It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Trump break the law

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: dfnj2015

trump is in charge is precisely the problem and you don't have to be a liberal to figure that out! the fact that he made a 180 on his foreign policy overnight is cause for concern. the man has been getting 4 hours of sleep for a year straight and its catching up to him, i warned about this when he was campaigning like he was on meth!


I disagree. I tend to think also that he should have awaited for concrete evidence about the chemical attack in Syria before attacking the airbase, however .......... what he HAS DONE, with the actions and rhetoric against Syria, ISIS in Afghanistan and North Korea is send out and EXTREMELY strong message.

Foreign policy still stands in my opinion, he doesn't want to do a 180 but is willing to do so, don't think he will follow up with further actions NOW that the message has been sent, unless of course Assad and KJ Un didn't get the memo.

Hell, NK are already talking as of today if you believe the MSM, warnings sent, job done, sit back and relax





posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
...some BS about because Syria did not attack the US first what Trump did was illegal.


"Some BS"??? Really???


The law is irrelevant.


There it is!!!


I'm so sick of these liberal losers.


And I'm pretty darn sick of cold-blooded killers trying to put pretty pink lipstick on that killer pig.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: dfnj2015
...some BS about because Syria did not attack the US first what Trump did was illegal.


"Some BS"??? Really???


The law is irrelevant.


There it is!!!


I'm so sick of these liberal losers.


And I'm pretty darn sick of cold-blooded killers trying to put pretty pink lipstick on that killer pig.


Who was killed apart from ISIS insurgents in Afghanistan? i'm pretty sure Bunkers and Aircraft don't count as kills



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

He is already authorized by congress to wage the war on terror which will never end because it is profit for the military industrial complex.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a president doesnt need approval from congress for strikes....

he needs approval to declare war
edit on 16-4-2017 by Jiggly because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Of note:


As less a legal than political matter, it’s also worth considering that the U.S. has already been bombing Syrian territory since 2014. There’s a difference, of course: These strikes are against ISIS and justified—somewhat dubiously—under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against terrorists. Sturdy and flexible as that AUMF has been over the years, it would probably be a step too far to apply it to attacking Assad’s military. That said, the Obama administration conducted war in the Middle East, with little involvement of Congress, in a remarkably open-ended way, and reserved for itself seemingly limitless authority to launch limited airstrikes or in-and-out special operations missions in countries where the U.S. was not at war.


www.slate.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
If the president can insert troops without congressional approval for up to 90 days, I would imagine he is completely within his rights to bomb someone.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I am getting so tired of this as well.

So here's the real story:

Under U.N. Resolution 2118, anyone located in Syria is prohibited from obtaining, using, or having chemical weapons. Military action is authorized if chemical weapons are found:

21. Decides, in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic, to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter;


Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter says:

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


That means that, as long as we are members of the United Nations, Trump has a duty to militarily enforce the resolutions of the Security Counsel (as does Russia, incidentally), which prohibit chemical weapons inside Syria, using readily-maintained military presence. That is exactly what he did. No Congressional approval is required in order to comply with a treaty already approved by Congress, such as membership in the U.N. A response to an attack on a NATO country would operate the same way; no approval needed.

Your ultra-liberal friend is spouting gibberish that they have no idea about, because they hate Donald Trump for reasons they cannot even express coherently, and because they think the laws only apply when they want them to.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor


Who was killed apart from ISIS insurgents in Afghanistan?


I've seen various numbers thrown out, up to and including:

Syrians report 15 dead in U.S. airstrike

Syrian officials said the airstrikes had killed six people on the base targeted by U.S. missiles, as well as nine others in surrounding villages, according to the Syrian Arab News Agency.


But let's assume no one was killed... it was pure luck, because they had every reason to expect someone would be killed, including civilians and children. And all for an act of war against a sovereign nation posing no imminent or immediate threat to our nation and/or people, on an unsubstantiated suspicion without due process.

And this doesn't even address the very real and pragmatic fact that the strike against Syrian forces empowered ISIS by weakening Syria.

Lethal force should always be the absolute last resort, and only in self-defense. Anything else is just putting pretty pink lipstick on a killer pig.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jiggly
a president doesnt need approval from congress for strikes....

he needs approval to declare war


Exactly. A little nuance that Conservatives didn't get under Obama and Liberals don't get under Trump. The CIC can conduct any military action he or she chooses except declaration of War. If Congress wants to stop him they have to cut the purse strings.

