ThreeifbyLightning
Heisman
Posts: 9,759
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Univ of Middle Tennessee
Location: |
RE: Second strike on drug boat raises questions
(12-04-2025 03:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote: (12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote: No official war has been declared dumb***.
Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.
Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.
Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.
Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.
Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.
I addressed this in an earlier thread on this topic. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.
And the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations called for and used the AUMF as the basis for the long series of drone attacks, especially with the 'aiding' nad 'supporting' language in it. Did they expand it too broadly? Maybe, maybe not. But the AUMF has broadening language in it.
And no, hate to tell you, there is NO language in the AUMF the solely delineates AQ. None.
Wrong again. The AUMF delineates the org responsible for 9/11. Which as you now know was al-Qaeda. Here's the exact language...
That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza-
tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.
Had Congress left out that last part highlighted in blue then the AUMF could have basically guaranteed use against any terrorist organization. But they didn't leave it out.
Quote:Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF,
Hate to tell you there are no specific designated entities in the AUMF.
Yes there was. It was AQ. Even if not called out by name in the AUMF. It was AQ, because they are the only ones that plotted and carried out the attacks on that day.
Quote:so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways.
Not trying to have it both ways. The previous administrations tolled back to the AUMF for their continued ME - related strikes. Using the 'aided' language in it. Add granted, the further in time the more attenuated that claim back was. But they still cited to *some* ground of authority for continued actions.
As opposed to simply writing them off as a series of 'onesies' under Art 2 authority.
Bottom line. You're claiming the AUMF gives authority for Obama to go after any terrorist he wants but then claim that Trump can't do the same. Talk about backing yourself into a corner. We knew we were going to war with AQ and the Taliban. That's why Congressional authority was needed. We are not at war right now. Trump, like Obama even like Biden though he only used the authority a very few times in Somalia and Syria did the same thing. This is an absolutely unwinnable position you have taken and you now know it and trying to using evasive tactics which unfortunately aren't going to work here. You're cooked on this one.
Quote:Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism.
I havent denoted whataboutism. I commented on one being tossed out.
Quote:Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."
Actually, in testimony before Congress, the Obama administration almost always relied on the pre-existing AUMF as opposed to bald Art. 2 authority. And I will grant you that the plausibility of that claim decreased the further in time and targeted groups were.
In short pretty much every action in Iraq, or in Afghanistan fell under that claim. And the majority of ISIS strikes did as well. As did the majority of strikes in the Southern portion of the Saui peninsula.
Even being mostly true, I have proven the AUMF did not grant any authority to use it to go after anyone except those that conspired to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the broad use of the AUMF to conduct many of those strikes likely exceed the authority of its use. So, if you believe that Obama was able to use that AUMF to conduct strikes against individuals or groups not associated with 9/11 then so can Trump. It's really that simple. If you don't believe that Obama should have done that and by extension that Trump shouldn't then Obama, Biden, and Trump would be better off leaning on their Article II authorities. But either way, Trump has never claimed to be using the AUMF. He's using his Article II Commander in Chief authorities, so it's actually easier to say Trump is more accurately deploying his authorities than did Obama. That said, please keep in mind that Obama did also conduct similar strikes in Lybia using his article II authorities.
Quote:This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.
I would agree with one, 2, 3, or 4 strikes. Not so much the more it is continuously being used. If you want to portray 20 strikes in a two month time frame as limited Art 2 enforcement -- have at it. I think that description pretty empty at the current time.
I think it potentially possible that the current strikes may be covered as an allowable use of military force. However, the Trump regime has deemed even the legal basis for such strikes as some highly guarded state secret. Which I find highly problematic.
This again proves just how inept you are at understanding the construct of this issue. Obama can conduct thousands of airstrikes using a misappropriated AUMF and not a peep. Trump conducts a couple of dozen and you act like he's killing puppies and babies. The # of strikes he can carry out short of formal war could be in the hundreds or maybe even the thousands like Obama. The number is irrelevant. Right now, these are special operations against individuals and small groups causing immense harm to the American people. He can carry out as many of these as he wants. That number is meaningless. As long as the boats continue to come then the strikes can legally continue. You're just simply wrong here and out of your domain on this one.
Responses to your flawed arguments in bold above.
|
|
