U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Secret notice of “armed conflict” with some cartels

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 272
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
UNCBAdookJD said:
In addition to the illegality of the strike itself, attacking survivors of a destroyed vessel in the water is a war crime even in an actual war. Just heinous people in charge.
Click to expand...
I had not paid attention to details
Good Gawd if they did that
 
UNCBAdookJD said:
In addition to the illegality of the strike itself, attacking survivors of a destroyed vessel in the water is a war crime even in an actual war. Just heinous people in charge.
Click to expand...
Were there survivors of either attack and did the US kill them?
 
ZenMode said:
Isn't labeling them narcoTERRORISTS his way of making it legal... in his tiny, underpowered brain?
Click to expand...
I'm confident it's a way of providing cover to the extent Trump even thinks it's possible for him to do something illegal. But I still think the President would generally need an AUMF to order military action against a terrorist group, right?
 
rodoheel said:
I'm confident it's a way of providing cover to the extent Trump even thinks it's possible for him to do something illegal. But I still think the President would generally need an AUMF to order military action against a terrorist group, right?
Click to expand...
True. I doubt Congress would have given blanket approval to "drone" any terrorists the President wants.

I'm sure labeling them as terrorists has some meaning. He's probably just misusing another emergency power.
 
rodoheel said:
But I still think the President would generally need an AUMF to order military action against a terrorist group, right?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Clinton ordered the bombing of a suspected Al-Q facility in Sudan and if I recall, the major controversy was whether he did that to distract from Lewinsky. I don't recall there being a question of an AUMF.

In any event, congressional war powers haven't mattered since Vietnam.
 
superrific said:
I doubt it. Clinton ordered the bombing of a suspected Al-Q facility in Sudan and if I recall, the major controversy was whether he did that to distract from Lewinsky. I don't recall there being a question of an AUMF.

In any event, congressional war powers haven't mattered since Vietnam.
Click to expand...
Good point. That's detailed here:

en.wikipedia.org

Operation Infinite Reach - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Feels different because it was in response to a violent terrorist attack directed by Bin Laden, but you're right that there was no Congressional authorization for anything.
 
I think it is quaint that anyone thinks the President needs an AUMF from Congress. Do you think this Court is going to limit the power of this President to use military force in any way?
 
Calheel said:
I think it is quaint that anyone thinks the President needs an AUMF from Congress. Do you think this Court is going to limit the power of this President to use military force in any way?
Click to expand...
Or, this Congress attempt to rein in this POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top