Is this war with Iran?

[iNow]

According to him and Nixon... If the president is the one doing it, then it’s legal by definition. Hence the checks and currently unbalanced balances. 

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My biggest question was related to whether or not it was a legal or reasonable decision

 

[MigL]

I'm not so sure it was a bad decision ( but not sure it was a good one either ).

Knowing D Trump, it was probably a decision based on ulterior motives, such as distraction from impeachment, wanting to 'stick-it' to Congress, getting NATO to spend more money, or simply one of many bad hair days.

However General Soleimani has been acting with impunity through the last two administrations, knowing full well that no one would have the backbone to take him out. He flies into the Baghdad airport a couple of days after orchestrating an attack on the American embassy; pretty bold move.
People like Soleimani, and Iran for that matter, keep on pushing, just like A Hitler did in 1939, and either you keep appeasing him and giving the bully your lunch money, or you push back.
Whatever his reasons, D Trump has decided to push back.

[zapatos]

The way cold wars keep from getting hot involves using something other than open warfare. That is why Iran uses proxies, denies bombing tankers or oil fields, etc. If Trump decided to take out Soleimani, I wish he would have done it with a bit more subterfuge. I feel like his 'in your face' approach makes it harder for Iran to respond with restraint of their own.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you can't or don't want to  answer the question then by all means be a smart ass. Makes for a great discussion.

I didn’t say what he did was a declaration of war, I said it was an act of war. And if you are going to apply a different standard to this part of the constitution as to much of the rest of it, then you’re right - there is no discussion to be had. If everything in the constitution were clearly defined, the SCOTUS would have nothing to do.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I didn’t say what he did was a declaration of war, I said it was an act of war. And if you are going to apply a different standard to this part of the constitution as to much of the rest of it, then you’re right - there is no discussion to be had. If everything in the constitution were clearly defined, the SCOTUS would have nothing to do.

We were talking about "declaration of war" up until your last post. Remember your first post to me when I asked what in the Constitution gave Congress and not Trump the Right to do what Trump did? You responded:

Quote

Article 1, section 8. Congress shall have the power to declare war (edit: also to raise money for armies, and that money can’t be appropriated for longer than 2 years)

 

I then asked how you define "declaration of war" and you stated:

Quote

It’s up to congress. 

 

Clearly we were talking about "declaration of war" from the very beginning.

Edited January 5, 2020 by zapatos

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We were talking about "declaration of war" up until your last post.

I think maybe you shouldn’t presume to tell me what I was talking about.

 

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Remember your first post to me when I asked what in the Constitution gave Congress and not Trump the Right to do what Trump did? You responded:

I then asked how you define "declaration of war" and you stated:

Next you brought up the War Powers Act.

Clearly we were talking about "declaration of war" from the very beginning.

 

I said it’s up to congress. And the war powers resolution was enacted by...congress.

And you had stated . “If a declaration of war is not defined, then you cannot claim that what he did was a declaration of war.”

and I NEVER SAID HE DECLARED WAR 

You may have been talking about declaration of war, but I had moved past that.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I think maybe you shouldn’t presume to tell me what I was talking about.

 

I quoted you. If you want to say you misspoke that is fine. But your first post was about declaration of war.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I quoted you. If you want to say you misspoke that is fine. But your first post was about declaration of war.

And my other posts were not necessarily restricted to that

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

And my other posts were not necessarily restricted to that

Fine. But when we were talking about what Trump did, I asked what in the Constitution gave Congress and not Trump the Right to do what Trump did.

You responded with "Article 1, Section 8".

You were equating what Trump did with a declaration of war.

When I stated  "I can't see how you can possibly make the judgement that Trump did not have the authority to authorize the strike due to the Constitution granting the right to declare war to Congress" you responded with "Because the constitution grants that power to congress, not the President".

Again, you are clearly equating Trump's action with a declaration of war.

For you to now state that "I didn’t say what he did was a declaration of war, I said it was an act of war" is disingenuous.

[iNow]

What would we call it if Iran had killed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a drone strike, or if they’d assassinated the modern day equivalent of David Petraeus and Jim Mattis... bc that’s what we just did to them. 

Meanwhile... from ABC News: The U.S. military has confirmed that there has been a terror attack on a military base in Kenya that houses U.S. military personnel.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Fine. But when we were talking about what Trump did, I asked what in the Constitution gave Congress and not Trump the Right to do what Trump did.

You responded with "Article 1, Section 8".

You were equating what Trump did with a declaration of war.

No, I was answering your question about where in the constitution the power is enumerated.

