(01-11-2020, 11:42 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(01-11-2020, 07:30 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I think Mike Lee and Rand Paul were mad because at the security briefing they asked, "At what point would a President need to get approval from Congress to start a war or assassinate a foreign leader?"  and the briefers didn't want to give an answer.  "Can the President decide on his own to assassinate the leader of a foreign country?"  No answer.   The response they got was, "Run along now, support the President, shut up." 

If a President can use our military in any way he wants, without any check on that power, including attacking or invading a foreign country,  or assassinating a foreign leader, or killing anyone he wants to anywhere in the world in the name of national security, then do we have a dictator?  

What about the Constitution, which says that war powers reside in Congress?  

I know every President for the last 80 years has done the same thing, so responding "Well, Obama did it." is not an answer.  

How much power should we give one single person?

Personally, I don't see why any libertarian would vote for Bernie Sanders.  He's about as far from libertarian as one can get.

The answer they got, correctly so, was, "We can't answer the hypothetical." You should read the War Powers Act, it might clear some of this up for you. To give you the Cliff Notes, an attack on the US means the President can respond with notification of Congress required within 48 hours AFTER committing the Forces to battle. They can then continue for not more than 60 days without Congressional approval. So, no, we don't have a dictator, we have a responsible US President fulfilling his Congressional approved duties. The same as the Ukraine Hoax. And the same blah blah response by the Do Nothing Legislature.

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

---