Obama is trying to [ stretch presidential authority to cover air attacks anywhere in the world ](
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument ) . This is a dangerous precedent. Obama [ calls ISIS a "terrorist group" ](
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/barack-obama-tv-speech-on-isis-full-text ) , but I think that term is misleading. ISIS does not seem to have carried out any terrorist attacks against civilians. It is murderous and oppressive, but in a different form. I would call it a gang army. They have been [ known for many years in the eastern Congo ](
https://stallman.org/archives/2008-sep-dec.html#07%20November%202008%20%28War%20in%20the%20Congo%29 ) and other parts of Africa. Obama says he will employ the tactic of drone assassination against ISIS because [ it has been so successful in Yemen ](
https://stallman.org/archives/2014-mar-jun.html#10_March_2014_%28Drone_attacks_in_Yemen_stir_up_terror_and_hatred%29 ) and [ Somalia ](
https://stallman.org/archives/2013-nov-feb.html#28_January_2014_%28US_bomb_attack_in_Somalia%29 ) . The Islamist militias in those countries don't seem to have been defeated by years of drone assassinations. The current round of air strikes against ISIS don't pose the same problems because they take the form of close air support in field battles. It is easy to distinguish soldiers with heavy weapons from civilians, so mistakes are unlikely. If some civilians are hit, their relatives will understand that battle zones are dangerous places to be. But it appears that Obama expects the fight against ISIS to develop into an assassination campaign. If it does, it will generate support for ISIS.
Ссылка:
https://stallman.org/archives/2014-jul-oct.html#11_September_2014_%28Obama_trying_to_stretch_presidential_authority%29