Looming Disaster - Trump Inching The USA Closer to Another War

Practice harder.

 

O we have another one, have posted the legal grounds for the strike on Salami a couple of times now, as have others. If you don't like the legal facts, make a legal argument, but broad appeals to half-baked "Constitutional Principles" are a loser wherever there is specific law in place.

Want to have a dorm BS session on abstract Constitutional Law? Fine, I participate in those all the time here and often on your side. But this situation is not that, the applicable law is the applicable law. There are in fact several valid theories supporting the strike, not just UAMF > Treasury terrorist assessment. There have been no arguments against legality of the strike that aren't pure armchair lawyering BS.

 

There have been no arguments FOR the strike that aren't pure armchair lawyering BS.

And I couldn't care less if they're made by attorneys. The Constitution is clear. Making up "legal excuses" is not the same as acting legally.

 

Well, except for the law you might have something.

 

"The law" says that Congress has the power to declare War. Not the President.

 

Congress makes the law. Look up the War Powers Act.

 

There you go....

 

AUMF + Treasury designation as Terrorist (both linked in the thread) = Lawful kill as a matter of simple legal fact even armchair lawyers, our foreign posters on PF, and other terrorist apologists can comprehend. Yet sadly some of you can't despite the crayons. Don't like Congress keeping blank check military authorizations in place through several Administrations? I don't either, but AUMF is in force, the criteria for its use were met, and that is the current state of the law. Take it to SCOTUS or get Congress to repeal/amend the authorization. But for now, it IS the law, and the strike was authorized under it. That is an irrefutable fact.

Also, POTUS has extremely broad authority to protect American military assets without any other authorization whatsoever. Suleimani poking his head up like a whack a mole anywhere -remotely- close to aggression against US troops, ESPECIALLY proximate in time to an attack on a US embassy post Benghazi, will go down as one of the most boneheaded, arrogant errors in modern military history. Would be as if they caught Esper climbing up to remove their jihad flag this afternoon. Yes, THAT tactically stupid.

Will just be cutpasting this going forward because our foreign poster friends aren't addressing it and certainly aren't qualified to discuss U.S. law intelligently. So reply all you like, you will be getting this again unless and until you reply to it in an honest, straightforward responsive way.

 

When one nation destroys the citizens or property of another nation, that means they're at war. To suggest otherwise is to abuse the English language and common sense.

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

Your fallacy was already explained to you but I guess if you repeat it often even you will come to believe it. Oh wait, you believed it the first time it was fed to you.

 

Summary and Keywords
The Supreme Court of the United States stands at the head of the nation’s judicial system. Created in Article III of the Constitution of 1787 but obscured by the other branches of government during the first few decades of its history, the Court came into its own as a co-equal branch in the early 19th century. Its exercise of judicial review—the power that it claimed to determine the constitutionality of legislative acts—gave the Court a unique status as the final arbiter of the nation’s constitutional conflicts. From the slavery question during the antebellum era to abortion and gay rights in more recent times, the Court has decided cases brought to it by individual litigants, and in doing so has shaped American constitutional and legal development. Composed of unelected justices who serve “during good behavior,” the Court’s rise in stature has not gone uncontested. Throughout the nation’s history, Congress, the president, and organized interest groups have all attempted to influence the Court’s jurisdiction, composition, and decision making. The Court’s prominence reflects Americans’ historically paradoxical attitudes toward the judiciary: they have often been suspicious of the power of unelected judges at the same time that they have relied on independent judicial institutions to resolve their deepest disputes.

Keywords: Supreme Court, judicial review, judicial activism, U.S. Constitution, constitutional law, constitutional rights, justices, Bill of Rights, “Living Constitution,”, original intent, rule of law

Origins

 

Were we at war with Pakistan when we went into that country and killed Ben Laden?

 

Correct but that has nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution. Judicial review is about determining if a law is constitutionally compliant or not, it isn't about trying to try to fit the Constitution to the law. SCOTUS takes it much further than that by claiming it has the power to interpret the Constitution. If that power was granted to the judiciary, it would have been explicitly stated in Article III and they would have never required such an epiphany in Marbury v Madison. As explained, their seized power equates to amending the Constitution AND inventing its own form of legislation, otherwise known as case law.

To interpret the Constitution, one only requires an English language dictionary, it's written in plain English. The black robed lawyers should be able to handle that.

 

AUMF + Treasury designation as Terrorist (both linked in the thread) = Lawful kill as a matter of simple legal fact even armchair lawyers, our foreign posters on PF, and other terrorist apologists can comprehend. Yet sadly some of you can't despite the crayons. Don't like Congress keeping blank check military authorizations in place through several Administrations? I don't either, but AUMF is in force, the criteria for its use were met, and that is the current state of the law. Take it to SCOTUS or get Congress to repeal/amend the authorization. But for now, it IS the law, and the strike was authorized under it. That is an irrefutable fact.

Also, POTUS has extremely broad authority to protect American military assets without any other authorization whatsoever. Suleimani poking his head up like a whack a mole anywhere -remotely- close to aggression against US troops, ESPECIALLY proximate in time to an attack on a US embassy post Benghazi, will go down as one of the most boneheaded, arrogant errors in modern military history. Would be as if they caught Esper climbing up to remove their jihad flag this afternoon. Yes, THAT tactically stupid.

Will just be cutpasting this going forward because our foreign poster friends aren't addressing it and certainly aren't qualified to discuss U.S. law intelligently. So reply all you like, you will be getting this again unless and until you reply to it in an honest, straightforward responsive way.

 

Yeah, Ethereal, Iran did PLENTY of that with their Quds terrorist army in Iraq -- killing hundreds of American military personnel and contractors in the process. But, fidelity to the English language and 'common sense' notwithstanding, what do YOU think the Iranians are going to do now besides sputter and spew...? Anything...?

BTW, just today, the Iranians had their Al-Shabab proxy-army attack a joint-forces military base used by the U. S. and others in Kenya. Americans and others were killed or injured: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50997769 . Are the Iranians really this stupid...?

 

Some have argued that we were, but that's neither here nor there, since Bin Laden was not an official within the Pakistani government.

 

Only if you operate under the assumption that every Shiite with a rifle in their hands is an Iranian proxy. An assumption that quickly falls apart under even minimal scrutiny.

But even if Iran were responsible for attacks on US military personnel in Iraq, that wouldn't make it terrorism in any legal or technical sense of the word. It's just warfare between belligerents, like when the Vietcong were resisting US occupation of Vietnam. And once you recognize that, you must also recognize that the ONLY reason why Americans are getting killed in Iraq is because the US government sent them there as part of an imperialist invasion and occupation.

Oh boy...

Al-Shabab are Al Qaeda, Sunnis. Iranians are Shiites. They are mortal enemies. One of the main reasons why Soleimani was in Iraq and Syria so much was because he was helping to organize campaigns against ISIS and Al Qaeda.

 

You can repeat it a thousand times just like any parrot but what it really is is color of law, just like any other unconstitutional pretense of law. Goebbels would have been proud of you, you validate his propaganda perfectly.

And what country are you from?

 

After first threatening Iran with war, Trump turned his attention to Baghdad and threatened Iraq.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/tru...ns-on-iraq-like-theyve-never-seen-before.html

Trump's decision making is flawed -- no surprise there -- and it is becoming a serious threat to our national security.

No shock there, either.

He doesn't listen to anyone. His own advisors were surprise by the ordered killing of Qasem Soleimani. Because he is President, Trump thinks he is omnipotent, and he can do anything he wants.

I thought he wanted out of foreign entanglements. I guess he changed his mind.

 

Even his butt buddy Vlad the Bad will oppose him in his fight with Iran.

 

Funny how Trump has done more against Russia than the last POTUS yet here you are with your insane conspiracy.

 

As far back as autumn of 2002, I was 'a voice crying in the wilderness' against invasion of Iraq! And, decades ago, I loathed and despised hyperliberal Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, for his ruinous war in Vietnam. I'm not a 'war-hawk', unless there is a reason to wage war -- and then it should be done to WIN... not to simply go blow billions of dollars we don't have in some 3rd-world toilet....

That said, the al-Shabab army is 'Sunni', as you say, and not 'Shi'a' as I implied. In this, you were right and I was wrong! It's no excuse but sometimes I get this whole "enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend" thing confused. It seems that even if Islam were successful in killing or converting every 'infidel' in the world, the 'Sunni' faction would still be trying to annihilate the 'Shi'a', and vice-versa.... The hatred all these Muslims have for themselves is astounding, and it goes back many centuries.

One thing I'm not confused about, though, is the fact that this General Soleimani was the commander of the Iranian Quds army in Iraq, and that this army had been killing American military personnel since shortly after we arrived there. It's interesting that although numerous 'enemy-combatants' were killed by drone strikes with Obama's permission, when Trump authorizes a strike it's grounds for all the Democrats to scream bloody murder and raise almost as much hell about it as the crazed, Islamo-Nazi priesthood that rules Iran!

 

"Islamo-Nazi priesthood" aside, and regardless of what you may think of Soleimani, the Iraqi PM has stated that Soleimani was flying into Iraq on a diplomatic mission.

Given that Trump notified the Saudis before the attack, and Iraq also (although only within minutes of the attack in Iraq's case), there is NO WAY he could not have known that Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission.

This is a very dangerous precedent that cannot be papered over by calling people names.

•••••••••••••••••••
https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/financial-n-option-will-settle-trumps-oil-war/

The bombshell facts were delivered by caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, during an extraordinary, historic parliamentary session in Baghdad on Sunday.

Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani had flown into Baghdad on a normal carrier flight, carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by the Trump administration.

So Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump. And Soleimani was a messenger. Adil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am, Baghdad time, last Friday. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport.