While President Trump and other administration officials have insisted
time and again for months that they aren’t seeking a war with Iran,
they’ve also spent that same time more or less constantly threatening
war with Iran. This has raised a lot of questions about what the legal
basis for such a war even would be.
Officials aren’t making it clear exactly which pretext they intend to use,
but seem to be piecing together a lot of possibilities. The Pentagon is
saying that their legal opinion is that the 2001 Authorization for the
Use of Military Force (AUMF) doesn’t apply.
That’s sort of what State Department officials told Congress recently,
though they left open some wiggle room by only saying they don’t intend
to use the 2001 AUMF as a justification at this time. Clearly that could
change at any time if they think the excuse would work.
And they’re already putting out trial balloons for any number of other
excuses, including the 2003 AUMF to attack Iraq, which a State
Department report suggested might apply if the war on Iran was necessary
to “establish a stable, democratic Iraq.” This may be why officials are
making Iran so heavily about Iraq.
On top of that, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has
argued that Trump has unilateral war-making powers as the
commander-in-chief, and could unilaterally start a war with a
hand-waving claim of national security reasons.
This seems to be the one Trump favors, from his own comments to the
media. Trump has said he is confident he has all the authority he needs,
and argued after the recent plan to attack Iran, called off at the last
minute, he didn’t believe he even needed to tell Congress about an
attack, let alone seek authorization.
Only Congress can declare war, and if Trump goes to war with Iran without that, all bets are off and he becomes a tyrant over night and all that back his decision are to be seen the same way. It will then become the duty for all freedom loving and Constitution supporting citizens to do what is needed to oust the Tyrant and his cohorts. However, the same can be said about those who want open borders, will not enforce the laws equally and intend to make legal citizenship a worthless thought.
What constitution are you talking about? The US constitution has been a dead letter for quite some time.
Solly, so you just accept that as fact and move on to the next sporting event, cook out, etc.??????
No cookouts/burgers/hotdogs etc. I don’t observe any tnational holiday (July4, Tgiving, Xmas, etc.), I don’t believe in saluting a piece of cloth or singing the national anthem with hand on heart.
Real patriotism does not require any of the above.
PS: like our foremost sage said, tune in, turn on, drop out 🙂
Solly, Yes, me too, but for me it is, tune in, turn on, and Lock and load! 😉
is an a s&w 686 or a gp100 🙂
Imagine if everyone did the same. How many dead people would there be and for how many different reasons or motives? The romanticized version of revolution gets in the way of what would really happen. We are a selfish people.
Pretty common for old scores to be settled during civil unrest. As an octogenarian once told me of her family in Missouri, “they was already killing each other, the civil war just happened to pass by.”
wars, think of it this way, The romanticized version of abortion gets in the way of what really happens in the womb. We are a selfish, self centered people.
That doesn’t even make sense. Why do you keep bringing up abortion on an anti-war site? Isn’t there some anti-abortion echo chamber site you can camp out at and get your jollies off?
It’s only a holiday if you get paid without going to work.
Ah, the good old days. I do look at holidays differently since hanging up the work boots.
The rule of law in the USA ended on 9/11.
Yup. And historians will look back and also mark it as the year when the American Empire began its downfall.
No. It began its downfall years prior, 9/11 was the tipping point.
Agree. I meant to say that but worded it poorly.
The rule of law ended long ago. Long before 9/11.
So in your mind, acquiescing to a totalitarian President is roughly equal to a more generous immigration policy.
Because we have a guy in office right now who believes he doesn’t even need to INFORM anyone in Congress when he unilaterally attacks a sovereign nation, putting 400 million people at risk from the inevitable backlash. But yeah, those immigrants who want to come to America and bust their ass to be successful, that’s the worst.
Mork, Immigrants must follow the law and come legally, at least to apply at a USA embassy.. We cannot pick and choose the laws you and I follow, so why should non citizens, law breakers, be allowed too? Trump is not a “totalitarian President”, he is just following the established playbook of LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Clinton and Obama. You can also blame the COWARDS in Congress for allowing it to happen.
“Immigrants must follow the law and come legally”
And the Supreme Law of the Land says that the federal government doesn’t get to regulate immigration.
Thomas, please explain who does regulate immigration,,I will be waiting for your answer. 🙂
According to the US Constitution, that could be:
1) The states;
2) The people; or
3) Nobody.
