On what legal authority did trump bomb then syrian military?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. missile strikes Thursday on a Syrian air base were conducted without formal congressional approval. Some questions and answers about how and why presidents can conduct military action without permission from the 535 representatives of the American people.

Did Congress know?

Trump did let Congress know of his plans to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles Thursday evening, targeting the air base from which Syrian President Bashar Assad launched a chemical weapons attack earlier this week against his own people, killing more than 80 men, women and children. A White House official said more than two dozen members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were briefed Thursday by White House and Cabinet officials. House Speaker Paul Ryan, the No. 3 U.S. official, said he was among those informed.



Is informing them enough? Don't they get a say?

The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, long after American troops began fighting in Vietnam, required the president to consult with Congress before sending U.S. armed forces into combat unless there already had been a declaration of war. The troops could not stay more than 90 days unless lawmakers backed the decision. The law also sought to give the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies," according to the Council on Foreign Relations.




And it is that leeway that presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Trump have used to their advantage. Following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, Congress gave Bush authority to attack any countries or groups involved in the attacks, which was generally accepted to mean al-Qaida. Obama used that same authority to fight the Islamic State militant group, which emerged in 2014 as an outgrowth of al-Qaida. Trump has used that same authority to continue military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

The Obama administration maintained in 2011 that U.S. involvement in the months-long air campaign against Libya didn't require congressional permission because American forces were largely playing a supporting role as part of an international coalition.

In February 2015, Obama asked Congress to formally authorize war against the Islamic State, saying the militant group could threaten the U.S. homeland if left unchecked. His resolution would have limited authorization to three years, with no geographic restrictions for U.S. forces. It would have banned "enduring offensive combat operations," an ambiguous term that attempted to define a middle ground between Democrats leery of another protracted Middle Eastern conflict involving ground troops, and Republicans, who largely believe the U.S. needs maximum flexibility to pursue IS.

Congress held a few hearings, but never acted on the proposal.
 
Under what constitutional authority does the president have the power to wage war?
 
Then don't post a popularity assessment of Putin that talks about 2014 when the Russian economy crashed in 2015 and is still struggling to get out of recession.
i'm telling you that Putin's support is baked in as long as he's on this trajectory.. here..read this for polling proceedure and for Putin's numbers as late as last year:

How to understand Putin’s jaw-droppingly high approval rating
Russian President Vladimir Putin has an 83 percent approval rating. Lyubov Kostyrya’s job is to knock on doors to track it.

Every week, Russian pollsters dispatch an army of workers to canvass the country’s 11 time zones for people’s views on Putin, the economy and other issues. And so Kostyrya visits one home after another to learn what Russians are thinking. Two years after Putin’s ratings skyrocketed at the start of a geopolitical conflict with the West, they have stayed there, week after week, month after month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...87e721fb231_story.html?utm_term=.74f11d328cf2

Well all of the "unique situation of Russia" is that it is not a real democracy, it is a glorified one party rules dictatorship run by Putin. When Putin couldn't run again for President in 2008 what does he do? Makes his deputy prime minister a puppet president and then takes the roll of Prime Minister and resumes full control.
and he does it with the will of the people..he's an autocrat -yes. But theer are reasons for his popularity
and his opposition is harrassed and killed, but still clueless

But Trump has suddenly changed the goal posts. Before it was an internal Syrian issue that the US should stay the hell out it. That was reiterated just last week by the administration's two major foreign policy players.
well there it is

Now suddenly, years into a brutal war that has killed thousands of civilians there is some sort of humanitarian approach, or at least we are expected to believe so.
i see nothing humanitarian
 
i'm telling you that Putin's support is baked in as long as he's on this trajectory.. here..read this for polling proceedure and for Putin's numbers as late as last year:

How to understand Putin’s jaw-droppingly high approval rating
Russian President Vladimir Putin has an 83 percent approval rating. Lyubov Kostyrya’s job is to knock on doors to track it.

Every week, Russian pollsters dispatch an army of workers to canvass the country’s 11 time zones for people’s views on Putin, the economy and other issues. And so Kostyrya visits one home after another to learn what Russians are thinking. Two years after Putin’s ratings skyrocketed at the start of a geopolitical conflict with the West, they have stayed there, week after week, month after month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...87e721fb231_story.html?utm_term=.74f11d328cf2


and he does it with the will of the people..he's an autocrat -yes. But theer are reasons for his popularity
and his opposition is harrassed and killed, but still clueless
The will of the people who have no actual choice and get told what the "truth" is by... Putin!

From the article:

In a nation in which the Kremlin controls the airwaves, opinions can also be easily swayed, because few contrary opinions can be found in the mainstream. In September, weeks before Putin announced Russia’s surprise entrance into the conflict, few Russians saw the Islamic State as a direct threat. Within weeks — and after constant coverage on TV — the number shot up to a solid majority.
It's not a democracy, don't delude yourself.

well there it is

i see nothing humanitarian
Of course it isn't actually humanitarian, but you heard Trump babbling about god's children and how none of them should have to die like that. He's saving the children! How noble. <puke>
 
Please excuse my ignorance of history here but I know we lobbed cruise missiles at bin Laden in the late '90's. What, if anything, was the difference then regarding legalities of launching the missiles.
 
The will of the people who have no actual choice and get told what the "truth" is by... Putin!

From the article:

It's not a democracy, don't delude yourself.

Of course it isn't actually humanitarian, but you heard Trump babbling about god's children and how none of them should have to die like that. He's saving the children! How noble. <puke>

T-Cat....hehehehe.............!!!!!
 
I'm not very well educated on the syrian situation so I don't want to kneejerk react in one way or the other.

All I know Is I don't want us going to war in that region and finding a new king or dictator to put in charge there for the globalist neo con hawks to control

At least trumps missile strikes didn't kill anyone and was at an airbase. So that's good.

I still think the gas attack could have been a false flag.
 
No more/less than we care about drone strikes on mosques killing babies.

He's stuck, and he can't seem to get out of that tired rhetoric.

We've considered Syria a terrorist state for decades. It isn't like we've had a good relationship with them. I'm sure it will be argued that our full time fight against Al Qaeda, which is now ISIS, gives us the right to attack Syria for any reason we wish.

we should place the same value on life that a culture places on it. To do so otherwise would be to impose our values on them which would be cultural imperialism. Americans value life greatly and we should value it greatly. Muslims particularly ones in syria send out little shalifa with her fashionable suicide best to pick up her 99 barbie virgins with the great pedophile in the sky. If they dont care about their own lives why should we?
 
Please excuse my ignorance of history here but I know we lobbed cruise missiles at bin Laden in the late '90's. What, if anything, was the difference then regarding legalities of launching the missiles.
I don't know if there was any actual difference in legalities.

But I don't recall anyone demanding that Clinton obtain authorization from congress for a strike like Trump and many Republicans said was necessary for Obama. Republicans also claimed that Clinton was wagging the dog but as Ya Ya and I discussed yesterday, the difference was that OBL was enemy #1 at the time (this was two weeks after the major attacks on US embassies in Africa that killed 200+) meanwhile just a week ago both Tillerson and Haley had stated how removing Assad was not a priority and that it was a Syrian matter.
 
we should place the same value on life that a culture places on it. To do so otherwise would be to impose our values on them which would be cultural imperialism. Americans value life greatly and we should value it greatly. Muslims particularly ones in syria send out little shalifa with her fashionable suicide best to pick up her 99 barbie virgins with the great pedophile in the sky. If they dont care about their own lives why should we?

I do like that test. Ask the dead if they cared about their lives. I bet they did.
 
I don't know if there was any actual difference in legalities.

But I don't recall anyone demanding that Clinton obtain authorization from congress for a strike like Trump and many Republicans said was necessary for Obama. Republicans also claimed that Clinton was wagging the dog but as Ya Ya and I discussed yesterday, the difference was that OBL was enemy #1 at the time (this was two weeks after the major attacks on US embassies in Africa that killed 200+) meanwhile just a week ago both Tillerson and Haley had stated how removing Assad was not a priority and that it was a Syrian matter.

So from a legality standpoint of a president sending missals it's determined by the popularity of the president or the action?
 
Back
Top