'The worst briefing I've had': Senate Iran briefing gets heated

He did so in a timely manner.

 

This is apparently the primary problem that Mike Lee had with the Intelligence Briefing on Soleimani. The Trump administration refused to answer even that basic question.

 

You keep dodging the question

How can you possible say that an active terrorist who has been actively attacking us and even ramping up the frequency and nature those attacks is not an imminent threat?

 

America did not kill Ghaddafi.

And you appear to be insinuating that the administration can avoid its notification requirements by simply declaring someone a terrorist. Is that your argument?

 

Because imminent threat means that you need to have evidence of a planned attack in the future which threatens American interests.

 

Setting aside the fact that I simply do not believe you can rationally make that claim without ignoring direct evidence of a negative impact caused by his lies (like the fact that your goods and services have increased in price explicitly because of his trade tariffs while he lied - repeatedly - and claimed that foreign countries would pay and are paying for them), allow me to probe you on this question:

Does a politician's lie only matter to you if it has a direct negative impact on your life?

 

Our bombing led to it...Yes you figured it out.. Trump got Obama, GB and Israel to label him a Terrorist so years later he could kill him to distract from an empty impeachment.....

You exposed it all!

 

You have evidence he would no longer engage in terrorist attacks? Why should we have believed he had stopped?

 

You realize the first question would require proving a negative, right?

Ultimately it is not the job of those questioning the administration to prove that he was no longer an imminent threat, it is the job of the administration to prove that he WAS an imminent threat.

 

OK, let me be more explicit in my argument.

Simply labeling someone a terrorist does not grant automatic authorization to the administration to kill that person.

 

To whom?

 

Nice, I think you completely missed the point of my thread. Expect better from a Boiler.

 

It's definitely a threat. An imminent threat means it's going to happen very soon and you know the approximate time and place. Apparently, the classified briefing failed to convince many of the attendees that the administration had that information or was not willing to share it.

 

Good point.

 

How did I miss your point?
You asked a question about why...someone would support terrorist?
I replied making a statement that no US citizens suppor terrorists or terrorism.
My reply was quite accurate.
It was a comparison to a statement made by Collins which coincided with you the question of....Why do they support terrorists?

 

The War Powers Act requires notification of military action to Congress within 48 hours, citing the circumstances of the action, the imminent threat to the U.S., and the legislative or constitutional authority under which the action was taken. The White House needs to release a copy of such notification, appropriately redacted.

 

I would.

It's not Trump's fault that the Iranians are so incompetent that they can't monitor air traffic that's right next to their artillery to determine friend from foe.

I mean WOW... how inbred are they?

 

And that approximate can be weeks or even months and no you don't have to know the place only that this person is actively engaged in attack the US and US interest and citizens. Unless you can prove he has given up his terrorist ways and plans he was an imminent threat to further attacks.

 

They don't. That's the point. So just maybe none of the critics do?

 

What's the legal authority behind your claim?

 

They briefed Congress and have no requirement to release anything publicly. The guy was an ACTIVE terrorist ACTIVELY working with terrorist groups to ACTIVELY attack us and our interest and working to destabilize Iraq and the region. We don't have to know exactly where the next attack will come he had already established the imminence to stop him by whatever force necessary.

 

War powers act, ATUMF, international law, our national interest you're claiming we cannot kill known terrorist actively engaged in plotting and committing terrorist acts when we have the opportunity? What more imminence did you need with this guy? If we get intelligence there is a ISIS bombing making shop located in the mountains if Kabul does the President have to get some legal permission to take it out, does Congress have to vote on it?

 

The Democrats would leak the information to sabotage the operation, anything to hurt Trump.

 

Much better...

 

Apparently a number of the briefed Congressional members, including Republicans, were not impressed with the level of detail presented in the briefing. Terrorism as a method of warfare will become inevitable for non-nuclear nation-states versus those states armed with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean the President is free to act against ALL terrorists everywhere, without having to make specific cases to justify specific acts to Congress. That's U.S. law. International Law, to which we have agreed via treaties and conventions (e.g. the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), places the burden of embassy and consulate protection on the host country. If we had intelligence on "imminent attacks on U.S. citizens (military or civilian) and our Embassy, we should have coordinated the attack with the Iraqis. We are in their country at their invitation.