(01-12-2020, 03:03 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2020, 12:48 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred.
What part of the word "response" confuses you?
He did not carry out any attack. He may have directed an attack. But in that case, is it okay to kill the Ayatollah? We have to assume he approved the attack, too. Is it okay to assassinate the leadership of any country that we say supports terrorism? And who makes that determination? The President? So the President is authorized to kill any foreign leader without anyone stopping him, as long as he claims the guy approved an act that killed Americans?
If we can do this, I assume it's okay for other countries to do this. We've sent arms to Ukraine, arms which were used to kill Russians. Can Putin have Trump assassinated, would that be okay under this standard?
I think Mike Lee just wanted to know, what's the rule? Are there any limits on this?
If our country is attacked the c&c has the ability to respond in kind and kill those responsible. Full stop.
If you start talking about general warfare, regime change, or an action taking longer than 90 days then that theoretically requires congressional authorization for use of force (assuming the 73 wpa is constitutional).
Soleimani was killed in a foreign theater after explicit warnings not to leave his country. He was meeting with a militia leader that just attacked a us embassy at his direction and the general cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives subsidizing the insurgency against our duly authorized military action in iraq. There's no serious argument that this action was an act of OVER REACH.
As to Putin or other foreign leaders killing our leaders, we dont look to the internal legal framework of our enemies to keep our people safe. We look to credible military DETURANCE. this action wasnt about advancing regime change, it was about restoring the calculus of deturance.
(01-12-2020, 03:03 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2020, 12:48 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred.
What part of the word "response" confuses you?
He did not carry out any attack. He may have directed an attack. But in that case, is it okay to kill the Ayatollah? We have to assume he approved the attack, too. Is it okay to assassinate the leadership of any country that we say supports terrorism? And who makes that determination? The President? So the President is authorized to kill any foreign leader without anyone stopping him, as long as he claims the guy approved an act that killed Americans?
If we can do this, I assume it's okay for other countries to do this. We've sent arms to Ukraine, arms which were used to kill Russians. Can Putin have Trump assassinated, would that be okay under this standard?
I think Mike Lee just wanted to know, what's the rule? Are there any limits on this?
Killing the General was a measured and legal military response to military backed operation against us. Sorry you seem to see it differently.
Why does congress suddenly have to approve of military action?
We fought the entire Vietnam war without a declaration from congress.
(01-13-2020, 07:55 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Why does congress suddenly have to approve of military action?
We fought the entire Vietnam war without a declaration from congress.
Um I would think we should avoid the quagmire that was Vietnam at all cost. It was the most mishandled conflict in our history we absolutely should require congressional approval for foreign conflicts and Vietnam should be exhibit A as to why.
(01-15-2020, 07:21 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2020, 07:55 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Why does congress suddenly have to approve of military action?
We fought the entire Vietnam war without a declaration from congress.
Um I would think we should avoid the quagmire that was Vietnam at all cost. It was the most mishandled conflict in our history we absolutely should require congressional approval for foreign conflicts and Vietnam should be exhibit A as to why.
You’re correct, we should. The original question addressed the legislative temper tantrum democrats threw in the House by voting on a resolution to block Trump from engaging in any military activity in Iran without their approval. An act that one snarky rep said had no more teeth than a New Year’s resolution. The dems bought their own WWIII hyperbole and came out the other side looking foolish and feckless.
(01-15-2020, 08:09 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2020, 07:21 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Um I would think we should avoid the quagmire that was Vietnam at all cost. It was the most mishandled conflict in our history we absolutely should require congressional approval for foreign conflicts and Vietnam should be exhibit A as to why.
You’re correct, we should. The original question addressed the legislative temper tantrum democrats threw in the House by voting on a resolution to block Trump from engaging in any military activity in Iran without their approval. An act that one snarky rep said had no more teeth than a New Year’s resolution. The dems bought their own WWIII hyperbole and came out the other side looking foolish and feckless.
I think it's a good question to ask, where do we draw the line on unrestricted Presidential authority to kill people. There are plenty of hypotheticals where we can say yes, and there are other hypotheticals where we should say no. As it stands now, it appears that any President can declare that the target posed a threat to our national security and have that person killed. Is that what we want? Can he kill a terrorist? Probably. Can he kill a person he deems to have supported terrorism? Maybe? Does that include leaders of other countries that he says have supported terrorists? Is this too much power to give a single person?
I don't have a lot of faith that in this wildly partisan era, this thread will yield any decent discussion of these issues. But at least we need to recognize that there are legitimate questions about how much power we give to one person, whether it be Trump, Obama, or any other President who has authorized such killings.
(01-15-2020, 09:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2020, 08:09 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]You’re correct, we should. The original question addressed the legislative temper tantrum democrats threw in the House by voting on a resolution to block Trump from engaging in any military activity in Iran without their approval. An act that one snarky rep said had no more teeth than a New Year’s resolution. The dems bought their own WWIII hyperbole and came out the other side looking foolish and feckless.
I think it's a good question to ask, where do we draw the line on unrestricted Presidential authority to kill people. There are plenty of hypotheticals where we can say yes, and there are other hypotheticals where we should say no. As it stands now, it appears that any President can declare that the target posed a threat to our national security and have that person killed. Is that what we want? Can he kill a terrorist? Probably. Can he kill a person he deems to have supported terrorism? Maybe? Does that include leaders of other countries that he says have supported terrorists? Is this too much power to give a single person?
