Trump acts against Syria- 49 Tomahawk Missiles strike air force base.

[IronWing]

Wrong quote, that was fskimospy.

Yeah, I fixed it. I have no idea why the forum software assigned the quote to you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

agreed. I *hope* the message works and things "normalize" in the best way possible. But it's so speculative at this point. I just wonder why the black man wasn't allowed by Congress to react in this way, much less do so unilaterally without the known backlash.

Obama had the authority for military action and he knew that. What he sought was Congressional backing for his actions to make his action seem more legit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Trump is an idiot for changing his position. Did Obama never do so? Did you think Obama was an idiot at the time?

Now see, this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[vi edit]

Seen in my Facebook feed:

Here's the list of who so far has spoken out against the airstrikes: Vladimir Putin, China, Iran, Bashar Assad, and American liberals. Glad we know which side you're on.

I found this funny.

Add these to your list - Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, and Mike Cernovich.

All are alt-right goons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-right-syria-war-214998

What odd bedfellows.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

When the Constitution was originally written the text was deliberately changed from 'make war' to 'declare war' specifically to grant presidents greater freedom of action. Additionally, if Congress had the sole power to determine when the military would act that would usurp the presidents power as commander in chief of the armed forces and would violate the separation of powers doctrine. That would be unconstitutional.

Eh, that's a reach and an assumption, on the make vs declare thing. I would have taken that as meaning that Congress needs to officially official declare war as being 'a thing', instead of simply attacking people as it saw (voted?) fit.

 

[antihelten]

What circumstances changed?

Orange is the new black

 

[IronWing]

The Founders put few restraints on CIC authority. That was done half a century or so ago, and most likely if challenged in the SCOTUS the WPR would be struck down. No one really wants that, or few at least and so it has never been pushed to the point where the CIC must have the approval in all things military.

My reading of the War Powers Act (and yes, I actually read it) is that Congress yielded some of its assigned war powers to the President in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Add these to your list - Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, and Mike Cernovich.

All are alt-right goons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-right-syria-war-214998

What odd bedfellows.

Here's a better view of sentiment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-reacts-to-us-airstrike-in-syria-2017-4

In short the West is behind the US action, Russia, Syria and Iran against.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

My reading of the War Powers Act (and yes, I actually read it) is that Congress yielded it's assigned war powers to the President in violation of the Constitution.

That's kind of how I read it as well. It's that 'declare war vs make war' thing. Pres still cannot 'declare' war, but he can bomb the shit out of whomever he sees fit as long as he submits something in writing within 2 months.

 

[boomerang]

Tomahawks? The loony left proclaimed with great regularity that Trump would use nukes as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My reading of the War Powers Act (and yes, I actually read it) is that Congress yielded some of its assigned war powers to the President in violation of the Constitution.

Congress has authority to declare war. Not every military action is war. Presidents have always had authority to take action without having to clear everything first. Now if Trump wants to invade Syria then a whole other level kicks in.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Tomahawks? The loony left proclaimed with great regularity that Trump would use nukes as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

Thank you for your attempt to inflame this conversation in a direction it wasn't taking.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thank you for your attempt to inflame this conversation in a direction it wasn't taking.

Everybody needs a hobby I suppose.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Congress has authority to declare war. Not every military action is war. Presidents have always had authority to take action without having to clear everything first. Now if Trump wants to invade Syria then a whole other level kicks in.

Only to a limited degree... the original discussions around this were in the context of Pres. Polk and the invasion of disputed ground in TX vs Mexico. This was expanded vastly during the Korean War (probably illegally), until finally it was simply abandoned and war power was granted to the president in '73 after the Gulf of Tonkin. This is a very, very recent thing.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Tomahawks? The loony left proclaimed with great regularity that Trump would use nukes as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

Dammit, they used the wrong Tomahawk missiles.............ohhhh, wait a minute, the Navy took them out of service a few years ago.

 

[pauldun170]

That's kind of how I read it as well. It's that 'declare war vs make war' thing. Pres still cannot 'declare' war, but he can bomb the shit out of whomever he sees fit as long as he submits something in writing within 2 months.

I believe that as long as that somewhere "Terror" is mentioned whether it be in speech, on a t-shirt or in a Wendy's commercial, a President can use the old dusty authorization from the early 2000's.

That authorization is like Bed Bath and Beyond coupons. It never expires even though the expiration date is in a font no one uses anymore.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I believe that as long as that somewhere "Terror" is mentioned whether it be in speech, on a t-shirt or in a Wendy's commercial, a President can use the old dusty authorization from the early 2000's.

That authorization is like Bed Bath and Beyond coupons. It never expires even though the expiration date is in a font no one uses anymore.

Probably wingdings, you know, for security (obfuscation).

 

[pauldun170]

Probably wingdings, you know, for security (obfuscation).

Holy crap...
That one broke me.
I can't stop giggling

 

[OutHouse]

Never said he did, was just asking how the president can have unilateral power to use military force on any country's soil without congressional approval, and yet doesn't have the authority to declare war (which is what that action would traditionally classify as).

strategic strikes are totally within the presidents power. and has done by just about every president in modern history.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

strategic strikes are totally within the presidents power. and has done by just about every president in modern history.

Yeah, that's not necessarily a good thing or within the original intent of the constitution. One of those (to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum) 'just cause you can doesn't mean you should' things.

 

[Blackjack200]

This attack re-obligates the US to accept Syrian refugees. That's my only thought on this at the moment, but I think it's the most important. If the administration wants to tell us that they did this because of their feels, then they must back that up by taking care of the civilians they're displacing by their aggression.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This attack re-obligates the US to accept Syrian refugees. That's my only thought on this at the moment, but I think it's the most important. If the administration wants to tell us that they did this because of their feels, then they must back that up by taking care of the civilians they're displacing by their aggression.

Being that it was a military target given fair warning, I doubt the administration will be any more arsed to accept refugees than it was before. If it was critical infrastructure (power, water, etc) they might be. For what it's worth, I feel the US should be pulling its weight on the Syrian refugee crisis as well. I just don't think this will change things any.

 

[dainthomas]

agreed. I *hope* the message works and things "normalize" in the best way possible. But it's so speculative at this point. I just wonder why the black man wasn't allowed by Congress to react in this way, much less do so unilaterally without the known backlash.

It's plainly obvious that Trump's supporters love everything he does, up to and including the exact same things they roasted the Kenyan usurper for.

 

[fskimospy]

Being that it was a military target given fair warning, I doubt the administration will be any more arsed to accept refugees than it was before. If it was critical infrastructure (power, water, etc) they might be. For what it's worth, I feel the US should be pulling its weight on the Syrian refugee crisis as well. I just don't think this will change things any.

I don't think it will change anything either although it's pretty horrible that apparently 70 people being gassed to death merits a military response but hundreds of thousands dying from other things merits a travel ban.

 

[bshole]

This attack re-obligates the US to accept Syrian refugees. That's my only thought on this at the moment, but I think it's the most important. If the administration wants to tell us that they did this because of their feels, then they must back that up by taking care of the civilians they're displacing by their aggression.

So Trump is going to follow Hillary's lead and attempt to replace Assad with an Islamic Caliphate?