Is a retroactive, dubiously legal justification for extra legal killings a thing?

berg80 said:
You've unwittingly exposed the legal flaw in Dotard's failed attempt to justify killing the people in those boats. A prez can not simply wave his hand and unilaterally decide who enemy combatants are. Sending a letter to Congress proclaiming he has "determined" he can order the military to kill people is the lawless act of an autocrat, not a POTUS.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you can quote your posts condemning Barry Hussein droning America teenager overseas who wasn’t charged with anything, right berg80 ?


en.wikipedia.org

Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
berg80 said:
Saying there's a "war on drugs" is not the same as a real war justifying the killing of smugglers.

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.
Click to expand...
Narco Terrorists are more then dealers. Trump is correct and this new strategy is working. Democrats would make all drugs legal and oppose any success Trump creates even when it saves lives in America
 
Seymour Flops said:
Sure, he can. He just did.

The War Powers Act gives him the authority to do exactly what he did. Congress gave presidents that power.
Click to expand...
The hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper.

AI Overview

The War Powers Act, more formally known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, is a federal law intended to restrict the U.S. president's power to engage in armed conflict without congressional consent. It was passed by Congress after the Vietnam War to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional authority over war-making.
Key provisions
  • Consultation: The President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before committing U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
 
berg80 said:
The hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper.

AI Overview

The War Powers Act, more formally known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, is a federal law intended to restrict the U.S. president's power to engage in armed conflict without congressional consent. It was passed by Congress after the Vietnam War to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional authority over war-making.
Key provisions
  • Consultation: The President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before committing U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
Click to expand...
Barry Hussein bombed 7 different countries without Congressional consent, Short Bus.
 
berg80 said:
  • Consultation: The President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before committing U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
Click to expand...
Yes. Key word is"possible."

Obviously, it is not possible to notify congress before attacking narco-terrorists when almost half of Congress is from a Party allied with narco-terrorists that works on their behalf.
 
Seymour Flops said:
Yes. Key word is"possible."

Obviously, it is not possible to notify congress before attacking narco-terrorists when almost half of Congress is from a Party allied with narco-terrorists that works on their behalf.
Click to expand...
You've lost touch with reality.
 
berg80 said:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.
Click to expand...
I think it is great to be blowing up drug boats and their traffickers. As usual, the left would rather let criminals be criminals.
 
berg80 said:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.
Click to expand...
Extra legal just another name for military.
 
berg80 said:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.
Click to expand...
This has been ok, since the Obama admin....well Obama used this to take partake in extrajudical killings of people actually subject to our Constitution...unlike Trump, who's using it against international terrorist.,.,..but the same logic applies.


The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by al-Qa'idaand its associated forces, arising from his constitutional responsibility to protect thecountry, the inherent right of the United States to national self defense under internationallaw, Congress's authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military forceagainst this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida underinternational law. Based on these authorities, the President may use force against alQa'ida and its associated forces. As detailed in this white paper, in definedcircumstances, a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen who has joined al-Qa'ida or itsassociated forces would be lawful under U.S. and international law. Targeting a memberof an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States isnot unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense. Nor would it violate otherwiseapplicable federal laws barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban inExecutive Order No. 12333. Moreover, a lethal operation in a foreign nation would beconsistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it wereconducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government or after ad etermination that the host nation is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed bythe individual targeted.
 
berg80 said:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.
Click to expand...
So your income is being affected then ..
 
struth said:
This has been ok, since the Obama admin....well Obama used this to take partake in extrajudical killings of people actually subject to our Constitution...unlike Trump, who's using it against international terrorist.,.,..but the same logic applies.


The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by al-Qa'idaand its associated forces, arising from his constitutional responsibility to protect thecountry, the inherent right of the United States to national self defense under internationallaw, Congress's authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military forceagainst this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida underinternational law. Based on these authorities, the President may use force against alQa'ida and its associated forces. As detailed in this white paper, in definedcircumstances, a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen who has joined al-Qa'ida or itsassociated forces would be lawful under U.S. and international law. Targeting a memberof an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States isnot unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense. Nor would it violate otherwiseapplicable federal laws barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban inExecutive Order No. 12333. Moreover, a lethal operation in a foreign nation would beconsistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it wereconducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government or after ad etermination that the host nation is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed bythe individual targeted.
Click to expand...
We are seeing an Awful lot of effort on this subject. My view on it is that the cartel money is being hit hard and the phone calls are going put right now 24/7.....some of those calls to paid posting shills.
 
berg80 said:
Saying there's a "war on drugs" is not the same as a real war justifying the killing of smugglers.

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.
Click to expand...
Saying there's a "war on drugs" is not the same as a real war justifying the killing of smugglers.

Such bullshit.... Smugglers get what they deserve.
In many countries around the world smuggling is punishable by death....as it should be.

Once again I ask....
You taking a financial hit?
Any of your uplines taking a financial hit?
Sure sounds like it.
 
berg80 said:
The hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper.

AI Overview

The War Powers Act, more formally known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, is a federal law intended to restrict the U.S. president's power to engage in armed conflict without congressional consent. It was passed by Congress after the Vietnam War to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional authority over war-making.
Key provisions
  • Consultation: The President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before committing U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
Click to expand...
.

GIGO






.
 
BackAgain said:
I suppose the key question ^ here is “what is the factual basis for the Presidential ‘determination’ ?”

I haven’t looked, yet.

An interesting question: but it likely involves some intel (classified as to both substance and sources) to which we may not get much access.
Click to expand...
Ya mean like the Intel that got us into Iraq?
 
berg80 said:
Saying there's a "war on drugs" is not the same as a real war justifying the killing of smugglers.

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.
Click to expand...

Killing innocent Americans with their product seems pretty hostile to me. Anyway, this just one opinion of many, hardly worth the bother.
 
15th post
berg80 said:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask Obama about that.
 
whitehall said:
The left never complained when Hussein Obama ordered the execution by drone of an American citizen Anwar Awlaki , an Islamic cleric born in New Mexico, and his son in Yemen bout 15 years ago
Click to expand...
Obama revealed to the public the details of why he ordered that individual to be taken out. Trump has not revealed to the public any details on the reasons he's ordering those people whacked other then accusing them of being drug smugglers.

Some think it's stone cold murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Auuugh!!! Government Shutdown!!! Panic!! Scream!! Disaster!!!!

< Previous Thread

Newsome’s Cali: 10 months after Palisades fire, 2 building permits issued.

Next Thread >

Similar threads

berg80
Keeping up with all the illegal acts committed by the regime is no easy task.
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
750
Nostra
Nostra
0
A Fatal ICE Shooting Occurred In Texas Months Before Renee Good’s Killing
2
Replies
27
Views
328
Hellbilly
Hellbilly
Doc7505
The Dangers of Undermining U.S. Civil–Military Relations
Replies
3
Views
251
kyzr
kyzr
berg80
Some colleges have been rightly criticized for allowing the stifling of free speech on campuses.
Replies
8
Views
149
marvin martian
marvin martian
berg80
Americans have their priorities, trump has his.
Replies
12
Views
219
berg80
berg80

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom