• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IronWing said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. 🙄
 
Tomahawks? The loony left proclaimed with great regularity that Trump would use nukes as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
 
IronWing said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
boomerang said:
Tomahawks? The loony left proclaimed with great regularity that Trump would use nukes as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Click to expand...
Dammit, they used the wrong Tomahawk missiles.............ohhhh, wait a minute, the Navy took them out of service a few years ago.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
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. 🙄
Click to expand...

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.
 
pauldun170 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Probably wingdings, you know, for security (obfuscation).
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
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).
Click to expand...

strategic strikes are totally within the presidents power. and has done by just about every president in modern history.
 
OutHouse said:
strategic strikes are totally within the presidents power. and has done by just about every president in modern history.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Blackjack200 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
zinfamous said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackjack200 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So Trump is going to follow Hillary's lead and attempt to replace Assad with an Islamic Caliphate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top