WASHINGTON -- As bombs dropped over Syria Monday evening, marking the beginning of a U.S.-led effort to eradicate the Islamic State in that country, most members of Congress were back at home.The legislative branch adjourned its business at the end of last week to tend to elections. In doing so, it left unresolved the issue of authorizing the war that President Barack Obama would start days later. Congressional inaction didn't upend the White House's plans; the administration had already claimed it had legal authority to launch such strikes in Syria.But by leaving town before the president started operations, lawmakers may have done serious harm to their own institution, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) argued in an interview with The Huffington Post. Not only had they diminished the standing of Congress with respect to the executive branch, they also may have given unintended consent to a Dick Cheney-like vision of presidential war powers."[Congress has] sort of allowed the Cheney pre-emptive war doctrine to exist by another name," Kaine said. "In this instance, they allowed the president to say, 'ISIL [the Islamic State] is the bad guys, and I can go after them even though there has been testimony that they pose no imminent threat of attack on the United States.' If the president just gets to do this without Congress, then we will be embracing the Cheney pre-emptive war doctrine, which I think is just brutally wrong."Kaine, one of the most outspoken advocates for passing a new authorization for use of military force, spoke just hours before word broke of the first airstrikes in Syria. He is slated to give a larger address on Tuesday at the Obama-allied Center for American Progress, speaking against the legal underpinnings for expanded military operations.
Quoteonly Congress has the power to approve warBut this isn't a war unless declared so.
only Congress has the power to approve war
Seeing how it isn't war and it's air strikes welcomed by the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian governments, Mr Kaine can go fuck himself with a broomstick.
t's the military attacking a group. That's war. Sugar coat it with all these fancy, pointless terms but at the end of the day war is war. People got bent out of shape when Bush did this but nobody is when Obama does it
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:23:39 AMQuote from: Flee on September 24, 2014, 08:22:25 AMQuoteonly Congress has the power to approve warBut this isn't a war unless declared so.It's the military attacking a group. That's war. Sugar coat it with all these fancy, pointless terms but at the end of the day war is war. People got bent out of shape when Bush did this but nobody is when Obama does itNo, this is a conflict. The US hasn't declared war since 1941. A constitutional amendment may be in order if this is so important to most Americans.
Quote from: Flee on September 24, 2014, 08:22:25 AMQuoteonly Congress has the power to approve warBut this isn't a war unless declared so.It's the military attacking a group. That's war. Sugar coat it with all these fancy, pointless terms but at the end of the day war is war. People got bent out of shape when Bush did this but nobody is when Obama does it
Except it isn't war. No nation has declared war on another nation. Especially when said nation is assisting these other nations by eradicating criminals. Does a soldier formally declare war on your family if he murders one of your relatives? Are you all of a sudden a nation under attack from an occupying force when your relative was already killing your family members and this soldier is helping you under your request?
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:27:42 AMQuote from: Flee on September 24, 2014, 08:25:40 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:23:39 AMQuote from: Flee on September 24, 2014, 08:22:25 AMQuoteonly Congress has the power to approve warBut this isn't a war unless declared so.It's the military attacking a group. That's war. Sugar coat it with all these fancy, pointless terms but at the end of the day war is war. People got bent out of shape when Bush did this but nobody is when Obama does itNo, this is a conflict. The US hasn't declared war since 1941. A constitutional amendment may be in order if this is so important to most Americans.warwôr/Submitnoun1.a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.As I said, calling this a "conflict" is just sugarcoating it. Bush called the unauthorized "conflicts" in Iraq and Afghanistan as such but received tremendous public outcryYou were talking about approving war, which is something else entirely. Are the hostilities between gangs in the US a war? Hostilities and armed violence between different groups within a nation? No, because it takes a competent organ or institution to declare war. You can keep resorting to populism and calling this a "war", but it technically isn't. And as I hope you know, law is all about the technicalities, which is exactly why Obama is allowed to do this. Don't blame me, blame your constitution and how it's interpreted.
Quote from: Flee on September 24, 2014, 08:25:40 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:23:39 AMQuote from: Flee on September 24, 2014, 08:22:25 AMQuoteonly Congress has the power to approve warBut this isn't a war unless declared so.It's the military attacking a group. That's war. Sugar coat it with all these fancy, pointless terms but at the end of the day war is war. People got bent out of shape when Bush did this but nobody is when Obama does itNo, this is a conflict. The US hasn't declared war since 1941. A constitutional amendment may be in order if this is so important to most Americans.warwôr/Submitnoun1.a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.As I said, calling this a "conflict" is just sugarcoating it. Bush called the unauthorized "conflicts" in Iraq and Afghanistan as such but received tremendous public outcry
Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on September 24, 2014, 08:36:52 AM>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem. You forgot the part where he's black.
>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem.
You don't seem to understand, Al Assad welcomes these airstrikes. Every government in the Middle East does. Getting technical about it and calling it a declaration of war to delay Obama to make him look like a "weak dictator" as you dumbshits like to say, is a cheap political tactic. It isn't a war.
Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on September 24, 2014, 08:36:52 AM>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem. I do, especially when a Republican got a lot of public outcry over the same exact thing
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:40:55 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 24, 2014, 08:37:59 AMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on September 24, 2014, 08:36:52 AM>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem. You forgot the part where he's black.>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politicsFucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this dayIt has everything to do with it, unfortunately. Only a racist would dislike Obama attacking ISIL. Especially when they wanted this a minute ago. This is nothing but a political play.
Quote from: challengerX on September 24, 2014, 08:37:59 AMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on September 24, 2014, 08:36:52 AM>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem. You forgot the part where he's black.>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politicsFucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this day
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 09:27:16 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 24, 2014, 09:25:28 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:40:55 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 24, 2014, 08:37:59 AMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on September 24, 2014, 08:36:52 AM>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem. You forgot the part where he's black.>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politicsFucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this dayIt has everything to do with it, unfortunately. Only a racist would dislike Obama attacking ISIL. Especially when they wanted this a minute ago. This is nothing but a political play.I'll pary that you get over your draconian and archaic thinkingYou see the thing is I like and support Obama and am not a racist. If deflection is all you can come up with, I fear for your future my boy.
Quote from: challengerX on September 24, 2014, 09:25:28 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 24, 2014, 08:40:55 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 24, 2014, 08:37:59 AMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on September 24, 2014, 08:36:52 AM>congress refuses to act on things>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairsI don't see a problem. You forgot the part where he's black.>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politicsFucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this dayIt has everything to do with it, unfortunately. Only a racist would dislike Obama attacking ISIL. Especially when they wanted this a minute ago. This is nothing but a political play.I'll pary that you get over your draconian and archaic thinking
If you didn't catch it, Kaine is a Democrat Senator. He is right on his stances; we got so bent out of shape when Bush and Cheney did this but not a single word is being spoken when Obama does this. The Constitution CLEARLY states only Congress has the power to approve war, not the president. If we're going to look over this then might as fucking well just shred the damn Constitution
we got so bent out of shape when Bush and Cheney did this but not a single word is being spoken when Obama does this.
The Constitution CLEARLY states only Congress has the power to approve war, not the president.
Senator Tim Kaine attacks Syria strikes
