Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SemiAuto

Would a military strike on Syria be legal?

23 posts in this topic

Quote

In this case, Congress hasn’t authorized an attack against the Assad regime. The 2001 AUMF—already stretched beyond credulity to underwrite the war against ISIS—can’t be made to fit what Trump plans. 

source

The money quote: "Maybe Corker and his colleagues should show some concern about it and do something—like their jobs."   I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

source

The money quote: "Maybe Corker and his colleagues should show some concern about it and do something—like their jobs."   I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

If they didn't do it last April, why should they do it now? They are all in King Donny's pocket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not legal.

But our involvement in Libya wasn’t legal either.

I don’t expect Congress to start doing their jobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Not legal.

But our involvement in Libya wasn’t legal either.

I don’t expect Congress to start doing their jobs

Dang you beat me to it on all counts. :D

And in regard to this.....even going back to Clinton......seems they sat on their hands on several occasions for similar situations. 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War making is another power Congress long ago ceded to the Executive. Take it backl!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

War making is another power Congress long ago ceded to the Executive. Take it backl!

If Congress were accountable though, we'd have no more wars.

Don't worry. Donny says Syria attack could be soon or not so soon.

President Trump said in a tweet early Thursday that he had never telegraphed the timing of an attack on Syria, and that such a strike — for which he put Russia and Syria on notice just one day earlier — “could be very soon or not so soon at all!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/politics/trump-syria-attack.html

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares, war is awesome.  The US hasn't dedicated enough debt to military spending.  More military action is the only way to get that budget over a trillion per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

War making is another power Congress long ago ceded to the Executive. Take it backl!

"Who has the power to declare war?"

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President. 

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.

https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q108.html

See .... that is the fuzzy gray area...what constitutes a threat? Simple answer: when NK lobs a nuke...Complex answer; when the Pres, lawyers etc think 'chain of events' that maybe construed as a threat. 

That is the last part that the Congress has sat on it's hands on.  IMO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a military strike on Syria be legal?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cameron said:

Would a military strike on Syria be legal?

Yes.

Care to share your reasons as to why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

Care to share your reasons as to why?

When somebody starts off by telling me that only Congress has the power to declare war, I start yawning.

It's a whole lot more complcated than that and there's a reason that Congress has not declared a war since WWII.

See UN.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry to be such a bore.   

Edited by SemiAuto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cameron said:

When somebody starts off by telling me that only Congress has the power to declare war, I start yawning.

It's a whole lot more complcated than that and there's a reason that Congress has not declared a war since WWII.

See UN.

 

The UN is good at talking about solutions. And when they do finally vote for a resolution they fail to back up those resolutions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flyboy56 said:

The UN is good at talking about solutions. And when they do finally vote for a resolution they fail to back up those resolutions. 

I don't think that's an answer to the question posed by the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cameron said:

I don't think that's an answer to the question posed by the thread.

And yet you're the one who brought up the UN. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cameron said:

When somebody starts off by telling me that only Congress has the power to declare war, I start yawning.

It's a whole lot more complcated than that and there's a reason that Congress has not declared a war since WWII.

See UN.

 

Damn you really ignore anything and everything that doesn't suit you agenda,...definition of a troll or a very very insecure person. 

5 hours ago, Guido2 said:

"Who has the power to declare war?"

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President. 

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.

https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q108.html

See .... that is the fuzzy gray area...what constitutes a threat? Simple answer: when NK lobs a nuke...Complex answer; when the Pres, lawyers etc think 'chain of events' that maybe construed as a threat. 

That is the last part that the Congress has sat on it's hands on.  IMO

 

Or does logic evade you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

And yet you're the one who brought up the UN. :confused:

Because the thread question is about what's legal.

Without having a long-drawn out debate about this with the shriekers, we ceded the power to declare war to the UN.

It's why Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

 .

 

Edited by Cameron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cameron said:

Because the thread question is about what's legal.

Without having a long-drawn out debate about this qwith the shriekers, we ceded the power to declare war to the UN.

It's why Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

 .

 

And you make a valid point. The UN's mandate was for nations to work together to keep the peace at all cost. A very unrealistic mandate when you have so many countries with very different agendas. There is just no way the UN can fulfill it's mandate if the organization is not united.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

And you make a valid point. The UN's mandate was for nations to work together to keep the peace at all cost. A very unrealistic mandate when you have so many countries with very different agendas. There is just no way the UN can fulfill it's mandate if the organization is not united.

That's the very reason that, from time to time, US Presidents have taken unilateral action.

(Before we get too far afield, recall that I said these airstrikes would be legal.)

When Clinton bombed Bosnia, Congress took him to court and the court held in Clinton's favor that this is a political question, not a legal question.

 

Edited by Cameron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cameron said:

Because the thread question is about what's legal.

Without having a long-drawn out debate about this with the shriekers, we ceded the power to declare war to the UN.

It's why Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

 .

 

Where’s the UN authorization to attack Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could be headed to war because of a Tweet

Quote

 

Even with Mr. Mattis’s urging of caution, administration officials said it was hard to envision that Mr. Trump would not move ahead with strikes, given that he has promised retaliation.

“In my view, the train has left the station,” said Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting and advisory firm. “If Trump now decides not to strike, he’s Obama 2.0 from 2013. That’s the ultimate anathema to President Trump, and I expect him to hit Syria in the next few days.”

Mr. Trump has previously belittled American leaders for giving the enemy advance warning of a strike. Heeding Mr. Trump’s warning on Wednesday about an American response, Syria has moved military aircraft to the Russian base near Latakia, and is working to protect important weapons systems.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/politics/trump-syria-attack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

Where’s the UN authorization to attack Syria?

There is none.

But US Presidents have authorrity under US law in the War Powers Resolution.(1973)

However, Presidents have consistently taken the position that the WPR is an unconstitutional infringement on the Executive.

The court held that this is a political question meaning that Congress could impeach or we can vote the President out, but it's not a legal issue.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's in charge, he can do what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0