Posted on 04/07/2017 7:07:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Trump just instigated an unprovoked missile attack on a Sovereign Nation that posed no direct or immediate threat to our National Security or American Citizens.
Explain to me why this act of war without any input from Congress is consistent with our Founding Documents and our Constitution?
Nowhere, even implied in the constitution is the right of a president to attack a foreign sovereign nation if there were no threat to our country, This was a criminal and unjustified violation of the constitution no question— flat out. But that assumes that Assad had gassed his own people. He did not!! There is not a shred of truth to that fabricated globalist lie. This was ISIS gas in a warehouse bombed by the sovereign government of Syria in self defense without knowledge of the Chemical Phosgene ( Sarin is a LIE) and it blew up and hurt people!! War is hell. But this lie will not stand. Trump is finished. He was badly duped by the globalist.
“Because we’re already there. The US has been bombing and drone attacking Syria for years.”
Your argument validates unrestricted illegal immigration.
You obviously don’t know about the chemical warfare attack in Ghouta, Syria back in August 2013 committed by the Syrian rebels (they’re US-backed). Those chemical weapons were supplied by Saudi Arabia.
The irony there is that that Saddam shipped his chemical weapons to Syria before we attacked him.
False premise. Breaking a treaty that both countries are signatories to is a provocation.
Did I say anything about Trump? No, but our troops presence there was being discussed as a security issue. I never said that Trump put them there.
Before calling themselves Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL they were Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI.
From a DoD report:
The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
“Trump is finished”. Oh Man, you’ve really lost your grip on reality now. You were teetering on the edge but you’ve fallen over the side.
All we have to do is wave the bodies of dead children around in front of the American public and anything can be allowed.
Interesting article. It reads like a Politico fact check.
The prez cannot declare war on his own, but there is longstanding SCotUS caselaw saying a prez has the power to launch military ops on his own. The first example of this was President Thomas Jefferson sending the Navy to end the threat of the Tripoli pirates preying upon American shipping.
The Constitution at least forces the President to have the support of the Congress for these 'adventures'.
That's not 'perfect', but in the real world it's the best our Founders thought could be done.
Boy, our legislators have been falling over each other rushing to support his action. And if it leads to ill fortune they'll be stampeding to condemn, maybe even impeach, him.
“Your argument validates unrestricted illegal immigration.”
Eh, touche. I’ll have to mull that one over for a bit.
The only leg I have to stand on now is that one has been deemed illegal, while the other has not.
Believe me, if what Trump did was illegal the congress would have him behind bars right now.
> if what Trump did was illegal the congress would have him behind bars right now.
He fulfilled Uniparty agenda.
There is longstanding SCOTUS law that says Abortion is a Constitutional Right.
The question is how does this pass constitutional muster as intended by our rather isolationist founding fathers?
The first example of this was President Thomas Jefferson sending the Navy to end the threat of the Tripoli pirates preying upon American shipping.
The Tripoli pirates were actually at war with America. They were stealing our boats, kidnapping American Citizens, selling them as slaves and demanding Tribute.
How does this relate to what happened in Syria. If Syria were doing what the Tripoli Pirates were doing, I'd see no problem in launching an attack on them. The Syria missile strike was a unilateral strike against a country that was neither at war with us, threatening us, or posing a danger to American Citizens either here or abroad.
It was in every sense an act of war and not (as in the case of Jefferson) a police action.
How can this be constitutionally defended based on the Constitution and not on some SCOTUS interpretation of the same.
Somewhat over-simplistically, the President is the commander in chief under the Constitution. The President thus has the constitutional authority to command the armed forces how he/she sees fit. The power to declare war, which is something more than just the use of military force, as well as raise funds for armies/navies, was reserved to congress. Everyone agrees the President can send the armed forces wherever, including early in history to the Barbary coast to fight pirates without a declararation of war (the famous shores of Tripoli), but it wasn’t until the Viet Nam “conflict” that Congress decided to formally attempt to restrict what the President could do, and that was what was called the War Powers Act, which requires the President to notify congress of any military actions within a certain time period, and if after 100 days, Congress hasn’t authorized further action, to withdraw the troops. The constitutional question, actually, is whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to restrict the President with the War Powers Act.
“He fulfilled Uniparty agenda.”
Normally I would agree with a smirk, but when it comes to Syria there has been something that has bothered me for more than 10 years....
.... Why does Nancy Pelosi visit there all the time, and specifically before Arab Spring ? Pelosi is friends with someone there and I want to know WHO.
She’s got frequent flier miles to Damascus. And not even since recently - going back well into the 90s.
Emotions do not make a military action constitutional.
Trumps statement was an appeal to emotion and not an appeal to a constitutional provision that allowed him to unilaterally send missiles directed at a Sovereign Nation that posed no threat to the security or vital interests of the United States.
If Assad used poison gas on his own citizens, that is terrible. It is not, however, a valid excuse for the United States to launch a Missile attack.
If we launched missile attacks at every dictator who abused his citizens, we be out of missiles before we got to 1/10th of them.
Hey CDL. Long time no see. Good to see you again. :-)
Wanna bet. This gut lost 20 million conservatives. He is finished!!
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.