US TRIES LURING IRAN INTO SHOOTING DOWN ANOTHER US PLANE & US-BACKED FORCES KILL 44 LIBYAN CIVILIANS
http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/daily-wrap-up/us-tries-luring-iran-into-shooting-down-another-us-plane-us-backed-forces-kill-44-libyan-civilians/
Try getting your facts straight. It is misleading to the point of being flat-out wrong that the Libyan migrant detention center was bombed by “US-backed” forces. The Libyan clusterf*ck is way more complicated than that. The bombing was carried out by General Kalifa Haftar, who was indeed a CIA asset at one time. But his ambitions and alliances have been incredibly fluid, so there’s much more to the story.
This Reuters article …
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-analysis/libya-offensive-stalls-but-haftar-digs-in-given-foreign-sympathies-idUSKCN1RR1R6
… states,
“…Haftar for now will face no pressure from ***backers including the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and France***, who still see him as the best bet to end the chaos and divisions since the ousting of Gaddafi in 2011.”
So Haftar’s ***principal***backers currently are “United Arab Emirates, Egypt and France”.
Haftar is our man in Libya. The sob lived right next to Langley for many years. Mr. T called him when he started his assault on Tripoli.
At issue is: where did Haftar’s bombs come from?
Fair enough. But if the UAE is supplying Haftar with US-manufactured weaponry, then the question would be are they doing it with or without US authorization?
UAE and for that matter no other recipient of US arms can use or divert the weapons without US authorization .
Don’t be naive. The UAE might do whatever it wants and then deal with the US complaining about it. (Which doesn’t mean that the US/CIA didn’t authorize the transfer and then just later feigned to be all “Shocked! Shocked! that you violated our agreement.”) There’s no telling what the truth is.
If Houthis in Yemen are always referred to as “Iran-backed” why should Haftar in Libya (or Saudis attacking Yemen) not be called “USA-backed”?
Even more so. Iran’s backing of the Houthis is minimal while Haftar and the Saudis backing by the US is essential.
It seems US is blocking an U.N. condemnation .
It is happening while piracy expert , seasoned terrorist , looter county by name England has boarded Syrian cargo .
( one wonders if Barbary piracy had their own code of conduct and communal decision making process in 18 th century . England has with other European white Christian nation . The military muscle they wield make sure the vulnerable illegal Saudi will always support them )
Third – in the chain of causation sand effect – anything that happens to Libya stem directly from malfeasance and genocidal US-UK – France policies ( or communal jigra the Afghan hold among themselves before stoning someone )
We know from experience, if a US president engages in foreign aggression, Congress and all other Americans will be pressured to show unity in the face of the inevitable retaliation and various consequences. Let us either unite for peace or celebrate our division.
“The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!” Trump tweeted in August 2013.
Politicians are hypocrites, what else is new?
Nothing, but I like pointing it out.
All that rule-of-law stuff ended on 9/11. Shortly after that horrible false-flag event, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. Trump can do whatever he wants at this point and he knows it. Our Zionist-controlled Congress will rubber stamp any declaration of war that he proposes and the controlled MSM will gush over the “beauty of our weapons.” The fact that war with Iran is leading to WWIII means that we’re totally f-cked. Heaven help us.
Heaven didn’t help the corrupted Rome of 1527, and it won’t help the corrupted United States today. As a matter of fact, it’s on the other side. This is called a chastisement, for humility and repentance.
There’s no such thing as karma. Hubris, however, is alive as well.
Karma is wishful thinking by us atheists.
I didn’t mention “karma”
Over 18 years later and still no one certifiably involved in the so-called ‘false flag’ attack has come forward to confirm it as such.
You don’t think Bin Laden accurately pinpointed weak points in both American security and American politicosociology?
No way in Hell I’ll vote for Trump again in 2020 if he starts a war.
His current economic warfare against multiple countries, most noticeably Iran, should have already made that decision for you. Killing without bombs, although he continues to do that also, is still killing. Of course if he’s running against Biden, we might as all kiss our asses goodbye.
There is truth in what you post…, regrettably.
Biden has a history of touching young women and girls in alarming ways.. YouTube has some interesting videos of.him at work at this. I find it hard to believe that there isn’t some fatal video or victim out there just waiting for the opporune moment to let it out.
How could you vote for him again, when his administration has been such a rudderless trainwreck? I get that you might have thought that his being a Washington outsider would mean something, but he’s clearly either in over his head, or very much going along with the status quo.
He got nothing meaningful accomplished during the first 2 years of his administration, when he had GOP majorities in both houses of Congress. Because he’s not about actually enacting policies, he just likes to complain, just like your 76 year old uncle at Thankgiving that you ignore,
“How could you vote for him?” One word…Killary.
No one on planet earth could have better served Trump’s election prospects than that incredibly corrupt woman. Had absolutely anyone, a cripple, a mental patient, an ape ran against Trump I’d have voted for that “anyone”.
