Trump Administration Is Contradicting Itself On Regime Change In Syria

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Trump administration appears divided on whether the U.S. is pursuing a policy of regime change in Syria, days after the first direct American military attack against the Syrian government.

Thursday’s strike “was related solely to the most recent horrific use of chemical weapons,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

“Other than that, there is no change to our military posture.”

i feel like the secretary of state is in the know.
is this to be believed?

But United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley said there can be no peace in Syria with Assad in power. “There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime,” she told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. “Regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria

Though Haley stopped short of indicating the U.S. would take military action to overthrow the Syrian dictator, her comments reflect a sharp change from the administration’s previous position.

interesting. haley says there is no option while assad is the head

im going to have to follow this.
would a UN ambassador be in the know about this though? wonder how much of it is just opinion.

www.cnn.com...

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has told CNN that removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power is a priority, cementing an extraordinary U-turn in the Trump administration's stance on the embattled leader. Two days after the US launched military strikes on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack widely blamed on the Assad regime, Haley said Assad's departure was inevitable.

But before Tuesday's chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, which killed 89 people, Haley had said toppling Assad was not a priority. President Donald Trump, before his election, described fighting ISIS and seeking Assad's removal at the same time as "idiocy."

not really sure what or who to believe...

Good to see she has moved on from Confederate Flag issues to War Mongering.

Neil: One small step for man...

Houston: Don't assume my gender, bro.

a reply to: TinySickTears


Did Trump get U.N. approval for the strike and not from our congress?

a reply to: TinySickTears

I have to agree that I did noticed the change on the wording from retaliation for atrocities by Trump to changing the regime of Assad by Haley, but remember Trump and Haley are not the same person.

Trump is not the one trying to make a case in the UN Haley is and perhaps that is why she is using more stronger words.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: TinySickTears


Did Trump get U.N. approval for the strike and not from our congress?

www.slate.com...

But the U.N. Security Council never authorized a military operation to punish Syria’s violation of the convention

A number of lawmakers are criticizing the president Friday for not seeking authorization from Congress for Thursday night’s strike

my question is was it illegal for him to authorize that strike without approval from congress?

i know nothing about the process involved.
if it is illegal how come nobody refused because of it being an unlawful order?

if it was not illegal then what is the point of approval from congress?

there is a lot to absorb

a reply to: marg6043

i get it. thats why i posed the question.
im more interested in the legality of the strike....i cant seem to pin down if it was a legal strike. ask 100 people on here and 50 will say yes and 50 no.
im not sure where to find it out

a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes it was a legal attack under tittle 50 of US code WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE .

I know, I know is hard to attach codes to presidential actions but that is why they are there.

www.law.cornell.edu...

That is why most countries agree with the attack and so many of the Democrats in congress.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes it was a legal attack under tittle 50 of US code WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE .

I know, I know is hard to attach codes to presidential actions but that is why they are there.

www.law.cornell.edu...

That is why most countries agree with the attack and so many of the Democrats in congress.

thanks for the link. going to read it now.
what is the point of UN or congress approval if you dont really need it for a military action?

marg where abouts in those codes would i find the info about the strike being legal? i certainly cant find it.
there is a lot there.
thank you

a reply to: TinySickTears

Good luck, there's like 50 subsections in there lol.

Long story short: that question has never really been settled once and for all. On the one hand, the President is the Commander in Chief and is supposed to be in charge of the entire military apparatus. On the other hand, only Congress can declare war. So what's the problem?

Well, what happens when nobody declares war? One of two things: nothing at all happens, and the President still does what he wants. Or he gets an authorization, which is supposed to (but doesn't always) define and limit the scope of the use of military force.

As far as I can recall, the authorization that was given to Bush back in '02 is still open and active. Bush used it a dozen times or so. Obama used it even more than Bush did. One can presume that it's still available to Trump to use, unless it's been rescinded in the last few months.

a reply to: Shamrock6

thanks.
i would think this is a question that would be sorted out you know. kind of important.

only congress can declare war but war does not have to be declared for bombs to drop...
there are several layer of war too right?
i mean there is war but then we have conflicts and some other # i think

a reply to: TinySickTears

Trust me I been trying to figure out what the tittle 50 have that gives president powers to engage on an attack without congress, but I can not find a definitive answer, the only one is that goes back to the constitutional powers of the president to launch an attack, But only congress can declare war.

