Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 90,987
- 82,734
- 3,615
Correction...Executive Order. There was no treaty, and Iran never signed on.
I need a Democrat to explain their logic on why Trump needed their approval for the airstrike.
- Thread starter Remodeling Maidiac
- Start date
Screw their logic! You are asking insane Dems / snowflakes who CENSURE the top law-enforcing officer in the country, the US AG, for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW.
?!
IF they have any beef with the President ordering this strike without informing two of the biggest traitors and THE biggest ADMITTED classified info leaker in the country 1st then they just need to produce the exact section / verbiage from the US Constitution and / or US Law that requires the President of the United States to notify Adam F*ing Schiff before he orders an air strike!
I don't need snowflake 'translation' or opinion, as they have proven in the past both is useless.
The AG was censured for refusing to obey the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power of oversight and outranks any law. By your logic, Democrats could pass a law banning guns. Barr needs to remember he is the top law enforcement officer in the US instead of acting like a Trump sycophant.
They are not traitors. You and Trump are the TRAITORS. The American people decided they wanted these people as their leaders. That should be respected. The House committees should call witnesses such as the Secretary of Defense and the CIA Director. to determine whether there is a real basis for these attacks or whether Trump is kicking off his re-election campaign.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,283
- 20,109
- 1,405
This was a retaliatory strike..... not a declaration of war. You can’t answer the question so you tried to slide the goal post.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,283
- 20,109
- 1,405
Democrats should impeach Trump over this. They make Impeachment comical.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,283
- 20,109
- 1,405
The Democrats are fully aware of this. They are raising a stink because of the stupidity of their voters. Keep in mind, it was they who call their voters stupid (see Obamacare).
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,283
- 20,109
- 1,405
Kerry has a proven track record of appeasing the enemy and selling out US troops. This should not come as a surprise.
HaShev
Platinum Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 19,227
- 8,649
- 925
Some important context the propagandists leave out:
1)it's not just retalitory, but also preemptive, with his threat to strike being intercepted by our intelligence ops.
2) the window limited we have to use past mistakes to learn from and no greater error regarding the hard decision to act against a known terrorist while you have a chance then the 1998 blunder of Bill Clinton to let Bin Laden slip away without acting upon it when he had the chance. Dems want us to relive the blunder that allowed A terrorist who also vocally promised acts against the U.S. to eventually cause that promised act killing thousands. Instead of Dems asking what favors the Clintons did the Saudis for that pay to play money and if that included looking the other way with Bin Laden, and instead of asking if Biden has Iranian money stashed in over seas banks, they'd rather deflect attention to the man who did what Bill himself admitted he wish he had done.
-oops!
1)it's not just retalitory, but also preemptive, with his threat to strike being intercepted by our intelligence ops.
2) the window limited we have to use past mistakes to learn from and no greater error regarding the hard decision to act against a known terrorist while you have a chance then the 1998 blunder of Bill Clinton to let Bin Laden slip away without acting upon it when he had the chance. Dems want us to relive the blunder that allowed A terrorist who also vocally promised acts against the U.S. to eventually cause that promised act killing thousands. Instead of Dems asking what favors the Clintons did the Saudis for that pay to play money and if that included looking the other way with Bin Laden, and instead of asking if Biden has Iranian money stashed in over seas banks, they'd rather deflect attention to the man who did what Bill himself admitted he wish he had done.
-oops!
kyzr
Diamond Member
Screw their logic! You are asking insane Dems / snowflakes who CENSURE the top law-enforcing officer in the country, the US AG, for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW.
IF they have any beef with the President ordering this strike without informing two of the biggest traitors and THE biggest ADMITTED classified info leaker in the country 1st then they just need to produce the exact section / verbiage from the US Constitution and / or US Law that requires the President of the United States to notify Adam F*ing Schiff before he orders an air strike!
I don't need snowflake 'translation' or opinion, as they have proven in the past both is useless.
The AG was censured for refusing to obey the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power of oversight and outranks any law. By your logic, Democrats could pass a law banning guns. Barr needs to remember he is the top law enforcement officer in the US instead of acting like a Trump sycophant.
They are not traitors. You and Trump are the TRAITORS. The American people decided they wanted these people as their leaders. That should be respected. The House committees should call witnesses such as the Secretary of Defense and the CIA Director. to determine whether there is a real basis for these attacks or whether Trump is kicking off his re-election campaign.
You have a very warped view of what congressional "oversight" means. It does NOT mean that the House supervises the Executive. Co-equal means that the House + Senate = Executive. Any conflict between them goes to the courts for a decision, period. If the House wants access to the directors of agencies they would need to prove that need in court because the Executive has "privilege" in certain areas.
"House Oversight" means that they can audit that the Executive is following their laws properly, it does not mean that they have any power over the Executive, unless the courts agree.
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight includes the review, and monitoring of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. ... Congress's oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules.
Trump literally tweeted us into a conflict
speak for yourself...
no, the war powers act of '73 basically backfired....quite the bit of legislative history
but i digress
the American public wants a plan
the world is waiting
>>>>
Trump's campaign promise was to end any negotiation ......