But not Killary. I’ve had enough of the Clintons…more than enough.
I had Trump and the witch at the bottom of my list of candidates to vote for with the witch pulling up the rear. So unless the rest of the candidates had dropped out, I saw no reason to vote for either.
Wise.
Trump forfeited any right to declare himself a peace president when he had a death squad of Navy Seals murder an 8 year old American girl in Yemen along with most of her family during his first month in the White House. Hillary was worse. Biden is worse. But being mildly less homicidal than the biggest psycho in the race is a pretty sad reason to give someone a mandate with your vote. Staying home and jerking off would be more constructive. I don’t vote for people I couldn’t stomach an elevator ride with without guaranteeing their personal safety. At this point, Trump wouldn’t make it to the second floor.
He then used a dead Navy seal’s wife as a prop and said the raid was a success. He started lying very early on.
While pointing out Biden and Hillary, you forget that the GOP had roughly 20 other neocon presidential candidates in 2016. Biden worse that Ted Cruz, Jr??
Probably not, but I was talking about the front-runners. Cruz could never win a national campaign. His own children are revolted by him.
He spoke in favor of war crimes as a candidate.
should read “starts another war”. Trump is continuing multiple wars. He’s had two plus years and he hasn’t stopped any.
Yep. Sooooo true…regrettably.
How could you do it in the first place?
He spoke in favor of war crimes during the damn election.
No one on God’s Earth could have been the presidential candidate who assured a jingoist like Trump could be elected to the presidency like Killary Clinton.
The nickname I use is in common use and has meaning. Think Libya (which she bombed into the stone age) and Syria (which she intended to bomb back to the stone age along with the Russians and Iranians there which would have ensured WWIII). Run a better candidate than a warmonger next time.
Oh, and take responsibility for her loss. It was her doing exclusively that gave us Trump. You guys tried to put her into office. And, you and she alienated half the electorate by calling them Deplorables and other crummy names.
Ask Romney (47%) how effective it is to call the electorate bad names before an election you hope to win. Then ask Clinton the same question.
Libya was not lead by USA, it joined later on. And Trump supported the removal of that leader.
Syria began in 2006, as wikileaks has demonstrated, it was never close to ww3, that’s just pure BS fiction, it was always a proxy war between the west and the east.
Why would I take responsibility for that? She was not the one I truly wanted, besides the main fault lies with the public who so easily voted for the birther idiot. Heck, this is the country that voted for Bush because they much rather have a beer with him than Al Gore.
I’m not sure you remember the election that well, Trump basically called just about everyone names, including the voters.
The biggest and clearest example is when he said he could shoot someone and still be supported, this is not to praise the people, besides, he so easily outmanipulated them with his idiotic birtherism.
Besides, the whole MAGA thing makes it sounds like USA is a shithole country too, and only this guy can fix it. If any democratic had used that as a slogan they would have been accused of being unpatriotic. But so it went, the people voted for the guy who brags about not paying taxes and also hoped for a real estate crash for personal benefit.
And of course no actual personal experience in politics at all, to the damn highest possible office.
It’s at this point it is hard to think that it can become worse, but the cynic in me says the next Republican candidate will simply grunt to which the response will be
“he understands us at a deeper level”.
#stablegeniuses
I respect your point of view. I’m wondering if you do mine…and I doubt it.
Please don’t call me any nasty names. I get really tired of corresponding with folks on the Left who’ve lost all sense of gentlemanly behavior and civility just because being online means your out of range and more difficult to hold to account for that bad behavior.
Maybe we can correspond again.
Best,
David
I haven’t call you any names at all. None of that is directed directly towards you. And it’s quite a bit of irony when I am asked to responsibility for something I had nothing to do with, I’m basically at fault for her losing.
But if you put something into the memory from this…well then
“Run a better candidate than a warmonger next time.”
You actually elected one. Keep a better eye on what they say, this should be rather easy on a page like antiwar as during a long fundraiser they posted the quote in large font quoting Trump
“I am the most militaristic person in the room”.
I should not have to remind people of other things he he has said, like stealing resources, killing suspects families, win wars again, bring back torture and worse etc etc..
Good, nice talking with you.
Touch base with me anytime you like.
Best,
David
So Trump can launch WW3 without constitutional or congressional authorization but claims not to have authority to defend the nations` border unless its granted by his opponents in the Dem party or their courts?
Jerry, the demoncrats want illegalls by the millions for their sure demoncrat party votes, and then you will truly, as mork fears, have a one party totalitarian government!
According to the War Powers Act of 1973, Trump can initiate military action against anyone and only has to go to Congress within sixty days to get authorization to continue the war.
