Debates
13 Jul 19
@mister-moggy saidThis is not an instance where there has been a sudden, unprovoked attack on the US where principles of self-defense might justify immediate action.
@Earl-of-Trumps
putting constitutional issues aside for the moment it is clear to me that nuclear weapons in other nations made it pragmatically necessary to give the executive the unilateral authority to use
weapons of war without congressional approval.
absent an enemy or a coalition with a nuclear member, it is only
congress who should commit troops to war but ...[text shortened]... roops without a declaration of war from congress if it is an
embassy under attack or a ship at sea.
Regardless of what Congress has or hasn't done in the past, the Constitution is clear.
EDIT: The international law standard for "anticipatory self-defense" is the Caroline test:
The Caroline test is a 19th-century formulation of customary international law, reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, which said that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."
The terms "anticipatory self-defense", "preemptive self-defense" and "preemption" traditionally refers to a state's right to strike first in self-defense when faced with imminent attack.[3] In order to justify such an action, the Caroline test has two distinct requirements:
The use of force must be necessary because the threat is imminent and thus pursuing peaceful alternatives is not an option (necessity);
The response must be proportionate to the threat (proportionality).[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test
Clearly nothing Iran had done meets such stringent conditions.
@no1marauder saidYou are such a hypocrite.
This is not an instance where there has been a sudden, unprovoked attack on the US where principles of self-defense might justify immediate action.
Regardless of what Congress has or hasn't done in the past, the Constitution is clear.
@mister-moggy saidFrankly, putting the head of state in charge of the military is banana republic-tier. No idea why you guys put up with it.
@Earl-of-Trumps
putting constitutional issues aside for the moment it is clear to me that nuclear weapons in other nations made it pragmatically necessary to give the executive the unilateral authority to use
weapons of war without congressional approval.
absent an enemy or a coalition with a nuclear member, it is only
congress who should commit troops to war but ...[text shortened]... roops without a declaration of war from congress if it is an
embassy under attack or a ship at sea.
13 Jul 19
@kazetnagorra saidWho is supposed to be the head of the military? Clearly it was meant to exert civilian control over the military; do you oppose that?
Frankly, putting the head of state in charge of the military is banana republic-tier. No idea why you guys put up with it.
@no1marauder saidThe Constitution is also clear that the Federal government is not allowed to control state land. The Constitution also limits the types of land that the Federal government can own.
How so?
Yet you have no problem with the Federal government owning half of the Western US.
@eladar saidThe Constitution says no such thing as I already explained to you.
The Constitution is also clear that tjeFederal government is not allowed to control state land. The Constitution also limits the types of land that the Federal government can own.
Yet you have no problem with the Federal government owning half of the Western US.
@no1marauder saidI quoted the Constitution but you ignored it. As I said, hypocrite.
The Constitution says no such thing as I already explained to you.
13 Jul 19
@no1marauder saidGood
If he wants to veto it, he'll have to veto the entire Defense budget IF the Senate agrees to the Amendment.
@no1marauder "Clearly nothing Iran had done meets such stringent conditions."
Agreed. Ditto for Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam
13 Jul 19
@earl-of-trumps saidTrue enough, but Congress did authorize all those misadventures.
@no1marauder "Clearly nothing Iran had done meets such stringent conditions."
Agreed. Ditto for Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam
13 Jul 19
@no1marauder saidThe head of the military should be a general who answers to the ministry of war, which in turn should answer to the legislature. Power should not be centralized in a single person.
Who is supposed to be the head of the military? Clearly it was meant to exert civilian control over the military; do you oppose that?
@kazetnagorra saidKaz, I don't disagree with that. Truly. There is one big problem... our founding fathers wrote it into our constitution.
Frankly, putting the head of state in charge of the military is banana republic-tier. No idea why you guys put up with it.
Here is my sentiment about "laws". Respect them or change them, don't break them.
As an example, let's go back to the 2016 election. Trump was elected with less than majority vote. People don't think it's fair. Well, Ok, change the law! but damm it, don't just break the law and install Clinton, for gad's sake. And there is a movement in the US to make the election of the POTUS just like every other election in the US, majority of the vote wins. I'm fine with that if it passes congress. No sweat. Same with taking the power of Commander in Chief away from the President. But Washington is so slow about these types of changes.
13 Jul 19
@kazetnagorra saidDuring war time, it is impractical for the legislature to exert control over military operations. Some figure in the Executive Department must be in ultimate control and that might as well be the head of the Department.
The head of the military should be a general who answers to the ministry of war, which in turn should answer to the legislature. Power should not be centralized in a single person.
13 Jul 19
@whodey saidGood post. Thanks, Trust Iran.. Ha ha ha
Iran may very well manufacture some real or perceived grievance to withdraw from the JCPOA as well as from the NPT, claiming that the latter was signed during the Shah’s regime and must therefore be abrogated. It could manufacture similar excuses to withdraw from its commitment not to violate the object and purpose of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it ...[text shortened]... ter.
How comfortable should we be with this commitment from Iran? It should give all of us pause.