Syria (or possibly Russia) used chemical weapons on its own people

NigelUno wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
I would think so, otherwise why do we have a Supreme Court and other federal courts?  There's always talk about interpreting the Constitution, what the forefathers intended versus what is actually written (especially with the 2nd amendment), etc.

But in the context of this thread, what Constitutional issue do you feel was violated or made to be flexible?  Attacking another country?  He doesn't need Congressional approval for this attack, any more than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford (?), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Eisenhower did for most of the attacks that they ordered.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
7:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

What does what Trump said 4 years ago have to do with the Constitution on these matters? I don't think he ever was, nor currently is, an expert on Constitutional law.

I'm not arguing that he's a hypocrite (thought I believe Obama at the time was contemplating a much larger and longer engagement), but you brought the Constitution into it, unless there are other tweets where Trump mentioned it.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
7:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

What does what Trump said 4 years ago have to do with the Constitution on these matters?  I don't think he ever was, nor currently is, an expert on Constitutional law.

I'm not arguing that he's a hypocrite (thought I believe Obama at the time was contemplating a much larger and longer engagement), but you brought the Constitution into it, unless there are other tweets where Trump mentioned it.

Senator Rand Paul ✔ @RandPaul
The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution.
9:41 PM - 6 Apr 2017

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Every day I love Nikki Haley more.

Kyle Feldscher‏Verified account @Kyle_Feldscher  2h2 hours ago
More
Damn, @nikkihaley.

Rocinante wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote: Attacking another country?  He doesn't need Congressional approval for that, any more than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford (?), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Eisenhower did for attacks that they ordered.

This is a real sticking point for me. I think a president should always have to secure some kind of congressional approval for a strike that is not either in direct response to an attack on Americans, or in defense of an anticipated strike (preemptive). The reason being, we have situations like what's been going on all over the middle-east: Constant air strikes without any actual declaration of war, war being fought with no consequences to those waging it back home. There needs to be authorizations so that constituents can hold their reps accountable for the forever war that is no war.

The easy cop out of never actually declaring war makes nobody responsible, and the defense contractors keep the $$ rolling in.

The budget is kind of the same way. You know there hasn't been an actual budget passed and serious budget since 2010, right?

Not exactly. A President doesn't need approval for a limited military engagement, and such an engagement must end within 90 days, IIRC (he does need to notify Congressional leaders within 48 hours of such an attack, and Trump did that, actually notifying them prior to the attack, I believe).

So a president doesn't have carte blanche to start a war without Congressional approval. What you have with all of the strikes in the middle east does have Congressional approval. At least my understanding is that it's all included in the Congressional approval given after 9/11 to attack those responsible, though it may have been expanded to include any terrorism. When Obama tried to get Congress to approve attacking Syria, I believe he was talking about a broader campaign to root out ISIS, that had a 3 year time table. Maybe he could have tried to lump that in under the post-9/11 Congressional authorization, but that's why there was debate at the time about asking Congress, because it was kind of a grey area.

While I understand where you're coming from when you say that a president should always have Congressional authorization for a strike, that is not realistic. If you do that, you miss your opportunities. Beyond that, word is sure to leak out, and whoever/whatever we're targeting has moved, or worse yet, they know we're coming and are prepared for us.

NigelUno wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
What does what Trump said 4 years ago have to do with the Constitution on these matters?  I don't think he ever was, nor currently is, an expert on Constitutional law.

I'm not arguing that he's a hypocrite (thought I believe Obama at the time was contemplating a much larger and longer engagement), but you brought the Constitution into it, unless there are other tweets where Trump mentioned it.

Senator Rand Paul ✔ @RandPaul
The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution.
9:41 PM - 6 Apr 2017

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Please read up on the War Powers Act, then come back to me. Rand Paul is wrong. I'm sure he knows what the War Powers Act states, but he's just playing politics. I would hope you, if not familiar with the War Powers Act exactly, would at least have some historical context to realize that every President since WWII has committed military engagements without approval of Congress. The article you linked even touched on this.

As for Obama, he CHOSE to go to Congress for authorization against Syria, he was not required to (depending on the scope of the attack as laid out in the War Powers Act). As the very article that you linked said, he basically wanted to put the ball in Congress's court, and if they didn't approve it, let them be blamed for Assad's murdering of innocents.

NigelUno wrote:McCain rips Trump administration over Syria policy

"(Syrian President) Bashar Assad and his friends, the Russians, take note of what Americans say," the Arizona Republican told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day." "I'm sure they took note of what our Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) said just the other day that the Syrian people would be determining their own future themselves -- one of the more incredible statements I've ever heard."

"I'm sure they are encouraged to know the United States is withdrawing and seeking a new arrangement with the Russians," he added. "It is another disgraceful chapter in American history and it was predictable."

Responding to the above post by Nigel, The Dude said:

The_Dude wrote:McCain...establishment figure who's a failed politician.

Sigh. Yeah, new ways of thinking are terrible. Let's keep the status quo in foreign policy. It's been great!

So where does The Dude stand now? Is Trump now an establishment figure who's a failed politician? Is he keeping the status quo, that The Dude so despises?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Senator Rand Paul ✔ @RandPaul
The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution.
9:41 PM - 6 Apr 2017

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Please read up on the War Powers Act, then come back to me. Rand Paul is wrong. I'm sure he knows what the War Powers Act states, but he's just playing politics. I would hope you, if not familiar with the War Powers Act exactly, would at least have some historical context to realize that every President since WWII has committed military engagements without approval of Congress. The article you linked even touched on this.

As for Obama, he CHOSE to go to Congress for authorization against Syria, he was not required to (depending on the scope of the attack as laid out in the War Powers Act). As the very article that you linked said, he basically wanted to put the ball in Congress's court, and if they didn't approve it, let them be blamed for Assad's murdering of innocents.

Well stated

MiamiSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:McCain rips Trump administration over Syria policy

"(Syrian President) Bashar Assad and his friends, the Russians, take note of what Americans say," the Arizona Republican told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day." "I'm sure they took note of what our Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) said just the other day that the Syrian people would be determining their own future themselves -- one of the more incredible statements I've ever heard."

"I'm sure they are encouraged to know the United States is withdrawing and seeking a new arrangement with the Russians," he added. "It is another disgraceful chapter in American history and it was predictable."

Responding to the above post by Nigel, The Dude said:

The_Dude wrote:McCain...establishment figure who's a failed politician.

Sigh. Yeah, new ways of thinking are terrible. Let's keep the status quo in foreign policy. It's been great!

So where does The Dude stand now? Is Trump now an establishment figure who's a failed politician? Is he keeping the status quo, that The Dude so despises?

Meh, lobbing some missiles at Assad I don't have much of an opinion either way. But as long as that's it.

Sends a strong message to China, Iran, Russia, etc.

But McCain is a failed politician. Sending some missiles into Syria doesn't change that.

The_Dude wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Responding to the above post by Nigel, The Dude said:


So where does The Dude stand now? Is Trump now an establishment figure who's a failed politician? Is he keeping the status quo, that The Dude so despises?

Meh, lobbing some missiles at Assad I don't have much of an opinion either way. But as long as that's it.

Sends a strong message to China, Iran, Russia, etc.

But McCain is a failed politician. Sending some missiles into Syria doesn't change that.

But isn't what Trump did just maintain the status quo? Trump basically did just what McCain was calling for, which you scoffed at, as he's pretty much reversed the position that Tillerson stated the other day.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

The_Dude wrote:McCain...establishment figure who's a failed politician.

Sigh. Yeah, new ways of thinking are terrible. Let's keep the status quo in foreign policy. It's been great!

What constitutes a "failed politician"? Does Rush explain that one for you?

Here you go.

Also, still waiting for a response to this question.

Syrian fighter planes are airbound right now...

The_Dude wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Responding to the above post by Nigel, The Dude said:


So where does The Dude stand now? Is Trump now an establishment figure who's a failed politician? Is he keeping the status quo, that The Dude so despises?

Meh, lobbing some missiles at Assad I don't have much of an opinion either way. But as long as that's it.

Sends a strong message to China, Iran, Russia, etc.

But McCain is a failed politician. Sending some missiles into Syria doesn't change that.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/un-security-council-syria/index.html

Care to respond to this story?

Death Roe wrote:Syrian fighter planes are airbound right now...

Going where, doing what?

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Death Roe wrote:Syrian fighter planes are airbound right now...

Going where, doing what?

This. A quick google search brought back nothing for me.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Going where, doing what?

This. A quick google search brought back nothing for me.

Actually just found this.

Syrian jets carry out attacks from base hours after US missile strike: report

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

This. A quick google search brought back nothing for me.

Actually just found this.

Syrian jets carry out attacks from base hours after US missile strike: report

They are already flying planes out of the base we hit?

Not exactly. A President doesn't need approval for a limited military engagement, and such an engagement must end within 90 days, IIRC (he does need to notify Congressional leaders within 48 hours of such an attack, and Trump did that, actually notifying them prior to the attack, I believe).

So a president doesn't have carte blanche to start a war without Congressional approval. What you have with all of the strikes in the middle east does have Congressional approval. At least my understanding is that it's all included in the Congressional approval given after 9/11 to attack those responsible, though it may have been expanded to include any terrorism. When Obama tried to get Congress to approve attacking Syria, I believe he was talking about a broader campaign to root out ISIS, that had a 3 year time table. Maybe he could have tried to lump that in under the post-9/11 Congressional authorization, but that's why there was debate at the time about asking Congress, because it was kind of a grey area.

This is a load of shit.  The War Powers act was congress' attempt to reassert its constitutional authority over armed conflict.  Presidents have been pushing the line and using military force unilaterally ever since Korea.  It's unconstitutional.  

The AUMF that followed 9/11 is STILL being used in ways that have no feasible connection to that event.  Congress lets it go on because they are a bunch of cowards who get money from the military industrial complex and feel safe because they don't have to sign their name to actions that kill people.  They are complicit though.

That shit about an enemy moving is also Bullshit.  What I mean is he needs authorization for action.  That needs to be spelled out and limited in scope.  For instance, and AUMF for "activities in Syria."  I'm not talking about every individual strike.  Sorry for that confusion, dicklips.

Edit: and if congress can't agree on an AUMF, then that's a good thing and force shouldn't be used. It's why the constitution was written that way.

NigelUno wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Actually just found this.

Syrian jets carry out attacks from base hours after US missile strike: report

They are already flying planes out of the base we hit?

Article says it is operationally limited, but witnesses saw jets take off.

59 cruise missiles was apparently not enough.

Rocinante wrote:

Not exactly. A President doesn't need approval for a limited military engagement, and such an engagement must end within 90 days, IIRC (he does need to notify Congressional leaders within 48 hours of such an attack, and Trump did that, actually notifying them prior to the attack, I believe).

So a president doesn't have carte blanche to start a war without Congressional approval. What you have with all of the strikes in the middle east does have Congressional approval. At least my understanding is that it's all included in the Congressional approval given after 9/11 to attack those responsible, though it may have been expanded to include any terrorism. When Obama tried to get Congress to approve attacking Syria, I believe he was talking about a broader campaign to root out ISIS, that had a 3 year time table. Maybe he could have tried to lump that in under the post-9/11 Congressional authorization, but that's why there was debate at the time about asking Congress, because it was kind of a grey area.

This is a load of shit.  The War Powers act was congress' attempt to reassert its constitutional authority over armed conflict.  Presidents have been pushing the line and using military force unilaterally ever since Korea.  It's unconstitutional.  

The AUMF that followed 9/11 is STILL being used in ways that have no feasible connection to that event.  Congress lets it go on because they are a bunch of cowards who get money from the military industrial complex and feel safe because they don't have to sign their name to actions that kill people.  They are complicit though.

That shit about an enemy moving is also Bullshit.  What I mean is he needs authorization for action.  That needs to be spelled out and limited in scope.  For instance, and AUMF for "activities in Syria."  I'm not talking about every individual strike.  Sorry for that confusion, dicklips.

Edit: and if congress can't agree on an AUMF, then that's a good thing and force shouldn't be used.  It's why the constitution was written that way.

That's true about the intention of the war powers act, but what I said is not a load of shit.  The war powers act says that a president can order military action, and notify Congress in 48 hours.  The action can't continue past 90 days without Congressional approval.  It's written into the act.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

This is a load of shit.  The War Powers act was congress' attempt to reassert its constitutional authority over armed conflict.  Presidents have been pushing the line and using military force unilaterally ever since Korea.  It's unconstitutional.  

The AUMF that followed 9/11 is STILL being used in ways that have no feasible connection to that event.  Congress lets it go on because they are a bunch of cowards who get money from the military industrial complex and feel safe because they don't have to sign their name to actions that kill people.  They are complicit though.

That shit about an enemy moving is also Bullshit.  What I mean is he needs authorization for action.  That needs to be spelled out and limited in scope.  For instance, and AUMF for "activities in Syria."  I'm not talking about every individual strike.  Sorry for that confusion, dicklips.

Edit: and if congress can't agree on an AUMF, then that's a good thing and force shouldn't be used.  It's why the constitution was written that way.

That's true about the intention of the war powers act, but what I said is not a load of shit.  The war powers act says that a president can order military action, and notify Congress in 48 hours.  The action can't continue past 90 days without Congressional approval.  It's written into the act.

I hear you, but it certainly isn't clear what pretext Trump is operating under. It could be the 9/11 AUMF, or it could be that he thinks he's commander in chief and fuck everybody else's opinions.

Check this out.  Not only does it look like the Russians and the Syrians had plenty of warning, it looks like the Syrians moved their planes out of the bunkers and into the open to avoid the strikes.  Great work there, Trump.  Way to warn your allies I MEAN ENEMIES... Yeah, that's it.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/trump-surrenders-element-surprise-warning-russia-planned-strike-ally-syria/

Edit: and yeah, they're running missions out of that strip today.

Its obvious Trump either had no clue of the decisions in front of him when he was making multiple tweets about Syria or he was just pot stirring.

Rocinante wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
That's true about the intention of the war powers act, but what I said is not a load of shit.  The war powers act says that a president can order military action, and notify Congress in 48 hours.  The action can't continue past 90 days without Congressional approval.  It's written into the act.

I hear you, but it certainly isn't clear what pretext Trump is operating under. It could be the 9/11 AUMF, or it could be that he thinks he's commander in chief and fuck everybody else's opinions.

Right, I don't pretend to trust him. My point in all this was just that what he did is legal, and has been done by every President for decades. Whether he takes it further and to what extent is the bigger question.

NigelUno wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Actually just found this.

Syrian jets carry out attacks from base hours after US missile strike: report

They are already flying planes out of the base we hit?

Doesn't matter that we have an incompetent President. The Navy has their shit together. Their strikes last night were surgical and strategic. They didn't hit the runway because we didn't give a fuck about their planes. We destroyed what we thought were buildings holding chemical weapons. They were around the runway.

My business partners son is one bad ass Navy seal. The shit he's told us when home is nuts. They actually, sometimes, have these fuckers on the ground, directing the missles incoming with hand helds from a vantage point where they're on the ground. That shit wasn't willey Nilley last night. Our Navy doesn't fuck around.

DWags wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

They are already flying planes out of the base we hit?

Doesn't matter that we have an incompetent President. The Navy has their shit together. Their strikes last night were surgical and strategic. They didn't hit the runway because we didn't give a fuck about their planes. We destroyed what we thought were buildings holding chemical weapons. They were around the runway.

My business partners son is one bad ass Navy seal. The shit he's told us when home is nuts. They actually, sometimes, have these fuckers on the ground, directing the missles incoming with hand helds from a vantage point where they're on the ground. That shit wasn't willey Nilley last night. Our Navy doesn't fuck around.

It sounds like we gave the Russians enough warning to get out of there, and the Syrians may have moved a few planes out of hangars while asking..."hey, where are you guys going?".

DWags wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

They are already flying planes out of the base we hit?  

Doesn't matter that we have an incompetent President.   The Navy has their shit together.  Their strikes last night were surgical and strategic.   They didn't hit the runway because we didn't give a fuck about their planes.  We destroyed what we thought were buildings holding chemical weapons.  They were around the runway.  

My business partners son is one bad ass Navy seal.  The shit he's told us when home is nuts.  They actually, sometimes, have these fuckers on the ground, directing the missles incoming with hand helds from a vantage point where they're on the ground.  That shit wasn't willey Nilley last night.  Our Navy doesn't fuck around.  

You should read that intercept article I posted.  And follow a few of the links, especially to field reports.  There wasn't anyone guiding these puppies in.  Also there was hours of preparation for the strike.  They moved planes, they cleared out equipment.  It was not a successful strike.  It was a loud nothingburger.

Rocinante wrote:

DWags wrote:

Doesn't matter that we have an incompetent President.   The Navy has their shit together.  Their strikes last night were surgical and strategic.   They didn't hit the runway because we didn't give a fuck about their planes.  We destroyed what we thought were buildings holding chemical weapons.  They were around the runway.  

My business partners son is one bad ass Navy seal.  The shit he's told us when home is nuts.  They actually, sometimes, have these fuckers on the ground, directing the missles incoming with hand helds from a vantage point where they're on the ground.  That shit wasn't willey Nilley last night.  Our Navy doesn't fuck around.  