He is supposed to “consult” with Congress about engaging in military action before doing so. Presumably any discussions with any Congressional bodies or individuals would constitute that “consultation” and probably Trump has already done that to some degree. (I don’t know if his tweets constitute “consultation”.)
Following that, his responsibilities for reporting are:
Quote:
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
End Quote
After that, he only has to report to Congress every six months or less.
And once military action is started by the President, he has sixty days to run it before Congress has to act:
Quote
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
(c) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States,
its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
End Quote
So technically Trump is right – because he understands that once the war starts, it will run on its own – and that’s what he wants, whether or not he really believes it will be a “short war.”.
Congress is hardly going to simply sit on its hands for sixty days and then say, “We’re cutting off the funds, you can’t continue to ‘support the troops’.”
So any “legal basis” for an Iran war is irrelevant. If the US attacks Iran, Iran will attack all US assets in the region, plus all US allies including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. There’s no way the US Congress won’t continue the war after that.
Congress might not actually “declare war” – but they will pass a resolution authorizing continued actions against Iran, as the War Powers Resolution allows Congress to do. Otherwise they’ll have to deal with Israel and the US Christian Zionists who will be up in arms over any Iranian attacks on Israel. And of course, the Saudis and the UAE will be screaming bloody murder over the destruction of their oil facilities, so all their toadies in the Congress will be supporting them.
And can anyone imagine that after Iran has caused a couple thousand US casualties within the first sixty days – which is quite possible (and even more) – that the US electorate won’t support continued war on Iran?
So the legal basis is irrelevant – unless there is some slight possibility that someone might be indicted by The Hague in the future for the “ultimate war crime” of “starting an unncessary war.” Good luck with that.
Richard… You may be correct about the War Powers Act of 1973. However, since this act directly changes a direct statute of the Constitution it is in fact unconstitutional and an illegal law. Anything that contradicts what the Constitution has dictated can only be made legal through the amendment process…
Unfortunately it’s not that simple. The issue of where to invest war powers was a problem for the Framers, as indicated here:
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/
Originally Congress was to be given the sole power to “make” war in the Constitution, but then it was changed to “declare” war, while the President was made Commander-in-Chief. This made it vague as to when the President could actually commit troops. The Framers generally intended to make that only for the defense of the United States, and keep the US out of “wars of convenience” – but it hasn’t worked out that way.
This is another example of how the Constitution is basically a piece of paper that, in the absence of an electorate that holds the feet of its representatives to the fire, is basically meaningless.
The same applies to all the “gun control” efforts. So far the Supreme Court, at least as far as the Heller decision, has upheld the 2nd Amendment, but has also violated it at times. So neither the Courts nor the people put any teeth into the Constitution. And certainly the politicians violate it at every turn.
So, Trump is going to violate the Constitution and Congress is going to go along with it, just like Bush Jr. and many others before him. And if it becomes hard to start the Iran war, well, some false flag incidents will make it seem like a “defensive war” and Congress will authorize it anyway.
” the President was made Commander-in-Chief” …
“… of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”
But the army wasn’t intended to be a standing organization.
It, and the militia, were to be “called into the actual Service of the United States” when Congress declared war.
The War Powers Act is a strange thing.
Presidents say it’s unconstitutional whenever Congress actually tries to invoke its restrictions on executive power in the absence of a declaration of war, but are all for it when they use it as a hook for their supposed authority to order military actions.
Congress routinely includes, but never makes real use of, “war powers reservations” in its “authorizations for the use of military force” to make it clear that those AUMFs are NOT declarations of war.
So its general usage is usually directly opposite its supposed intent.
Thomas, I can’t disagree with anything you stated.
The problem is that so few American are civics minded (taught civics and history properly in high school) these days that most such claims by government, elected officials simply go over their heads…
And can anyone imagine that after Iran has caused a couple thousand US
casualties within the first sixty days – which is quite possible (and
even more) – that the US electorate won’t support continued war on Iran?
I wouldn’t support it’s start or continuance. I’ll vote against him in 2020 just to get his lying ass out of the WH, or, as comrad H suggests stay home.
A war with Iran could cause a crisis here at home. There’s no popular support for it. If it goes according to plan and the American forces mop up the Iranians, probably nobody will say anything about it. But if it turns sour, look out.
That wouldn’t happen. Iran would be much worse than Iraq.
The Trump Administration is completely bananas. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the president to initiate any for of warfare unless the United States is directly attacked. Everything else is complete nonsense as well as completely unconstitutional.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the president to initiate any for of warfare unless Congress declares war.”
Fixed, no charge.
Very good… 🙂