Double Talk in DC

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I simply asked what gave any potus the authority to kill a terrorist without congress approval?

What makes you think he needs their approval to engage in foreign diplomacy, including the protection of American citizens overseas?

a reply to: timidgal

They'll claim imminent danger like that border crisis last spring that required deploying troops to the southern border.
What was he distracting us from then? The Mueller investigation must have uncovered something important that week.

a reply to: timidgal

Too funny! Awesome post!!

a reply to: Sillyolme

So far Congress hasn't revoked the authorization. Congresswoman Lee (who was the only person to oppose the AUMF back in 2001) proposed an amendment back in 2018 (it may have been 2017) that would have seen the AUMF expire. It passed the House, passed the Senate, then got vetoed by Trump and the Senate didn't have the votes to overturn it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: timidgal

They'll claim imminent danger like that border crisis last spring that required deploying troops to the southern border.
What was he distracting us from then? The Mueller investigation must have uncovered something important that week.

Wasn’t there some emails released yesterday showing how the White House tried to cover up the Pentagons objections to the Ukrainian aid being held?

I can’t remember with all this war talk.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

But the original Iran deal was preventing them from developing nuclear weapons. Now they are under no such restrictions.
See, that just doesn't sound better to me.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

At least he didn't order the execution of American citizens.

Maybe he has. Since Donald John Trump handed over the drone program to the CIA for the stated purpose of less transparency I guess we’ll never know, will we?

Better call Adam Schiff. I'm sure he could use you as a whistleblower somehow in the next impeachment effort.

So let me get this straight, you’re pro CIA drone program? You’re ok with the CIA being given authority to assassinate whoever, whenever with zero accountability?

That’s what you’re arguing in favor of.

No. I'm saying you're arguing with more knowledge than the rest of us have. If you have that kind of knowledge, then you clearly ought to be blowing the whistle instead of ranting about it on a conspiracy theory forum.

I'm sure Adam will take you very, very seriously indeed.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

But the original Iran deal was preventing them from developing nuclear weapons. Now they are under no such restrictions.
See, that just doesn't sound better to me.

Oh, please! It wasn't "preventing" jack. They broke it a matter of days after being paid off in unmarked small bills on pallets in the desert.

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: timidgal

There's no question that Gen. Qassem Soleimani had American blood on his hands, but such a blatant disregard of proper protocol, which provides for checks and balances, is unacceptable in this situation. I'm so tired of the tit for tat that's been going on in D.C.

The first part of that sentence says everything that needs to be said.

Pray tell, what protocol and checks and balances were needed to take out probably the number one formentor of trouble in the middle east who killed and maimed numerous US and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with those made in Iran IEDs?

Are you saying the Democratic leadership would have opposed this operation? Can't wait till they actually say that and seal their political fates.

Are we a renegade country? I agree that he was a despicable individual, but that's not what this is about. It is about OUR government. Even out founders knew there had to be checks and balances.

Forget for the moment that it is Trump.

Do you seriously think a president should have his authority to initiate a quick military response handcuffed by endless partisan bickering, rhetorical diatribes, and treasonous leaking of congress?

Think about the ramifications.

It would render any countries leader completely impotent.

Are you really willing to give this type of power to one person, regardless of who that person is?

Absolutely, because when big boy decisions have to be made, the buck has to stop with a single voice, not debated ad nauseum. When things need to be done quickly, there is no time for concensus building and partisan politics.

The founding fathers had the wisdom, and foresight to make POTUS the commander in chief for a reason.

a reply to: ketsuko

Reminds me of Trump and North Korea. Where were the calls for war when they killed a US citizen? Instead I remember Trump being praised for his restraint, which ultimately ended up Trump bending and spreading for Lil Kim.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

But the original Iran deal was preventing them from developing nuclear weapons. Now they are under no such restrictions.
See, that just doesn't sound better to me.

How would you (we) know? There were virtually no effective verification requirements, and they were ignoring even the ineffective ones.