I don't have a lot of faith that in this wildly partisan era, this thread will yield any decent discussion of these issues. But at least we need to recognize that there are legitimate questions about how much power we give to one person, whether it be Trump, Obama, or any other President who has authorized such killings.
Absolutely correct. I stated it several times right here when Obama was using executive orders to bypass congress, just wait until the shoe is on the other foot. That is the problem with everyone of the short sighted partisan people on both sides of the isle, It's always ok if it is my guy, regardless of how far away we get from checks and balances.
Shouldn't that be "chinks in the armor"?
(01-15-2020, 08:47 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2020, 09:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's a good question to ask, where do we draw the line on unrestricted Presidential authority to kill people. There are plenty of hypotheticals where we can say yes, and there are other hypotheticals where we should say no. As it stands now, it appears that any President can declare that the target posed a threat to our national security and have that person killed. Is that what we want? Can he kill a terrorist? Probably. Can he kill a person he deems to have supported terrorism? Maybe? Does that include leaders of other countries that he says have supported terrorists? Is this too much power to give a single person?
I don't have a lot of faith that in this wildly partisan era, this thread will yield any decent discussion of these issues. But at least we need to recognize that there are legitimate questions about how much power we give to one person, whether it be Trump, Obama, or any other President who has authorized such killings.
Absolutely correct. I stated it several times right here when Obama was using executive orders to bypass congress, just wait until the shoe is on the other foot. That is the problem with everyone of the short sighted partisan people on both sides of the isle, It's always ok if it is my guy, regardless of how far away we get from checks and balances.
Marty's question goes beyond checks and balances within the US. It speaks to geopolitics and what used to be called chivalry. But I don't have an answer to that part of the question either. At the end of the day chivalry is fakery and belligerents will do whatever their consciences allow them to do.
(01-15-2020, 09:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2020, 08:09 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]You’re correct, we should. The original question addressed the legislative temper tantrum democrats threw in the House by voting on a resolution to block Trump from engaging in any military activity in Iran without their approval. An act that one snarky rep said had no more teeth than a New Year’s resolution. The dems bought their own WWIII hyperbole and came out the other side looking foolish and feckless.
I think it's a good question to ask, where do we draw the line on unrestricted Presidential authority to kill people. There are plenty of hypotheticals where we can say yes, and there are other hypotheticals where we should say no. As it stands now, it appears that any President can declare that the target posed a threat to our national security and have that person killed. Is that what we want? Can he kill a terrorist? Probably. Can he kill a person he deems to have supported terrorism? Maybe? Does that include leaders of other countries that he says have supported terrorists? Is this too much power to give a single person?
I don't have a lot of faith that in this wildly partisan era, this thread will yield any decent discussion of these issues. But at least we need to recognize that there are legitimate questions about how much power we give to one person, whether it be Trump, Obama, or any other President who has authorized such killings.
Agreed.
Let's not get lost in the weeds of what is permissible and what is not. Even if someone explains a hypothetical situation, two different people may understand the hypothetical differently.
I think we can agree that the President should not just kill anyone at anytime on a whim.
So what do we have in place to prevent and punish a President who wants to?
Congress has written laws about the use of force, but these may be hard to apply to a specific situation. And anyhow the President can't be prosecuted. Only impeached.
Soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but they may not understand the law.
If we really believe that no man should have that kind of power, we should hold Congress's power to impeach and the soldier's duty to disobey unlawful orders in high regard. If you sneer at the impeachers, or the scrupulous soldiers, you are making the paths smooth for a future American dictator.
(01-16-2020, 04:09 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-16-2020, 12:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed.
Let's not get lost in the weeds of what is permissible and what is not. Even if someone explains a hypothetical situation, two different people may understand the hypothetical differently.
I think we can agree that the President should not just kill anyone at anytime on a whim.
So what do we have in place to prevent and punish a President who wants to?
Congress has written laws about the use of force, but these may be hard to apply to a specific situation. And anyhow the President can't be prosecuted. Only impeached.
Soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but they may not understand the law.
If we really believe that no man should have that kind of power, we should hold Congress's power to impeach and the soldier's duty to disobey unlawful orders in high regard. If you sneer at the impeachers, or the scrupulous soldiers, you are making the paths smooth for a future American dictator.
Word salad masterclass.
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
(01-16-2020, 07:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-16-2020, 04:09 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Word salad masterclass.
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
It's fine to snear at them when they are wrong, and in the current case willfully so.
(01-13-2020, 07:55 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Why does congress suddenly have to approve of military action?
We fought the entire Vietnam war without a declaration from congress.
Well, it's not really "suddenly." The War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973, and it was primarily a direct response to presidential actions in Vietnam.
(01-16-2020, 08:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-16-2020, 07:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
It's fine to snear at them when they are wrong, and in the current case willfully so.
No, Bulver, you first have to show that they are wrong, then you get to sneer.
(01-16-2020, 10:41 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-16-2020, 08:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It's fine to snear at them when they are wrong, and in the current case willfully so.
No, Bulver, you first have to show that they are wrong, then you get to sneer.
Lol, cute that you learned a new word. That Wiki-Google class really paying off!
I would like to see Congress take back its responsibility to determine if the country should go to war. Not that I trust Congress, but that was the original intention and one of the original checks and balances. The Executive should then have wide leeway in how to conduct the war.
.gif "Laughing")