AUMF: How America Codified Endless War | Brainwash Update

Abby Martin looks back at the signing of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as the catalyst for America’s global War on Terror, and highlights US Rep. Barbara Lee as the lone voice who opposed the legislation following the 9/11 attacks.

LIKE Breaking the Set @
FOLLOW Abby Martin @

Abby Martin

Abby Martin

Creator at The Empire Files
Creator The Empire Files on teleSUR, Founder Media Roots, BOD Project Censored & Former Host Breaking the Set
Abby Martin

6 Comments on "AUMF: How America Codified Endless War | Brainwash Update"

  1. Hadrian999 | Sep 18, 2013 at 11:26 pm |

    we have been in a state of war since the nation was founded, GWOT is just the latest PR stunt

  2. I always wanted to know where that original quote came from in this song

  3. Ted Heistman | Sep 19, 2013 at 6:19 am |

    If there was no “war on terror” would there be no war?

    If nobody was trying to run the World would the World run itself?

    I feel like the Pentagon has some type of strategy. What it is, I am not completely sure. But I find the alternative that basically says “The war on Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. is wrong…..because all war is wrong” unsatisfactory.

    • Playing devil’s advocate again, I see.
      The Empire has repeatedly lied about the reasons for war. Is it not clear that they are doing it for money, power and control. Aren’t they manufacturing “terrorists” and essentially fighting fake wars with themselves to keep the charade going? At least that’s how it looks to me, and hopefully a few others as well. If that is the case, how is that ok or acceptable in any way?

      • Ted Heistman | Sep 19, 2013 at 11:27 am |

        Well, I like there should be a better counter argument than ” XYZ war is wrong, not for any specific reason, but only because All war is wrong” or “the US should just mind its own business”

        Because I feel like people in power aren’t going to listen to these arguments. So these viewpoints will never really infleunce foreign policy.

        • So… you think foreign policy is responsive to rational argument? Since when? Sometimes unraveling the “logic” behind decisions is a fool’s errand, because there is none to find. People invent their rationalizations and justifications after the fact.

          But we can certainly evaluate things by their product or outcome. The outcome I observe is that a few people get richer and more powerful while everybody else gets hurt and the planet gets more fucked up.

          This is not hard to see and it is far more compelling than any intellectual argument… so my question is not so much “why do they keep doing this?” My question is “how do we stop them?”

Comments are closed.