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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If Russia nukes the US, Russia would veto UN resolution. The UN is no use.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Gryphon66

If Russia nukes the US, Russia would veto UN resolution. The UN is no use.


That's not under discussion.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

This has nothing to do with the UN, Trump doesn't need to rely on any UN treaty or resolution. He is within his right as the Executive and CIC to do what he did unfortunately. GW Bush did it and so did Obama.

This is why choosing a President should be well thought out and not based on this will piss off Liberals...
edit on 4/16/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


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

Yes they did. Resolution 2118.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

He was actually well within his rights under either legal theory. I'm just tired of hearing the "checks and bslances" arguments from those who cannot understand checks and balances.

And yes, we need to be electing leaders, not partisans. On both sides.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Like seriously, his voters are on another level of stupid. The man bragged about being involved in direct corruption on LIVE TV, and his voters still thought he was a suitable candidate. I'm convinced someone brought an almanac and went back to 1972.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


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

Yes they did. Resolution 2118.

TheRedneck


No, the UN hasn't. The Resolution 2118 is not carte blanche for any state to act against another based on its whims.

Trump broke international and US law by ordering the missile strike against Syria.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The US murdered millions of civilians in WW2. The winner writes history. The loser does not.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Resolution 2118 specifically condemns the possession of chemical weapons inside Syria, demands their removal, and allows for action under Chapter VII.

Yes, it is a U.N. Resolution.

Yes, it was passed (unanimously, if I remember correctly).

Yes, it was and is in effect.

Yes, it authorizes actions under Chalter VII.

Yes, Chapter VII allows the use of emergency military force if needed.

And yes, I know, you can still twist words around and conjure up semantics to make 2118 say Syria must gas it's citizens and Chapter VII to say anyone named Trump is automatically in violation. But to those of us living in reality, that just don't matter. They sat what they say, regardless of how many times someone tries to twist them.

And Trump has full authority under US law, as President, to launch any military action he deems necessary except to declare war. The election is over.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

It is Within the Power of the President to Request Military Action When Deemed Necessary by his Executive Order . There is a Broad Definition of the Word " Necessary " of Course , National Security is the One thing that comes to Mind as the Main Explanation . .


So , No , He Did Not .



edit on 16-4-2017 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Breaking the resolution by use of chemical allows for action under Chapter VII.

Chapter VII, Article 43 states very specifically that any action must be called for by the UN, not decided and acted upon, as any Member nation decides. That would be the definition of chaos if any country did it besides the US.

There was no call for anything in Syria to be attacked by the UN.

It's not twisting anything to state that things mean what they say and not what you'd like them to. Trump ABSOLUTELY does not have authority to order any military action anytime he decides he needs a ratings boost. How absurd!

You're describing a dictator not the President of the United States..



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Why don't you show us where the Constitution gives the President power to even ISSUE an Executive Order?

How vastly the rhetoric has changed inonly a few months. Now the President is all powerful and subject to no one???

The core authoritarianism of the American Right shows it's ugly face proudly once more.
edit on 16-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

This has gone beyond ridiculous.

You go right ahead and believe what you want. It changes nothing. President Donald Trump is Commander in Chief of the US military, and head of the Executive Branch. The election is over, and your side lost.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's equally beyond ridiculous to keep calling disagreement and dissent with Trump, sour grapes. There are a host of reasons for standing against Trump. Just because he was within legal right to call the air strike doesn't mean he should have or even that he should have the power to do so without Congressional authorization.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


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


Not true. We still have a Constitution. The President's ability to use military force is constrained:

www.loc.gov...

What is questionable is his use of force against a nation that posed no threat to the United States or its allies. It is even more questionable because it appears to be an attempt to distract the public from his domestic political failures, and investigations into possible criminal activity on the part of his staff.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I think it's pretty obvious that in many cases, calling such 'disagreements' "sour grapes" is truthful. At some point, bias becomes so apparent it cannot be ignored.

A prime example is in this thread. Obama took plenty of military actions, issued a record number of executive orders, and nary a peep was made from the very individuals who now cry loudly and twist laws and words hard enough to make a pretzel factory jealous, all in an attempt to stop every single action Trump has tried to take. That certainly is "sour grapes," and I will continue to point it out.

Now, if you want to discuss whether Trump should have taken action, or whether the laws should be changed, that would be a reasonable discussion (and you might find my opinions on that are different than you would expect). But to try and re-interpret laws based solely on who those laws apply to? No, that's simply unconditionally wrong, indicative of an overt desire for absolute authoritarianism, and morally bankrupt.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
What your liberal friends (and pretty much every liberal) meant to say was any of those things listed are only illegal when a Republican President does them. It's fine anytime a Democrat President does them.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Kali74

I think it's pretty obvious that in many cases, calling such 'disagreements' "sour grapes" is truthful. At some point, bias becomes so apparent it cannot be ignored.

A prime example is in this thread. Obama took plenty of military actions, issued a record number of executive orders, and nary a peep was made from the very individuals who now cry loudly and twist laws and words hard enough to make a pretzel factory jealous, all in an attempt to stop every single action Trump has tried to take. That certainly is "sour grapes," and I will continue to point it out.

TheRedneck


I don't think that is true. Obama ran with the plank of getting rid of Gitmo. Many Democrats were outraged by him not doing it. And there are many Democrats who are against American adventurism. I just wish Pat Buchannan Republicans would step up and do the same when someone on their side starts shooting off missiles for no reason. I read the airfield that was bombed was functioning normally the next day. What's the point if not to just distract the public?

I and other Democrats have argued during the Obama administration that the US military seemed to not be under civilian control. The US dropped 23,000 bombs on five predominately Muslim countries in 2015 and 28,000 in 2016. I'm not sure Obama really had any control over this. Just as Trump doesn't now other than to order MORE not less strikes.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

"eff the Constitution"? I never thought I'd see the day an American would utter that phrase in sincerity...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What your liberal friends (and pretty much every liberal) meant to say was any of those things listed are only illegal when a Republican President does them. It's fine anytime a Democrat President does them.


I have great confidence if a Democrat president broke the law that Republicans would bring it to public attention.

That said, the issue remains. Is it legal or illegal for the president to order a military attack on a country that has not attacked the US without congressional approval? Or, do you believe because it is a Republican president breaking the law in this case does not apply?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join