Taking into consideration that Trump attacks is not a declaration of war but retaliation that is where his powers end.

a reply to: TinySickTears

The War Powers Act was, in theory, supposed to limit the President's ability to unilaterally commit troops to a fight. I think the President has 48 or 72 hours to notify Congress but (I think) he only has to notify them after the troops have been committed.

So the question then becomes whether or not a missile strike even falls under the purview of Congress, because technically speaking troops were committed for about as long as it took to complete the missile strike and that's it. One could argue that troops weren't committed at all, period, because they sat offshore and pressed buttons.

It's a very, very complex issue and I don't think any President has ever been called to heel over it. Members of Congress have complained about the lack of notification, but they don't take any action over it.

And, like I said up there ^^, I'm certain Trump would point to the still active authorization as giving him the power to order strikes.

(See Phage's post below. This post relates to intelligence gathering.)

§ 413b. Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions

(a) Presidential findings

The President may not authorize the conduct of a covert action by departments, agencies, or entities of the United States Government unless the President determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States.

PDF: Download (page 319 of document, not actual PDF)

There are a lot of specific requirements:

(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President’s decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made.

(2) Except as permitted by paragraph (1), a finding may not authorize or sanction a covert action, or any aspect of any such action, which already has occurred.

(3) Each finding shall specify each department, agency, or entity of the United States Government authorized to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in such action. Any employee, contractor, or contract agent of a department, agency, or entity of the United States Government other than the Central Intelligence Agency directed to participate in any way in a covert action shall be subject either to the policies and regulations of the Central Intelligence Agency, or to written policies or regulations adopted by such department, agency, or entity, to govern such participation.

(4) Each finding shall specify whether it is contemplated that any third party which is not an element of, or a contractor or contract agent of, the United States Government, or is not otherwise subject to United States Government policies and regulations, will be used to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in the covert action concerned, or be used to undertake the covert action concerned on behalf of the United States.

(5) A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States.

That last paragraph (5), pretty much says it all. Too bad the rules are written in open-ended fashion, allowing for endless counterarguments (based on beautiful babies). See paragraph (a).

a reply to: eisegesis
§ 413 is about Intelligence activities. § 413b specifically regards covert actions.

It would seem that this is a more pertinent section:
Title 50 U.S. Code - "War Powers Resolution"

§ 1542 - Consultation; initial and regular consultations

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

www.law.cornell.edu...

5 dozen tomahawks would not seem to have much to do with intelligence gathering but they would seem to be somewhat of a hostility.


Regarding the OP, it would seem that the policy of the Administration toward Syria is, indeed, somewhat murky.

a reply to: Phage

I'll leave my post up for posterity, but I agree. What you have posted is more applicable to the situation (unless Trump "covertly" gave the order to act "covertly" until the last moment, lol).

Thank you for the correction.

ETA: "in every possible instance"

originally posted by: TinySickTears
marg where abouts in those codes would i find the info about the strike being legal? i certainly cant find it.
there is a lot there.
thank you

If Trump didn't consult congress then it could go against this;
50 U.S. Code § 1542 - Consultation; initial and regular consultations.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

The reality was the attack was a tickle and nothing more, twenty aircraft destroyed say the WH, much less says Syria, 6 I think is the figure which is the more likely given that its unlikely that many aircraft would be on station there. If there was any Sarin stored there then it probably is still there, whatever the condition.
What is more curious than anything is why nobody questioned the validity of a major Sarin/chemical attack as it was given since the 2013 'attack' was full of false media reports and staged events without doubt...loads of them, yet in this attack most of what we see is taken in one tiny room, and the same picture being shared across networks.
That's scary because we are being given an agenda, to believe without any plausible content hardly at all, whereas TV media and print went mad with 'info' in 2013.
In edit..I see we are all posting at the same time more or less

a reply to: Phage

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances

consult with congress....
does consult mean get approval for?

very complicated issue and yes their policy towards the admin does seem murky

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes it was a legal attack under tittle 50 of US code WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE .

I know, I know is hard to attach codes to presidential actions but that is why they are there.

www.law.cornell.edu...

That is why most countries agree with the attack and so many of the Democrats in congress.

To use code 50 there has to be actions by both Congress and the President not the President alone.
50 U.S.C.

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. (b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof. (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation 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.

Syria did not attack America so if Donnie didn't get the ok from congress then he broke the law.