You should read that intercept article I posted.  And follow a few of the links, especially to field reports.  There wasn't anyone guiding these puppies in.  Also there was hours of preparation for the strike.  They moved planes, they cleared out equipment.  It was not a successful strike.  It was a loud nothingburger.

I will. I hope this asshole doesn't put good people out to hang. Navy does some pretty awesome things.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

You should read that intercept article I posted.  And follow a few of the links, especially to field reports.  There wasn't anyone guiding these puppies in.  Also there was hours of preparation for the strike.  They moved planes, they cleared out equipment.  It was not a successful strike.  It was a loud nothingburger.

I will. I hope this asshole doesn't put good people out to hang. Navy does some pretty awesome things.

I am a Navy veteran. U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Affectionately referred to as "the lincoln log" while I was serving.

Rocinante wrote:

DWags wrote:

I will. I hope this asshole doesn't put good people out to hang. Navy does some pretty awesome things.

I am a Navy veteran. U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Affectionately referred to as "the lincoln log" while I was serving.

Awesome. Best part of my business partner's son becoming a seal was the ceremony where they pinned him. No family. AFter two years of grueling tests and starting out with about 2K and washing them out bit by bit for two years you get these generals or admirals who fly into a specific spot and pin them, no family nobody else. Some of the shit they made these kids do was nuts. Tommy was a state champion wrestler in Class A at 171 and was a bad ass in college too. When he became a seal he actually scared me at dinners just looking at him and knowing what he could do if he wanted too. LOL. Much respect for Navy men and women

Yeah, I do not know 50 ways to kill you with my bare hands.

Rocinante wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote: Attacking another country?  He doesn't need Congressional approval for that, any more than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford (?), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Eisenhower did for attacks that they ordered.

This is a real sticking point for me. I think a president should always have to secure some kind of congressional approval for a strike that is not either in direct response to an attack on Americans, or in defense of an anticipated strike (preemptive). The reason being, we have situations like what's been going on all over the middle-east: Constant air strikes without any actual declaration of war, war being fought with no consequences to those waging it back home. There needs to be authorizations so that constituents can hold their reps accountable for the forever war that is no war.

The easy cop out of never actually declaring war makes nobody responsible, and the defense contractors keep the $$ rolling in.

The budget is kind of the same way. You know there hasn't been an actual budget passed and serious budget since 2010, right?

100%

LooseGoose wrote:Every day I love Nikki Haley more.

Kyle Feldscher‏Verified account @Kyle_Feldscher  2h2 hours ago
More
Damn, @nikkihaley.

I like that.

All joking assad, things are getting pretty syrias.

What's the end game? We bombed them. They deserved it. Now what? What do we want?

DWags wrote:What's the end game? We bombed them. They deserved it. Now what? What do we want?

Go golfing? Man is Sean hannity gonna be pissed!

Didn't Susan Rice say on tv last year all the chemical weapons were out of Syria?

DWags wrote:What's the end game? We bombed them. They deserved it. Now what? What do we want?

Lol

There is no end game in the ME. Ever.

The_Dude wrote:Didn't Susan Rice say on tv last year all the chemical weapons were out of Syria?

Multiple times. As did Rhodes and other Obama people....but if you mention that you're being tribal.

LooseGoose wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Didn't Susan Rice say on tv last year all the chemical weapons were out of Syria?

Multiple times. As did Rhodes and other Obama people....but if you mention that you're being tribal.

You seem to like using that word a lot. Do you think you're not "tribal"? Do you not participate in "tribalism"?

And what is the point? Did you want to send in troops to make sure all the chemical weapons were gone? Do you think they're all gone now? Do you think any have been manufactured there, or brought into the country since then?

Why did Congress not support Obama when he wanted to take a more serious approach with Syria? Was it...tribalism? Did you support the Republican (or conservative) position then? Have you flip flopped now? Like Trump did?

And I'd be careful responding to The_Comrade or clicking on his (russian-insider) links. You may expose yourself to Russian hackers...unless that's (still) OK with you.

LooseGoose wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Didn't Susan Rice say on tv last year all the chemical weapons were out of Syria?

Multiple times. As did Rhodes and other Obama people....but if you mention that you're being tribal.

Rice also lied about Benghazi and Bergdal. How does she have any credibility with people with functioning brains is amazing.