Take away his button. The president does not have the right to start a war - only Congress does.
What if the other side hits first, such as in the case of North Korea who is threatening? Does the POTUS not have the right to take steps to defend his country despite his being the most unpopular POTUS ever?
Defensive actions are why a president has the button. This idiot says it it his to use as he thinks best, or as they say - in pure right wing snowflake stance - "but my feelie felt threatened".
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Take away his button. The president does not have the right to start a war - only Congress does.
What if the other side hits first, such as in the case of North Korea who is threatening? Does the POTUS not have the right to take steps to defend his country despite his being the most unpopular POTUS ever?
Not having the right to start a war is not the same as not having the right to respond when another country starts one.
In any case it's a moot point. While the President doesn't have the right to declare war, he does have the authority to use military force without a declaration of war. Provided he eventually notifies Congress, etc.
This was nailed down a couple decades ago in two opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. The first, issued in 1994, defended the plan to send 20,000 troops into Haiti and the second, issued in 1995, provided the legal authority for the use of air power in Bosnia. It was nothing new even then: President Bush I ordered troops into Panama in 1989 to overthrow General Manuel Noriega, without seeking Congress' authorization.
"Exercise a no-fly zone this evening."
- Newt Gingrich, 3/7/11
"I would not have intervened."
- Newt Gingrich, 3/23/11
Take away his button. The president does not have the right to start a war - only Congress does.
What if the other side hits first, such as in the case of North Korea who is threatening? Does the POTUS not have the right to take steps to defend his country despite his being the most unpopular POTUS ever?
It's not a matter of unpopularity - it's a matter of clear and demonstrable irresponsibility and unpredictability. There's never been a President so easily offended and so eager to "strike back ten times harder" upon any real or imagined "attack." This is a lifelong trait of Trump, long before he was President*, and there's no evidence he's been changed by the responsibility of the office or is affected by the advice of experts. This isn't somebody you want to have an unfettered thumb on the button. Other presidents could be relied on to act after conferring with staff, military, and some members of Congress rather than to go off half-cocked, spouting insults via Twitter.
What if the other side hits first, such as in the case of North Korea who is threatening?
Hitting first and threatening are 2 different things. We threaten NK all the time.
Does the POTUS not have the right to take steps to defend his country despite his being the most unpopular POTUS ever?
The bigger concern is that he will take steps that he claims are in defense of his country BECAUSE he's the most unpopular POTUS ever.
... This was nailed down a couple decades ago in two opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. The first, issued in 1994, defended the plan to send 20,000 troops into Haiti and the second, issued in 1995, provided the legal authority for the use of air power in Bosnia. It was nothing new even then: President Bush I ordered troops into Panama in 1989 to overthrow General Manuel Noriega, without seeking Congress' authorization....
I agree that the War Powers Act has been weakened and ignored for a long time thanks to a cowardly Congress. However, it doesn't have to be that way.
As for your citing the Office of Legal Counsel again:
rstrong wrote:... In reality the legal issues were settled by the Office of Legal Counsel when the same thing was done with troops sent into Haiti and Bosnia in the 1990s.
"real world" ain't necessarily the legal world. If Congress want's to add Syria to the articles of impeachment, fine with me. We'll see who's left to defend Dolt .45 on the point. Lots more people besides Republicans in Congress declared Obama's military action in Libya to be unconstitutional.
I thought that judges settle legal issues rather than the underlings of the alleged perp. Anyhow, the Office of Legal Counsel doesn't make your point. Obama overruled it to attack Libya.
WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged....
Such executive actions are only legal in a world where bombing is not “hostilities".
Libya and Panama did not turn out well and Haiti was iffy, and precedent does not make right.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Which can be summed up as "Not everyone - even within the Office of Legal Counsel - agrees."
But enough do agree, both within the OLC and Congress. Even Republicans - looking for ANY excuse to impeach Obama - went along with him. (Grandstanding excepted of course: They were demanding military action in Libya right up until they got their wish.)
I'm not saying that that's how it should be, but it's well-established that that's how it is.
In any case, besides attacks on America itself, what of mutual defense treaties? Libya was a NATO action, prompted by waves of Libyan refugees showing up on their shores. When the US signs a treaty, does the President need to wait for authorization when it comes time to honor it?
In any case, besides attacks on America itself, what of mutual defense treaties? Libya was a NATO action, prompted by waves of Libyan refugees showing up on their shores. When the US signs a treaty, does the President need to wait for authorization when it comes time to honor it?
My opinion, I'm no int'l lawyer: No, if a NATO member is attacked. Yes, since refugees are not an attack. In reality, nothing ever happens no matter what the POTUS does. We may see the extreme consequences of that congressional lapse with Dolt .45.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
The North Atlantic Treaty covers national security issues beyond armed attacks. In large numbers - like during a nearby civil war as in the Libyan case - refugees can arrive in large enough numbers to qualify.
Another good example would be the 1980 Mariel boatlift. During an economic downturn Castro allowed anyone to leave, including opening up the prisons and mental hospitals to anyone who would head for the US. 125,000 Cubans showed up in Florida in just five months, 70,000 in the first month alone.
The Coast Guard was overwhelmed, and it quickly became a military operation. The Navy sent ships. The Marines supplied camps, interpreters, security and air cover. The Army and National Guard provided security and interpreters.
I get that NATO can and does act in a variety of situations but I think whether its members have to short of a military attack, especially without congressional consultation, is murkier. Understanding that Wiki might be wrong, it says:
... NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party....
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the September 11 attacks, after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked five times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War; twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War, after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet, and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria; in 2014 by Poland, following the Russian intervention in Crimea; and again by Turkey in 2015 after threats by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to its territorial integrity....
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [2], on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
It sounds to me like you're arguing that Article 4 events have the same strength of mandated obligation that Article 5 events do.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
I watched an interesting episode of M*A*S*H tonight. Margaret got the idea for a time capsule to be buried on the MASH grounds with instructions on a plaque to unearth it in 100 years. After all the comedies that's usual with the program, the capsule was about to be buried with each MASH member donating something that was symbolic with their personal experience in Korea.
The most sobering moment came when Father Mulcahy dedicated his boxing gloves; dedicating them in hopes that if another conflict with Korea ever broke out, the two country's leaders would don his gloves.
Meanwhile in Vancouver, a bunch of roads are closed while American police motorcycles escort American military vehicles through the city.
(They're shooting Deadpool 2.)
They just had a death on set. A female stunt rider lost control of her motorcycle and crashed through the window of a Starbucks.
