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
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.
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.
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.
File: 1578626650307.png (397.8 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-19-22-….png) ImgOps Google
Its odd you have to ask.
File: 1578626819949.png (424.16 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-19-25-….png) ImgOps Google
Its amazing how Wiki actually knows more about the law than citizens who deign to debate war crime in ignorance.
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.
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.
>>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
File: 1578630550017.png (680.2 KB, 1080x2034, 60:113, Capture _2020-01-09-20-26-….png) ImgOps Google
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.
>>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
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?
>>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".
Well how bout that.
My ignorance has no limits.