I didn't like it when Obama did it either.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What Trump did is allowed by law. He did not start a war. If it were left up to congress a decision wouldn't be forth coming for weeks if not months.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: verschickter
I thought this was another desperate attempt of a trump blaming thread, well done!


Although I´m not sure if "law is irrelevant", even when it comes to your president.


Thanks. There are no limits to the unitary executive authority!

So you now have a King? Does Elizabeth II know about this?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
I thought this was another desperate attempt of a trump blaming thread, well done!


Although I´m not sure if "law is irrelevant", even when it comes to your president.


I looked over the first page of "recent".........there are more 10 times more democrat and liberal bashing OP's, than any of your "FAKE DEPSERATE ATTEMPT TO BASH TRUMP" OP's.....and the democrats have no political power, in fact the only things right-wingers have to bash anymore are liberal colleges and news programs......what next????....did one of you find a liberal dogcatcher in Ely, Nevada, that you want to throw out of office????

how pathetic and small minded...we liberals would need hundreds of threads bashing every right-wing ball-scratch to trump bash, just to see if we can get near the amount of liberal bashing on ATS....

talk about desperate...why don't you knuckle-draggers go on a liberal site and bash liberals, there are practically no liberals left on ATS



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
...why don't you knuckle-draggers go on a liberal site and bash liberals, there are practically no liberals left on ATS

We are mostly just sitting and watching the ritual hurling of the feces...being of the mind that there is no such thing as arguing with an idiot. There is, however, such a thing as two idiots arguing.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: verschickter
I thought this was another desperate attempt of a trump blaming thread, well done!


Although I´m not sure if "law is irrelevant", even when it comes to your president.


Thanks. There are no limits to the unitary executive authority!

So you now have a King? Does Elizabeth II know about this?


Maybe he will ask her when he gets to go for his special carriage ride. I hear he actually managed to hold his breath til his lips turned blue.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
attacking other nations does not require congressional approval if the president never intends to "declare" war. so no laws are being broken
edit on 16-4-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)


congress last declared war during ww2 and korea, vietnam, iraq(both times), yugoslavia and afghanistan were all "extended conflicts" and congress only voted what was already decided upon to look good and maintain their image.
edit on 16-4-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Do we live in the age of presidential anarchy? Do laws simply no longer matter? One of my ultra liberal friends said Trump violated the law by bombing Syria without Congressional approval. He made up some BS about because Syria did not attack the US first what Trump did was illegal. I told him Trump says "eff the Constitution" for a reason. If my president wants to bomb any country it's his choice. The law is irrelevant. The President has absolute authority as Commander in Chief. I'm so sick of these liberal losers.


Precisely!!!!

God damn snowflakes. War is what we do. America is in the business of war. MAGA, MAGA, MAGA, believe me.


Good point! War is the only answer. Who needs laws. The Commander in Chief is our leader. Not Congress. I'm so sick of these liberals who think Trump is not in charge.

Therein lies your answer all along. The President is the civilian's leader , the Commander in Chief is the military's leader. And no law was broken.
Deal with it.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you forgetting Article 43?



Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.


I don't believe you will find that gives any UN member carte blanche to attack another sovereign member at will.

Did the UN call for a strike on Syria to cause it to comply with 2118?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I don't believe you will find that gives any UN member carte blanche to attack another sovereign member at will.

It does, actually, where loss of life is imminent and the actions have been previously declared illegal by the Security Council.

Article 43 is "in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security," while Article 45 is to "enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures." Citizens were being gassed inside Syria with chemical weapons already stated to be illegal; that is the very definition of being in need of an urgent military action.

All Trump had to do was afterwards report the incident to the Security Council... and I am sure he did.


Did the UN call for a strike on Syria to cause it to comply with 2118?

Yes, they did, by authoring 2118.

What, you want everyone to take a poll whenever a nation is violating U.N. sanctions?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

There is nothing in either Article 43, 45 or Resolution 2218 that calls on the United States to take unilateral actions whenever the President deems it necessary.

The United States has a treaty agreement to respond when the UN calls for action. The UN didn't call for action.

If I had meant that we should "have a poll" I would have said it; that kind of specious nonsense is frankly beneath both you and I.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join