That statement would require you trust the Iranian government. Even though I disagree with 99% of your positions, I would like to think you are more intelligent than that.

a reply to: underwerks

You’re right. It’s not like America ever asks permission from Congress to assassinate someone. This is squarely on Donald John Trump.

We agree. This is squarely on President Trump. Congress didn't take out a terrorist that fomented and organized a paramilitary attack on our people in our embassy; President Trump did. I don't see how it would have been helpful to see the plans for the attack laid out in detail in the Washington Post, but I'm not a military strategist either.

All the Democrats in Congress has done is complain that yes, the guy was a terrorist and needed to be taken out, but Trump shouldn't have taken him out. Someone is confused.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If you're talking about a the kid who went into a coma, the circumstances were different. For on thing, that kid went onto N. Korean soil while this American was on Iraqi soil when killed by Iranians/Iranian backed forces not operating legitimately inside that country.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

At least he didn't order the execution of American citizens.

Maybe he has. Since Donald John Trump handed over the drone program to the CIA for the stated purpose of less transparency I guess we’ll never know, will we?

Better call Adam Schiff. I'm sure he could use you as a whistleblower somehow in the next impeachment effort.

So let me get this straight, you’re pro CIA drone program? You’re ok with the CIA being given authority to assassinate whoever, whenever with zero accountability?

That’s what you’re arguing in favor of.

No. I'm saying you're arguing with more knowledge than the rest of us have. If you have that kind of knowledge, then you clearly ought to be blowing the whistle instead of ranting about it on a conspiracy theory forum.

I'm sure Adam will take you very, very seriously indeed.

How so? The knowledge that Trump handed over control of the drone program to the CIA is public knowledge. It’s a verified known fact.

The CIA can now kill potential terror suspects with drone strikes after being granted new powers by President Donald Trump, according to a new report. The new authority – said to have been granted shortly after Mr Trump’s inauguration – takes drone strikes out of the sole control of the military, sparking fears about accountability.

Link

It’s also a fact that thanks to that, we the public, have no idea who he has killed using it since his time in office. How many innocent civilians etc.

You don’t do something like that because you’re going to assassinate less people..

Please further explain what you mean.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess they're upset because other presidents have shown far more restraint about this thing when they had the opportunity to assassinate terrorists. Clinton didn't take out bin Laden and I believe Obama had a shot at either this guy or Israel did and Obama told them not to take it.

Clearly, both those examples led to far better results?

Although, honestly, we have yet to see what the results of this will be, so I can't definitively say this will have a better outcome, only a different one.

a reply to: underwerks

Unless I miss my guess, the way you write about this, you better head for a bunker because you just told us that tomorrow, random CIA drone Jones could just up and decide you know too much and drone you where you stand.

Zero accountability, right? Whoever and whenever, wherever? Right?

a reply to: TheRedneck

We agree. This is squarely on President Trump.

It’s nice to agree. This and it’s outcome rests solely on him.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Excuse my misinformed ass but is the war in Iraq technically over? I know there is the advisory and patrolling roll, but does that mean the war there is over?

War was declared by allied forces in March of 2003 after congress had given W the go ahead in Dec 2002.
The early invasion to disarm the government lasted a little over a month and that part of the war as declared over in May of 2003. Of course the civil wars that erupted kept us there until the withdrawal of troops in 2011.
There are still US soldiers there as we know but I do not think we are officially at war any longer.
There are still troops in Germany, Turkey and Japan but I am pretty sure WWII is over.

And I would never say that about a fellow member.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ketsuko

Reminds me of Trump and North Korea. Where were the calls for war when they killed a US citizen? Instead I remember Trump being praised for his restraint, which ultimately ended up Trump bending and spreading for Lil Kim.

I'm guessing Kim has a lot more to think about today, eh?

a reply to: timidgal

This general has been plotting against us for years. He has planned and overseen the attack of 100's of our military troops. POTUS was fully briefed last April. Why the wait?

I am confused now... again. You wanted this man taken out, but because we took him out now, it's a bad thing? This is similar to what the Congressional Democrats are saying. Is there some approved timeline or procedure that we have to follow no matter the danger it might pose to our soldiers? Can you link me to that?

TheRedneck