-old law
authorizing military force against al-Qaida and its enablers still provided a firm legal
basis for military action against the Islamic State group.
At the time, Syrian Defense Forces had just recaptured the city of Raqqa, which for three
years had been the capital of the terror group�s �caliphate.� It was the beginning of the
end for the terror organization in Syria.
Fast forward three months, and the group is a shadow of its former self, with a few hundred
hard-core militants desperately holding on to slivers of territory in Syria�s Middle
Euphrates Valley.
Smashed by U.S.-backed Kurdish militia and forces loyal to the Syrian regime, the once-fearsome
terror group now controls less than two percent of the territory it occupied at the height
of its power, according to the U.S. coalition to defeat the Islamic State.
Though it still retains the ability to carry out guerrilla-style attacks, the group is
no longer an existential threat to either the Syrian or Iraqi governments.
After such impressive success, Washington is looking at what comes next in Syria.
Far from withdrawing the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops deployed on Syrian soil, as Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad has demanded, President Donald Trump�s administration is preparing
for a long-term presence there
U.S. military commanders have taken care to describe the Syria deployment as part of a
broader counter-terrorism mission that falls under the rubric of the 2001 Authorization
for the Use of Military Force, the same law Mattis testified about in October.
After U.S. airstrikes wiped out 150 Islamic State fighters in eastern Syria last week,
coalition commander Maj. Gen. James Jarrard said the troops had to stay because the anti-terror
mission in Syria was �far from over.�
�We cannot take our focus off our mission, and we must not lose our momentum in taking
these terrorists off the battlefield and preventing them from resurfacing somewhere else,� Jarrad
said.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has offered a much more expansive vision for the U.S.
military effort in Syria.
Speaking at Stanford�s Hoover Institution on Jan. 17, Tillerson outlined five �end
states� the Trump administration desires in Syria, only one of which has even a tenuous
connection the 2001 AUMF
So what is the administration�s plan for Syria?
As Tillerson explained, the U.S. is going to eradicate Islamic State and al-Qaida fighters
wherever they remain in the country.
Then, Washington will usher in a �stable, unified, independent Syria� under a government
led by someone other than Assad.
At the same time, U.S. forces will counter Iranian influence in Syria, denying Tehran
a land bridge through Syrian territory into Lebanon.
While tackling the Iranian problem, the U.S. military will also make Syria safe for returning
refugees and internally displaced persons.
And finally, Washington will guarantee, once and for all, that Syria is free of weapons
of mass destruction.
In his remarks at Hoover, Tillerson denied the administration�s vision amounts to �nation-building�
or �reconstruction.� But the plan includes the kind of strategic objectives Washington
pursued, and is still pursuing, in its long-term interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A notable difference is that Congress specifically authorized both of those wars, but has not
done so for Syria.
Most of official Washington has shrugged at this state of affairs, but a small contingent
of skeptics is raising questions about the uncomfortable reality that American troops
are deployed, uninvited and without congressional or United Nations authorization, to a sovereign
country that has not attacked the U.S. or its allies.
Daniel DePetris, a fellow at the realist-oriented Defense Priorities think tank, is one such
voice arguing that the Trump administration�s plan for Syria distorts the 2001 AUMF beyond
recognition.
Former President Barack Obama�s administration stretched the authorization when it began
the fight against the Islamic State group in Syria, and now the Trump administration
is doing so to a greater degree with its ambitious post-Islamic State project, he says.
�Mattis and Tillerson�s interpretation of the 2001 AUMF is a continuation of the
same legal justification the Obama administration used upon announcing the counter-ISIS military
campaign to the nation,� he told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.
�The problem is this is an overly broad argument made by those in the executive branch
who would always prefer more authority to wage war.�
Congress passed the 2001 AUMF just a few days after the 9/11 attacks, giving the president
the green light to use �all necessary and appropriate forces� against individuals
and countries involved in the attack.
In the nearly 17 years since, U.S. administrations have relied on the law � along with a generous
interpretation of executive authority to make war � to provide legal cover for worldwide
military intervention without input from Congress.
Constitutional questions
The text of the 2001 AUMF empowers the president to all 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.� It
also authorizes military force against any country or organization that harbored the
9/11 attackers.
That definition certainly applies to al-Qaida, which carried out the attacks, and the Taliban
regime of Afghanistan that hosted Osama bin Laden and his group�s top commanders.
U.S. officials have also lumped in al-Qaida�s �associated� or �affiliated� forces,
making the AUMF the legal basis for operations against groups such as al-Shabaab in Somalia
and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa.
In short, the 2001 AUMF has been the glue holding together the various iterations of
the global war on terror under former President George W. Bush, Obama and Trump.
The kind of Iran-centric mission outlined by Tillerson at the Hoover Institution stretches
the 17-year-old authorization to the breaking point, DePetris argues.
Denying Iran its objectives in Syria would �involve plunging American troops into a
completely different mission, something far more complex than driving the Islamic State
group from Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, or Kobani,� he wrote Jan. 23 in Real Clear Defense, referring
to former Islamic State strongholds in Syria.
�The mission, in fact, would be so different that it would require a whole new authorization
from Congress before the strategy could be carried out.�
Absent a new congressional authorization or U.N. resolution, the U.S. war in Syria amounts
to an illegal occupation, according to realist foreign policy scholar Daniel Larison.
He wrote Jan. 17 in The American Conservative:
�According to Tillerson, U.S. forces will remain in Syria on an open-ended mission to
ensure that the recognized government of the country does not establish control over its
own territory.
To call this policy deranged would be too generous.