 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

When I stated  "I can't see how you can possibly make the judgement that Trump did not have the authority to authorize the strike due to the Constitution granting the right to declare war to Congress" you responded with "Because the constitution grants that power to congress, not the President".

Again, you are clearly equating Trump's action with a declaration of war.

That could only be so if you had made that determination first. I was not assuming that’s what you meant. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For you to now state that "I didn’t say what he did was a declaration of war, I said it was an act of war" is disingenuous.

Well, then, find where I actually said that he declared war.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, I was answering your question about where in the constitution the power is enumerated.

 

Perhaps next time you can read the entire thread so that you have the context of the conversation that is in flight. Otherwise you are responding inappropriately and causing confusion.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

What would we call it if Iran had killed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a drone strike, or if they’d assassinated the modern day equivalent of David Petraeus and Jim Mattis... bc that’s what we just did to them. 

 

Well I'm sure we'd call it an act of war, but that is not equivalent to what we are talking about. An equivalent question to the discussion to date would be 'what would Iran's legal system call it if Iran killed Pompeo in a drone strike?'

[swansont]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps next time you can read the entire thread so that you have the context of the conversation that is in flight. Otherwise you are responding inappropriately and causing confusion.

“What specifically in the Constitution gives this authority to Congress?” (In conjunction with iNow’s post) doesn’t require a lot of context. 

[swansont]

———

anyway: from the WPR

“SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities”

The written notification to congress is an additional requirement. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

The way cold wars keep from getting hot involves using something other than open warfare. That is why Iran uses proxies, denies bombing tankers or oil fields, etc. If Trump decided to take out Soleimani, I wish he would have done it with a bit more subterfuge. I feel like his 'in your face' approach makes it harder for Iran to respond with restraint of their own.

One of the threats the Iran regime is facing is further "in your face" attacks that could undermine their credibility at home. It's hard to tell what could possibly be a reasonable way ahead. I'm not sure there are any.

With the Iraqi government voting to expel American troops maybe they take the opportunity to leave? Will there ever be a better opportunity?

[MigL]

Whew !

I thought we were gonna have to consult Congress before hostilities broke out on this forum.

And anyway, D Trump is now claiming that his tweets are enough notification to Congress  .

[zapatos]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whew !

I thought we were gonna have to consult Congress before hostilities broke out on this forum.

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have dropped it a lot sooner. I typed up my New Year's Resolution to "be more lean" this year, but it autocorrected to "be more mean"! 🥳

[swansont]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

And anyway, D Trump is now claiming that his tweets are enough notification to Congress  .

It needs to be written

from SEC. 4. (a) (3)

"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"

[dimreepr]

On 1/4/2020 at 5:03 PM, zapatos said:

Allowing Soleimani to continue in his efforts would have been just as profound a decision as killing him.

you have no idea as to the profundity of the decision since hes dead.

On 1/5/2020 at 12:55 AM, zapatos said:

Completely agree. I also feel the killing was a mistake, mainly because you can always shoot later if it's deemed necessary. The guy was clearly an easy target. My biggest question was related to whether or not it was a legal or reasonable decision, not whether or not it was a good decision.

In this context legal has no bearing on reasonable.

 

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

you have no idea as to the profundity of the decision since hes dead.

 

Of course I do. It's not as if he is an unknown.

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In this context legal has no bearing on reasonable.

 

Thanks for that tidbit. Did anyone say it did?

[iNow]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It needs to be written

The open question for me is, aren't Tweets technically "written?"

We're in fuzzy territory, for sure, and that is precisely where Trump excels, but this may be a letter of the law versus spirit of the law distinction. He wrote the tweet. The resolution says it needs to be written. Based on the letter of the law, the adherence appears to have been achieved, even if in a different manner than done traditionally.

[dimreepr]

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course I do. It's not as if he is an unknown.

he is now.

Edited January 6, 2020 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

he is now.

I have no idea what you are on. I mean, I have no idea what you are on about.

[dimreepr]

It's unknown, since hes dead.

Quote

I also feel the killing was a mistake,mainly because you can always shoot later if it's deemed necessary.

shoot later since hes not dead.

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

The open question for me is, aren't Tweets technically "written?"

We're in fuzzy territory, for sure, and that is precisely where Trump excels, but this may be a letter of the law versus spirit of the law distinction. He wrote the tweet. The resolution says it needs to be written. Based on the letter of the law, the adherence appears to have been achieved, even if in a different manner than done traditionally.

I think "in writing" means a wet signature (but maybe a digital signature will do); a tweet cannot necessarily be traced back to the president. Can you say with reasonable assurance that he wrote it? Maybe someone else did.

 

Also, a tweet is not something that you can say has been delivered to the Speaker of the House and President pro tem of the Senate.