Quote (inkanddagger @ Apr 18 2018 04:25pm)

First, this defies the Constitution. Love it or leave it.

Second, it was by design that Congress, which takes forever to make a decision, be in charge of warfare. Our founders did not want our federal government engaging in empire building around the world like the country they had just freed themselves of.

Third, "If there were a threat to the US" - well there isn't one in this case so I suppose you ought to be logically consistent and oppose what Trump did and support Mattis' recommendation to seek Congressional approval.

Quote (Ghot @ Apr 19 2018 12:23pm)

Congress themselves passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973. The War Powers Resolution requires that the President communicate to Congress the committal of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.

The problem with today's world is that these tiny countries (that ask for help) or countries that resort to fast response terrorism, are using the US Constitution to tie the US's hands. The War Powers Resolution is Congress's response to this modern world situation.

I think it's a good thing. So does the UN apparently. I can just see the UN sitting around when someone in Syria launches a chemical warfare attack, or a terrorist organization starts taking over a country.
Who ya gonna call? The US of course.

Ergo, the US needs a fast response capability, that the Constitution didn't provide for because in those days, it took a month to GET anywhere.
So Congress, rightly IMO, passed the War Powers Resolution.


So this isn't a case of the president doing what Congress SHOULD be doing, but rather a president doing what Congress gave the president the power to do.
When we consider the speed with which terrorists attack and the disappear again, I think Congress did the right thing back in 1973.

Quote (Algorhythm @ Apr 19 2018 08:26am)

US attack on other countries without UNSC mandate is illegal. Regardless if president or congress made the call.
If the UN/UNSC is not able to act, perhaps those need reforms.
US acting as world empire or police of own accord, especially when it has lost credibility and moral high ground to position itself as such, will encourage other nations to do the same to say the least.

Lets be less naive, US acting against terrorists and chemical is as real as the tooth fairy.

Quote

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 19 2018 12:55pm)

ahh yes, the gas bombing of syrians clearly creates a national emergency for Americans.

Quote

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. As of December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.[1][2]

Quote (Algorhythm @ Apr 19 2018 05:26am)

US attack on other countries without UNSC mandate is illegal. Regardless if president or congress made the call.
If the UN/UNSC is not able to act, perhaps those need reforms.
US acting as world empire or police of own accord, especially when it has lost credibility and moral high ground to position itself as such, will encourage other nations to do the same to say the least.

Lets be less naive, US acting against terrorists and chemical is as real as the tooth fairy.

Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 19 2018 09:55am)

ahh yes, the gas bombing of syrians clearly creates a national emergency for Americans.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Apr 19 2018 11:51pm)