[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4645

File: 1578203775014.jpg (50.85 KB, 931x524, 931:524, Soleimani.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is assassinating the second-most powerful military leader of a foreign country generally an act of war?

And specifically, was Trump's airstrike that intentionally killed Soleimani an act of war?

And, keeping in mind that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, did Trump violate the Constitution in ordering the airstrike without authorization from Congress?  And if so, should he be impeached for it?

Relevant source: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048012/iran-general-killed-qasem-soleimani-legality

 No.4647

Yes
Yes
And if Trump orders to nuke Iran and Iraq from the face of the world, the world will still not have the balls to do anything about it.

 No.4650

File: 1578283691522.png (953.33 KB, 1280x905, 256:181, war.png) ImgOps Google

>>4645
>Is assassinating military leader generally an act of war?
Yes, I  think so.

>Trump's airstrike an act of war?
I've admitted it to be generally an act of war, but this is asking whether the specific act will cause a war.  Probably not, given America's power and the difficult winning in regular war.

>did Trump violate the Constitution?
The evidence of violation of law is punishment.  It is wrong to consider law literal, so this is asking whether Trump will be punished for this.  Given strikes at the President's discretion have become common, I don't think so.

>should he be impeached for it?
It would be quickly spun as a special attack on Trump given the history of American military action over the past few decades.  I think you want to give congress more power over military goals.  I don't know how to do that.

 No.4651

File: 1578311012556.png (542.47 KB, 540x763, 540:763, tumblr_pfnyuj5Rvr1xpkob5o1….png) ImgOps Google

Objectively, the answer to all of these is yes.

Yes, it is an act of war. Objectively. Killing a military or political leader of another country is, objectively, an act of war. That's not really debatable.

And yeah, he probably should be impeached for it, but he's already been impeached, so it doesn't really matter. Regardless, I doubt it's gonna get him kicked out of office any more than the other stuff he got impeached for.

 No.4652

>>4645
Well no, the pres can do any act of violence he wants without it being in violation of the constitution (so long as he stops in X days withput congressional approval) or an act of war, unless we're prosecuting Bushes for that these days.

 No.4653

>>4651
>excellent summary of de jour vs defacto when it comes to law and political reality

 No.4655

>>4652
>unless we're prosecuting Bushes for that these days.
Maybe we should.  The Constitution is very clear that it is for *Congress* to initiate war.  But Bush at least got an authorization from Congress even though not a formal declaration of war.  Trump didn't even get an informal approval from Congress, and he probably would have failed if he tried.

 No.4660

>>4655
The Constitution clearly recognizes a distinction between military action and declaration of war.

The former is well within the president's perview.  Questioning this fact only underscores the massive problem with mis-education.

 No.4662

An act of war doesn't have a formal legal definition as far as I'm aware. The informal definition would be an aggressive action that isn't normal during peace time, so probably yes.

Uh, sure?

An act of war isn't a declaration of war.

The legality of the strike is a separate matter from if it is a declaration of war. That it is an act of war is irrelevant to that.

 No.4665

Looking back on things, where can you put Soleimani in regards to, say, Osama Bin Laden.

The latter was spokesperson of a group openly hostile to the Western world, claiming responsibility for a list of terrorist activities.

Soleimani is said to be a terrorist, but happens to be one of the most reverred generals in Iran. Taking him out would be like Iran taking out a US leadership directly on US soil.

 No.4666

>>4660
>The former is well within the president's perview.
Where exactly does the Constitution grant this power to the president?

 No.4669

File: 1578626650307.png (397.8 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-19-22-….png) ImgOps Google

>>4666
Article II.

Its odd you have to ask.

 No.4670

File: 1578626819949.png (424.16 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-19-25-….png) ImgOps Google

>>4669
Further information.

Its amazing how Wiki actually knows more about the law than citizens who deign to debate war crime in ignorance.

 No.4671

>>4669
The closest text there is: "The President shall be 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 of course we all know that the president is the commander in chief.  That role doesn't ipso facto give him authority to order an attack against a country with which we are at peace.

>>4670
>war crime
The term "war crime" denotes something other than what this thread is about.

 No.4672

File: 1578627992968.png (404.95 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-19-44-….png) ImgOps Google

>>4671
>did Trump violate the Constitution in ordering the airstrike without authorization from Congress
>assasination of other nationals

War crime by any other name.  The War Powers act of 1973 basically (and not unconstitutionally) permits use of force by executive branch for 60 days without congressional input.

 No.4673

>>4672
> The War Powers act of 1973
Well, then you should have cited that and Article 1 Section 8 instead of Article II in >>4669.  But I disagree that the War Powers Act of 1973 supports your claim.  It says:
>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.
Prior to the airstrike, there was no national emergency created by an attack of Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


>>4672
>War crime by any other name.
OK, but this thread isn't about whether Trump's air strike is a war crime.  The thread is about whether Trump's ordering of the air strike was ultra vires.

 No.4674


 No.4675

File: 1578630550017.png (680.2 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-20-26-….png) ImgOps Google

>>4673
Article 1 is the Legislature not the Executive, silly. (Edit:  war powers act limits the presidents rights not grants them hence citing Article II for what grants presidents rights was correct)

I dont make any such claim, and your question:
>did Trump violate the Constitution in ordering the airstrike without authorization from Congress

is the same as asking if every military action a President has ordered since World War II is impeachable.

Lack of prosecution for half a century while conducting military operations is sufficient support of the fact of my position.  Your imaginary argument for impeachment is invalid.

What statute exactly has he violated by conducting unconscionable air strikes?  Try being more specific.

 No.4676

>>4675
>Article 1 is the Legislature not the Executive, silly.
Oh, I thought your argument is that Congress delegated authority to the president with the War Powers Act of 1973.

>is the same as asking if every military action a President has ordered since World War II is impeachable.
I'd answer that question affirmatively.  But at least some of the presidents had a statute authorizing military force, like the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224.  Trump didn't even have that.

>What statute exactly has he violated by conducting unconscionable air strikes?
He hasn't violated any specific statute.  But he acted outside the authority granted to him by the Constitution (considering both power directly granted to him, and authority delegated to him by Congress).  Like if Trump purported to pardon himself of NY state law offenses.

 No.4677

>>4676
Wait a minute, the President CAN pardon State offenses.  Its only a matter of timing that precludes him from successfully pardoning himself, but thats my opinion not anything thats actually been settled by the high court.

I'd say if he can't cook up a good "emergency" pretext then perhaps its War Powers that he's violated.  Didn't he even bother making up a lie this time?

 No.4679

>>4677
>Wait a minute, the President CAN pardon State offenses.
Nani???  The president only has "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".

 No.4680

>>4679
Well how bout that.

My ignorance has no limits.

 No.4760

Yes.

No.  First, it was not a declaration of war.  Second, every president since at least Clinton has been involved in undeclared wars and/or targeted strikes.  Impeachment for it would simply be another partisan instance of Democrat hypocrisy.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]