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.

---

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.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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?

Beware, incoming 8,000 word dissertation on the word "response."

---

Why does congress suddenly have to approve of military action?

We fought the entire Vietnam war without a declaration from congress.

---

Why does congress suddenly have to approve of military action?

Because Congress has TDS

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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.

I strongly opposed many of Obama's actions in the war theater, in particular the Libyan offensive. Libya did not attack the US and Gaddafi was not a threat to the US (or NATO). I also opposed his paying ransoms to terrorists.

OTOH I had no problem with Obama taking out terrorists in drone attacks. Targeting the terrorist leaders while preventing civilian deaths as much as possible is exactly the way the US should respond to terrorism. Comparing a pinpoint response using a drone or missile with sending American children to die in Vietnam (or Iraq) is disingenuous.

In this case, Iran has attacked the US, which is an act of war. Trump did not declare war on Iran and congress doesn't need to since the war has already been started by the enemy. There is a lot of discussion that the Constitutional requirement of congress to declare war was only meant to apply to a war the US starts. If a foreign country invades the US and starts bombing US cities we don't get to just claim we're not at war. Historically congress has responded anyway with a counter declaration of war in such cases. We're in a whole new realm when the ruling party in the House will put their hatred of the President above defending the US.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Shouldn't that be "chinks in the armor"?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Word salad masterclass.

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---