US and Iran: Key events since Trump withdrew from nuclear deal
The subsequent escalation was due to Trump's refusal to 'campaign' ,despite the rest of the world wanting to
~
What is Trump's strategy on Iran?
~S~
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,140
- 45,632
- 2,615
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
War on Terror
Iran is a terrorist state.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Have you ever heard of the NDAA?
Trump literally tweeted us into a conflict
speak for yourself...
no, the war powers act of '73 basically backfired....quite the bit of legislative history
but i digress
the American public wants a plan
the world is waiting
>>>>
Trump's campaign promise was to end any negotiation ......
US and Iran: Key events since Trump withdrew from nuclear deal
The subsequent escalation was due to Trump's refusal to 'campaign' ,despite the rest of the world wanting to
~
What is Trump's strategy on Iran?
~S~
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Actions from the White House and Senate leading to the vote[edit]
The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[12] arguing in an executive statement on November 17, 2011, that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority ... are essential to our ability to protect the American people ... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk".
The statement furthermore objected to the mandate for "military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects", which it called inconsistent with "the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets".[12] The White House may now waive the requirement for military custody for some detainees following a review by appointed officials including the Attorney General, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.[34]
During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment interpreted by the ACLU[16] and some news sources[35] as an effort to limit military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. The amendment proposed to strike the section "Detainee Matters" from the bill, and replace section 1021 (then titled 1031) with a provision requiring the Administration to clarify the Executive's authority to detain suspects on the basis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.[36] The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60–38 (with 2 abstaining).[37] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible".[35]
The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.[38] After a Senate–House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[39]
In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed ... I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists".[40]
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - Wikipedia
The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[12] arguing in an executive statement on November 17, 2011, that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority ... are essential to our ability to protect the American people ... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk".
The statement furthermore objected to the mandate for "military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects", which it called inconsistent with "the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets".[12] The White House may now waive the requirement for military custody for some detainees following a review by appointed officials including the Attorney General, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.[34]
During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment interpreted by the ACLU[16] and some news sources[35] as an effort to limit military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. The amendment proposed to strike the section "Detainee Matters" from the bill, and replace section 1021 (then titled 1031) with a provision requiring the Administration to clarify the Executive's authority to detain suspects on the basis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.[36] The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60–38 (with 2 abstaining).[37] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible".[35]
The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.[38] After a Senate–House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[39]
In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed ... I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists".[40]
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - Wikipedia
Text - H.R.2500 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020Have you ever heard of the NDAA?
Trump literally tweeted us into a conflict
speak for yourself...
no, the war powers act of '73 basically backfired....quite the bit of legislative history
but i digress
the American public wants a plan
the world is waiting
>>>>
Trump's campaign promise was to end any negotiation ......
US and Iran: Key events since Trump withdrew from nuclear deal
The subsequent escalation was due to Trump's refusal to 'campaign' ,despite the rest of the world wanting to
~
What is Trump's strategy on Iran?
~S~
is where Congress FUNDS , not DEPLOYS our military
~S~
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
There are other NDAA's that have already passed which grants presidential authority on matters regarding terrorismText - H.R.2500 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020Have you ever heard of the NDAA?
Trump literally tweeted us into a conflict
speak for yourself...
no, the war powers act of '73 basically backfired....quite the bit of legislative history
but i digress
the American public wants a plan
the world is waiting
>>>>
Trump's campaign promise was to end any negotiation ......
US and Iran: Key events since Trump withdrew from nuclear deal
The subsequent escalation was due to Trump's refusal to 'campaign' ,despite the rest of the world wanting to
~
What is Trump's strategy on Iran?
~S~
is where Congress FUNDS , not DEPLOYS our military
~S~
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Obama administration[edit]
In 2012, journalists and activists brought a suit (Hedges v. Obama) against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, in which Congress "affirms" presidential authority for indefinite detention under the AUMF and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
In 2016, constitutional law specialist professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School said that the Obama Administration's use of the AUMF to that point had overstepped the authorized powers of the final, enacted version of the bill so as to more closely resemble the capabilities named in this draft text rejected by Congress.[10]
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia
In 2012, journalists and activists brought a suit (Hedges v. Obama) against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, in which Congress "affirms" presidential authority for indefinite detention under the AUMF and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
In 2016, constitutional law specialist professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School said that the Obama Administration's use of the AUMF to that point had overstepped the authorized powers of the final, enacted version of the bill so as to more closely resemble the capabilities named in this draft text rejected by Congress.[10]
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia
wamose
Diamond Member
The Democrats reaction to the killing proves they aren't on Trump's side in this, but that's nothing new. Democrats would rather see our country fail than to give Trump credit for drawing the line. Iran is a weak country whose people are against their radical leadership. This is the best time to push the issue. Democrats are much too unsophisticated and trivial to understand these things.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
CA Democrats Push Bill Banning ICE Agents From Working In CA- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
Oh my goodness.....Another "No Kings Day" is upon us- Latest: Admiral Rockwell Tory
-
-
-
