Lots of shifting narratives re Iran.
Never a good sign when the mission and objective is murky.
And the justification: it appears Israel was threatened. Not a lawful basis:
“(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Once again, the rule of law (US and International) should matter, especially when we use military power. There’s a reason why our Constitution requires the consent of the American people.
Replies to: Lots of shifting narratives re Iran.
The notion that we had to act because Israel was about to attack is the weakest statement...
....a US leader has ever made. Now Rubio, Johnson and Cotton have all said it.
Nothing we can do - the Israelis are running the show!
Just a jaw-dropping thing to say.
Indeed. Iran never attacks first. Hamas endorses your statement.
(no message)
**
(no message)
Number 2 fits the bill here for justification.
I'm sure our military planners have a solid plan for the mission and objective.
Can you cite the statute that authorized Saturday's attack.
I don't recall a debate and vote on House and Senate floors.
President Trump told us last year that Iran's nuclear program was "obliterated."
This isn't a full scale war (to quote Obama), and so itvis justified.
June 16, 2011
Reporter: "Madame Speaker, you are saying that the president did not need authorization initially and still does not need any authorization from Congress on Libya (for military strikes)?"
Pelosi: "Yes."
Today, Pelosi: "The Constitution is clear: decisions that lead our nation into war must be authorized by Congress."
--
Per Pelosi, and Obama, either (1) military air strikes are not war and need no approval from Congress, OR (2) Pelosi has different standards for Dem presidents than GOP presidents.
So, either Trump's strikes on Iran are legally justified, or we can safely ignore the opinion of those like Pelosi, conor and Tyrone who make up different "standards" to justify their own party and condemn the other, even for the same or very similar actions.
They know that they have no leg to stand on.
Can't get more disingenuous than Coner.
When did Obama launch a military campaign of war, ala Saturday's actions?
Are you talking about drone strikes at terrorist targets???
Ah, so you see the parallels to Trump now. Good for you.
Interestingly, Obama bombed an ally in the war on terror. And Qadaffi had turned over all of Libya's Nuclear equipment to Bush. Obama showed the world how fast the US turns on its allies...and how fast the US will aid its enemies with pallets of untraceable cash so the can kill Americans. At least Trump is bombing a true enemy. So, there is one clear difference between the two.
The War Powers Act.
Which states the president “shall in every possible instance consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” It also requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any such deployments of U.S. forces without a prior declaration of war from Congress, with a justification for the constitutional and legislative authority for the actions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday that the Trump administration notified Congress by meeting with the so-called Gang of Eight, which includes members of intelligence committees for both the U.S. House and Senate.
Indeed. That's the statute I copied in my original post.
The law first requires "a national emergency created by attack upon the United State, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Then, and only then, the President goes to Congress.
In this instance, Trump did not have legal justification to wing it.
Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541
Thank you for proving my point, the act is 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548.
Try reading the whole thing.
Identify the section that justifies Trump’s action.
(no message)
Disingenuous. Below, you never cited a section justifying Obama's actuons.
You ended up linking a British article which quoted Obama as saying his action was justified.
Trump has already satisfied the standards you use for Obama.
"Thank you for proving my point" = PaND's telltale surrender.
(no message)
Dude ain’t a bag of brains
(no message)
Iran deserves your hatred at least as much as Russia does...even more.
(no message)
Oh, I hate Iran. I was just pointing out the stupidity of PA. He’s undoubtedly the worst poster …
in the history of this board. No offense intended, of course.
Consent Management