Reply With Quote
Romney Hitler now?
Romney good now?Mitt Romney=Hitler
Romney Hitler now?
I tried that one way back, but was not that impressed.
I know it's quaint to ask, but under what legal authority did Biden just attack Syria and Iraq? Didn't we just vote to recscind the 2001 AUMF?
the House did, now repeal is in the Senate, where it should pass since Repugs love to throttle/obstruct Dem Presidents
Five Senators Threaten to Derail Repeal of 2002 AUMF: Why Their Timing and Claims Are So Wrong
https://www.justsecurity.org/77070/f...-are-so-wrong/
And he still beat your candidate.
Imagine if Republicans were reasonable economic conservatives instead of a tribe of angry white conspiracy theorists whose entire purpose in life is to stick it to the libs, you would have put forward a normal candidate and you'd be in the driver's seat. Thanks, though!
Didn't the House just vote to repeal the AUF? We'll see what the Senate does. That'd be a good first step.
Irrelevant. Today's actions are supposedly justified via article 2, lol "self defense."
Dept of Defense Press release regarding the today's bombings -->:Presidential References to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in
Publicly Available Executive Actions and Reports to Congress -->>
In situations where the 2001 AUMF or other relevant legislation does not seem to authorize a
given use of military force or related activity, the executive branch will determine whether the President's
Article II powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, as interpreted by the executive branch
itself, might authorize such actions.
As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense. The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq."
It isn't irrelevant. Congress has the ultimate authority to end this stuff. The only reason we have to defend bases overseas is because we have them there. Congress controls the purse to fund the world police.
And because 80 years ago Japan woke us up of a Sunday mornin' comin' down and Hitler was ticked off that the German people had been starved out for the 20 years after the war to end all wars had ended and the next one got goin'.
80 years later German children & Japanese children still aren't allowed to go to the slaughter like American children are. And sometimes those same American children come back thru Dover, AFB. President Trump went out to Dover one time early on. He'd never seen the like...the screaming, the crying, the parents climbing over the flag draped metal coffins like maniacs.
We don't see that video on the TV, by God, ever. That's forbidden.
There's money to be made, tbh
What!?! You ain't gonna indict Trump for his bone spurs in response, El? I can't believe it. I'm poleaxed. I'm going to have to get something to eat---I feel faint.
CHOW!!!
Try "Fido" (2006)
Irrelevant to this current action and in the big picture. Repeal of the AUMF is pure kayfabe (LOL to think the Dems would restrict Biden) that is unlikely to change anything, especially when placed in the historical context of Article 2/presidential war powers.
Biden's Bombing Campaign Is A Trumpian Assertion of Presidential Power --->>
The Justice Department provided Cheney and the rest of the George W. Bush administration with a legal justification for pure presidential power soon after the 9/11 attacks. Article II, it said, establishes that “the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency.” So the president did not need congressional authorization to attack “terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”
That said, presidents have generally preferred to do a sort of legal two-step on this issue. They like to say they are acting “in accordance with” some kind of congressional authorization, even as they say Article II means they don’t need it. 2001’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed with a sole “no” vote after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has proven particularly useful in this regard. According to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report, the 2001 AUMF had been cited by presidents 41 times: 18 by the Bush administration, 21 by Obama, and twice by Trump.
But even the 2001 AUMF couldn’t be stretched to cover the U.S. participation in the 2011 overthrow of Libya’s government. The Obama administration’s legal rationale for that was simply Article II. Then Trump bombed Syria on several occasions, explaining in a 22-page 2018 memo that “Article II provides the President with the authority to direct U.S. military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad.”
Biden is also kicking out unaccompanied children, just like Trash
I don't disagree with the notion that a good chunk of Dems love dem big wars too, tbh...
But, again, not irrelevant. You want this country to stop being the world police, it starts and ends in Congress. Asking for restraint from the POTUS is pure naivete. I can't even think the last POTUS that didn't bomb some place.
Rather, it's naïve (and ahistorical) to think that congress is going to restrain the president's war powers. See Korea, Vietnam, Secret bombings of Cambodia/Laos, Iraq, Libya, etc.
Well, like I said, sunsetting the AUMF would be a good start. Not the end, but a good start. That would be actual, tangible action restricting Executive power when it comes to starting wars at least.
It's a power that Congress should've never given out. As you point out, the past 70 years or so, Congress has simply been passing on their responsibility.
"WE MADE IT!"
. i held my nose and voted for him because i was promised radical socialism
The 2002 AUMF hasn't been used since 2011. It's repeal is empty centrist symbolism and has no impact or relevance to Biden's missle strikes.
Reason: Repeal would do little to change how Congress and the president collaborate—or don't—on military operations. -->>
What's especially telling is that President Joe Biden hasn't invoked a single AUMF—not the one from 1957, 1991, 2001, or 2002—to justify the airstrikes he's carried out in his 161 days in office. To authorize his February airstrikes in Syria and his Sunday attacks there and in Iraq, he cited Article II of the Cons ution, which allows the president to protect U.S. service members in self-defense.
Meanwhile, the 2001 AUMF that authorized the president to invade Afghanistan—and which has been the basis of 41 operations in 19 countries—has not seen a formidable legislative challenge.
The measures Congress has repealed won't lead to a meaningful reduction in presidential overreach in military conduct. Indeed, these bills passed the House in part because their repeal wouldn't affect contemporary military campaigns. The White House backs repealing the 2002 AUMF because it would "likely have minimal impact on current military operations." Repealing benign laws, even those with concerning underpinnings, would do little to change how Congress and the president collaborate—or don't—on military operations.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
