Posted on 04/11/2017 6:31:29 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
By ordering last week’s Tomahawk strike on a Syrian airbase, the president usurped Congress’s exclusive power to declare war. He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
Make no mistake: President Trump’s airstrikes against Syria were unconstitutional. Military action may well have been justified from a moral standpoint. The Assad regime’s war on its own people and its use of chemical weapons required a response, arguably including a retaliatory strike to deter further such attacks. Inaction, as much as action, has profound human consequences. There is a case to be made that America should have taken military action against Assad in 2013, or even as early as 2011, in order to protect innocent Syrians from their own government.
The strikes may have been justified from a strategic standpoint, too — as a means of both advancing America’s interests in the region’s security and counteracting the perception of American weakness left by President Obama’s dithering response to past Syrian chemical-weapons attacks. A feckless, feeble United States — one that retreats from declared “red lines,” abandons the region to Vladimir Putin, creates a vacuum for the rise of ISIS, and generates a massive humanitarian and refugee crisis — is good for nobody.
But from a legal standpoint, there can be no doubt that Trump’s Tomahawk strike on the Syrian regime was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Whatever, let’s move on because there’s probably going to be another big show next week.
“Which sock puppet are you? It’s gets so confusing to keep track.”
Congrats on a truly bizarre post. Are you actually suggesting I get paid to post here at FR? If you are I suggest you seek medical attention.
You can go here & see what I do for a living. www.crazypeoplemusic.com & www.darkheartsblues.com
Enjoy your delusion :)
> Please point out the Article and Section where the President of the United States is required to telegraph a military action, before it is conducted? <
That’s a very good point! On the other hand, I’d hate to see presidents go on 60-day adventures using the War Powers Act as a cover. Perhaps a select committee of trusted senators should somehow be involved here.
Rofl. Where were they when Obama did similar things? And if that is true, then he was the most warring president we have ever had.
Just off the top of my head, he bombed: Afghan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria
We had boots on the ground in Pakistan, without consent, that carried out an execution and retrieval of a body. We sent unauthorized helicopters into their airspace.
I was being sarcastic, in case you missed it. Our doctrine has been to deter the use of WMDs through use of whatever force it takes. It is sad we had to go so long before Trump finally stepped up and reminded everyone of the fact that certain options are intolerable, off the table, and their use invites ruin being rained down from the skies.
I would reciprocate that exact same question, do you always assume shit first and then fart out responses without thinking?
“I was being sarcastic, in case you missed it.”
And my agreement with your sarcastic assertion was intentionally obtuse, in case you missed it.
Regardless, the Syria situation is still not analogous to the Barbarians as I described it. Unless the Americans in Syria are all innocent civilians snatched up by Assad while traveling on non-Syrian trade routes.
I understand you are saying both the Barbarians and Assad were/are evil jackasses. No argument there.
For the record, I’m not at all opposed to killing people and breaking things as we see fit - I’m a vet and I’ve been through the Army’s NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) training as a member of the 10th SFGA so I understand the affects of sarin and other agents.
[ As a side note: it’s actually somewhat of a misnomer to call CW ‘weapons of mass destruction’ - they are not really destructive and are not nearly as dependably useful as conventional weapons - at least since we stopped fighting wars in trenches. They are more accurately weapons of terror. No sensible general would choose CW over conventional weapons to achieve any real military objective beyond instilling fear. Even in Syria, the vast, vast majority of civilian casualties have nothing to do with CW. ]
And I’m not opposed to Trump - I voted for him in the general.
I just like pointing out how silly folks can sound bending over backwards to make it seem like Trump did NOT just do a 180 on Syria. Or that what he did was somehow NOT an act of war.
Both are true and I’m fine with that. As long as folks don’t try to convince me that night is day.
I discussed a topic, an idea. You twist that into something personal about your ancestry - about which I could know nothing and about which I said nothing - I said nothing about anyone’s ancestry - and fly into a fit of rage over it. That’s psycho drunk behavior.
Go ahead, then. Make it.
Yes.
Thanks. I appreciate your note of agreement on the need for secrecy.
We’re on the same page and I’m glad to hear it.
You made a stupid assumption in an attempt to be clever and I called you out on it. Now you’re trying to hide your embarrassment through intellectual dishonesty.
Congratulations Sport.
Trump didn’t declare war, he can’t, only Congress can.
Trump did however, commit an act of war without its permission, which is also a clear violation of the promise he made to voters not to pull this kind of crap.
Hopefully you just need to read this once to understand the difference.
Sounds like a decent idea, until you realize that Trump can’t even trust everyone in the White House. (from what I’m led to believe)
I don’t think the operation should extend out beyond 24 hours without some upper level consultations with Congress.
If there were still some high level operations that needed to be kept secret, I may modify that a bit. Not by much...
60 days would unquestionably be too long. We agree there.
I’d say a week would be too long, unless someone could provide a good reasonable reason.
It’s not a clear violation of this promises to us.
You can’t determine every type of event that is going to take place on your watch. He has not implemented a land invasion of Syria. He has not implemented an effort to take Assad down. Those are the sorts of things he promised not to do.
As a Christian, I don’t see the action he took to be some sort of indecent thing to do. Assad was believed to have used chemical weapons, and Trump sent a message that it was wrong and not to do it anymore.
It was a one-of event, and not indicative of a decade we would be mired in Syria.
I made an analogy. I made no insult whatsoever.
You however make nothing but insults. If that’s what you do go back to whatever forum you came from.
Right... even in context this makes no sense. You got busted junior, now go back to your mom's basement for your blankey.
You throw a lot of insults for a new poster.
Sure thing Bub, trying to play the noobie card are we?
Thank you for your reasoned response.
For me, the jury is still out on whether Assad used chemical weapons or if they hit a depot and inadvertently released them.
From my standpoint, it is immaterial. Assad is fighting a civil war inside his own borders, if he doesn’t attack us, it is his business. To think otherwise is to make it morally justified for other countries to attack us because they don’t like the way we are doing things right here.
I respect that you are moved by the horrific suffering of others, I am too. However, if we go down this road, it won’t stop until we are running things everywhere, or we destroy ourselves in the attempt. You understand the fallen nature of Man, we can never make it perfect here. I do not call you a fool, I’m simply afraid that your heart will send you on a fool’s errand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.