The U.S. has no business in having a military presence in another country without its government�s
permission, and it has no right to maintain that presence for the explicit purpose of
preventing that government from exercising control inside its own internationally recognized
borders.�
Supporters of the U.S. military intervention in Syria have countered that the president�s
war-making authority under Article II of the Constitution gives Trump all the legal cover
he needs for an anti-terror campaign there, however broadly defined.
Going back to at least former President Bill Clinton�s administration, executive branch
lawyers have argued the president can order a unilateral strike he believes doing so is
in the interest of national security.
Trump invoked this broad authority in April, when he ordered a cruise missile strike against
a Syrian military base in response to Assad�s use of chemical weapons.
Whether Trump can claim the same authority to launch a long-term intervention without
Congressional approval is a murkier question.
The War Powers Act of 1973, passed over then-President Richard Nixon�s veto, says a president can
only deploy U.S. troops into a conflict if he has an approval from Congress or if the
U.S. itself has been attacked.
But the law muddies the issue by requiring the president to pull back troops after 60
days if the engagement was not authorized by lawmakers, suggesting that a shorter unilateral
deployment would be permitted.
In any case, U.S. soldiers have been in Syria for far longer than 60 days, and no U.N. resolution
or act of Congress has authorized what the Trump administration is now proposing to do
there.
�This is a violation of our U.S. Constitution, which should be enough reason for it not to
occur,� DePetris said of the plan.
Congress on the sidelines Larison, DePetris and other intervention skeptics
blame Congress for letting three consecutive presidents assume what amounts to unlimited
power to decide when and where to commit U.S. forces.
Lawmakers prefer to leave such politically fraught decisions to the executive, abandoning
their constitutional duties, DePetris argues.
�The legislative branch has atrophied from far too many years of silence on matters of
war and peace, enabling the Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations to wage war without
authorization or proper oversight,� he told TheDCNF.
�Congress� role is just as the Constitution outlined: authorize an armed conflict before
the first U.S. troops are deployed in theater and the first bombs are dropped.�
A divided Congress in 2013 � with Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican majority
in the House � declined to give Obama an authorization to intervene in Syria.
Concerned with backlash from a war-weary public and unable to agree on the scope of an authorization,
lawmakers never held a full vote.
Instead, they left Obama to conduct military operations in Syria on the back of the 2001
AUMF, as Trump is doing now.
Content to rely on the existing authorization for any military action with a conceivable
nexus to counter-terrorism, Trump has not asked for a fresh AUMF to underpin his Syria
plan.
And, aside from a few foreign policy dissidents, lawmakers in his own party are in no hurry
to press for one.
One such outlier, GOP Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, speaks of the situation with
open disgust.
The absence of debate on Syria amounts to an abdication to the executive branch of Congress�
Article I power to declare war, Jones told TheDCNF.
�Here we are again as a Congress, sitting in the stands, watching a failed foreign policy
develop, and we don�t even debate it,� he said in a phone interview.
�I�m talking about a policy debate, I�m not talking about an amendment debate, I�m
not talking about a speech.�
�We have foregone our constitutional responsibility as a Congress,� he added.
Nor has Washington�s think tank archipelago raised much concern about possible constitutional
deficiencies in Trump�s Syria strategy.
Big names in the bipartisan foreign policy community such as Brookings Institution, American
Enterprise Institute, and Center for a New American Security have produced dozens of
analyses about how to bring about a post-Islamic State, post-Assad Syrian state.
There has been much less discussion about whether such a mission is a violation of U.S.
or international law.
With the foreign policy establishment and the administration largely silent about the
need for a new AUMF, a handful of lawmakers have taken up the cause.
On the Democratic side, Sens. Ben Cardin of Maryland, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Chris
Murphy of Connecticut, all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have in
recent weeks pushed for a new war authorization.
A contingent of intervention skeptics in the Republican party, among them Jones, Rep. Thomas
Massie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, have also argued that
Trump needs congressional approval for further military action in Syria.
They are viewed with suspicion by a hawkish Republican foreign policy establishment with
a hefty appetite for military intervention.
At the end of the day, lawmakers are unlikely revisit the AUMF unless American voters get
�riled up� over the prospect of another open-ended war in the Middle East, Jones says.
�They�re not feeling pressure from the people of America,� he said, adding that
public indifference has made it easy for lawmakers to �sit on the sidelines and let the administration
get blood on its hands, not Congress.�
-------------------------------------------
Bachelor in Paradise's Danielle Maltby Is Dating Big Brother's Paul Calafiore: "Both Have Never - Duration: 1:14.
Bachelor in Paradise's Danielle Maltby Is Dating Big Brother's Paul Calafiore: "Both Have Never Been Happier"
Danielle Maltby has fallen for a fellow reality star. The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise alum may have been unlucky in love on TV, but shes since fallen for Big Brother veteran Paul Calafiore.
The two confirmed theyre a pair on—what else?—social media with adorable snaps of them canoodling and kissing shared to each of their Instagram accounts. Melting, Maltby described the photograph that marked their Instagram official status.
Meanwhile, Calafiore was equally a man of few words. Wedding Season, he captioned with a heart. .
The Nashville native initially competed for Nick Vialls heart on Season 21 of The Bachelor, but was eliminated in week seven. She then starred on Season 4 of Bachelor in Paradise, but quit in the second week.
Meanwhile, Calafiore appeared on Season 18 of the hit CBS series. According to a source close to the couple, these two have never been happier..
Danielle and Paulie were set up by their publicist, the source said. They are completely obsessed with each other and both have never been happier. Everyone is just so happy for them. When you know, you know. —Reporting by Mike Vulpo.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét