Somebody needs to take this miserable fuck down NOW.
Somebody needs to take this miserable fuck down NOW.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Yeah...I think for your own sake, you might want to be careful how you word things like that.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Well, I was talking about Mueller. But I wouldn't shed a tear about the other thing either.....
TARD, everyone here at Frontline appreciates your anti America consistency.
BTW, Korea, Vietnam, Desert storm, and gulf war 2, Berlin airlift, contras, Afghanistan were all WWIII at the time.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
No, none of those ever had a realistic potential to escalate into a worldwide nuclear holocaust like this one.Originally Posted by jacksmar
What all of those DO have in common, including Cheeto's current treason, is that they were all illegal, unconstitutional, and not a single fucking one of them had a damned thing to do with defending THIS country.
By illegally bombing Syria, President Trump has once again denied the American people any oversight or accountability in this endless war. Congress, not the president, has the power to authorize military action. https://t.co/9P25HQ8zq6
— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) April 14, 2018
And I want this fucking cunt tried for treason RIGHT THE FUCK NOW. And her two cunt partners too....
I don't credit Jerry Rivers for much, but at least he had the brains not to take the bait there. Too bad you can't say the same about the Orange Imbecile.
TARD, you really are a leftist sis. You understand NOTHING.
This action puts all the bad actors on notice. This is the underlying message to the world: Russian and Iranian promises to protect you mean NOTHING. If the United States wants to use its military power and decides to use it, no country on earth can stop it.
Not only is Syria a big loser tonight but so is Russia. All their bullshit about shooting us down apparently was NOTHING. Bad news for the Soviets on the world stage.
Live and learn...
But reading my own bullshit, I may have missed that this might be an exit strategy.
But clearly, the cost of this operation should be deducted from our payments to the UN.
Exactly....
TARD, that's your answer?
No, PNAC, or Bush, or Bernie?
BTW,
Number of Americans killed by Syrian gas = 0
Number of Americans killed by illegal aliens every day = 12
I seriously doubt that stat but I do know that stats show that illegal aliens kill fewer Americans per head than Americans citizens do so it doesn't mean anything.
Also
Number of Americans killed by heart disease every day= 1736
Number of Americans killed by suicide every day= 121
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
For what it's worth even in the fairy tale world of Trump TV, can I mention that there is no president in the UK?
Last edited by Seshmeister; 04-14-2018 at 08:53 AM.
The people of Syria desperately want to live in peace & do not want their country to be taken over by genocidal terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. If we are truly concerned about the suffering of the Syrian people & bringing about peace & stability so refugees can return home & begin to rebuild their lives, then we should work for peace, end our policy of interventionist regime change wars and stop trying to be the policeman of the world.
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) April 14, 2018
It is Congress, not the president, which has the constitutional responsibility for making war. The international community must uphold the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, but it is unclear how Trump's illegal and unauthorized strikes on Syria achieve that goal. https://t.co/ps2HMIXZKu
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 14, 2018
In the same way that gun control will mitigate gun fatalities, war will create peace.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Seshmeister (04-14-2018)
theintercept.com
Donald Trump Ordered Syria Strike Based on a Secret Legal Justification Even Congress Can’t See
Jon Schwarz
April 14 2018, 6:47 a.m.
On Friday night, President Trump ordered the U.S. military to conduct a bombing attack against the government of Syria without congressional authorization. How can this be constitutional, given the fact that Article I, Section 8 of America’s founding document declares that “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War”?
The deeply bizarre and alarming answer is that Trump almost certainly does have some purported legal justification provided to him by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — but no one else, including Congress, can read it.
The Office of Legal Counsel is often called the Supreme Court of the executive branch, providing opinions on how the president and government agencies should interpret the law.
We know that Trump received a top secret OLC opinion justifying the previous U.S. strike on Syria on April 6, 2017. Friday’s bombing undoubtedly relied on the same memo or one with similar reasoning.
So while over 80 members of Congress wrote to Trump on Friday night stating that “engaging our military in Syria … without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” their action has no impact. The military will rely on the OLC’s opinion that, constitutionally speaking, Trump’s orders were perfectly fine. And it will be quite difficult for members of Congress to argue otherwise, since they don’t even know what the Trump administration’s precise rationale is.
It is not unprecedented for the OLC’s reasoning to be classified. Over 20 percent of its opinions between 1998 and 2013 have been secret.
However, these OLC memos were generally written on government actions that were themselves classified. One notorious example is the so-called “torture memos” produced by the OLC during the George W. Bush administration.
What makes Trump’s actions new, according to several legal experts I spoke with, is that previous presidents appear to have always made public their legal justification for any overt military action on a significant scale. No matter how shoddy their explanations were, this at least made debate possible.
The only reason the existence of the 2017 OLC memo on Syria is public knowledge is because the organization Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit to compel the Justice Department to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request that the OLC provide “the President’s legal authority to launch such a strike.”
The OLC refused — but did produce an index of relevant documents. The first on the list is key: As described by the OLC, it is a “Legal Memo” that “is currently classified TOP SECRET.”
Soon after the 2017 strikes, two prominent Democrats, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff from California, wrote to Trump and requested “a detailed analysis of the legal precedents and authorities supporting the action in Syria.” They have not received any response.
So what does the OLC’s secret memo say? Obviously it’s impossible to be certain, but it is possible to make educated guesses.
James Madison, the Constitution’s main architect, explained that the power to declare war must be “fully and exclusively vested” in Congress because history showed that “the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.”
The Constitution did, to some degree, work to restrain this presidential tendency through World War II. Since then, however, both Republican and Democratic presidents have made concerted efforts to break the Constitution’s chains, using extremely strained interpretations of the Constitution itself.
In 1950 President Truman sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Korea to fight an extraordinarily brutal war without any authorization from Congress. Instead, his administration claimed he had the power to do this because Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Therefore, “the President’s power to send the Armed Forces outside the country is not dependent on Congressional authority.”
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution provided some degree of Congressional authorization for the Vietnam War. But then the U.S. began a secret military campaign against Vietnam’s neighbor, Cambodia. In 1970 William Rehnquist, later to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was head of the OLC. He provided the Nixon administration with an opinion stating that the Korean War “stands as a precedent for executive action in committing United States armed forces to extensive hostilities without any formal declaration of war by Congress.” Moreover, the U.S. had “in no sense gone to ‘war’ with Cambodia” and Nixon did not require any further authorization from Congress, given “the constitutional designation of the President as Commander in Chief.” The U.S. ended up dropping more bombs on Cambodia – which then had a population smaller than that of New York City — than we used during all of World War II.
This perspective on presidential power eventually become dogma for the U.S. hard right. Congress in fact did authorize the Gulf War in 1991, but Dick Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, believed that this was totally unnecessary, and indeed later claimed the George H.W. Bush administration had the power to go to war even if Congress had voted the resolution down. “We had the Truman precedent from the Korean crisis of 1950,” Cheney explained. “From a constitutional standpoint we had all the authority we needed.”
The OLC handed the George W. Bush administration a memo similar to that of Rehnquist’s three weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Thanks to Article II, it said, the Constitution establishes that “the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency.” Therefore the President did not need congressional authorization to attack “terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”
After Trump ordered last year’s strike on Syria, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explained that he’d done so “pursuant to his power under Article II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief,” without any authorization by Congress. Then last night, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated that “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important U.S. national interests,” and the bombing was therefore constitutional because “The United States has an important national interest in averting a worsening catastrophe in Syria, and specifically deterring the use and proliferation of chemical weapons.”
So the general outlines of Trump’s legal basis for Friday’s bombing are fairly clear. There also are truly extreme. As Jack Goldsmith, one of the heads of the OLC during the Bush administration, has said, it’s a perspective that “places no limit at all on the president’s ability to use significant military force unilaterally.”
That would be bad enough, of course, if everything were out in the open. But at least then it could be debated on specifics, rather than supposition. Instead, we have allowed the Constitution to be eviscerated to the point that not only does the president have nearly unlimited war powers, we can’t even say exactly why.
Trump is finished. General Kelly told him not to bring Bolton in and Trump brings Bolton in anyways. Trump campaigned on avoiding war in Syria and getting bogged down in the middle east period. He just turned on a huge part of why people voted for him. He's finished. He just lost the support of his base because he proved he doesn't stand for shit. Trump has proven himself to be weak. He attacked Syria all because his lawyer's office got raided by Mueller. Trump needed a distraction. Even General Mattis stated we didn't have all the details on the chemical attack. Also if you want to be technical, launching that attack was unconstitutional because it didn't have congressional approval. So if you want to impeach Trump on that go ahead. Fuck Mueller. Trump just violated the US Constitution and yeah I know other presidents have done the same but the law is the law. Well it didn't take John Bolton long to get what he wanted. I will say one thing about Bolton. That mother fucker gets shit done!
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
To be honest I was relieved reading what the strike did because this time at least it avoided an all out ramp up of hostilities with Russia.
As far as the Syria thing goes all you need to do is read Trumps tweets when Obama did the same thing under the same circumstances. It's just ridiculous.
And best of all directed at maybe the most cautious probably over cautious US administration in recent history the guy that just appointed Bolton and doesn't read any briefings said...
There will be more attacks in Syria. The neocons are still in charge of US foreign policy. The neocons believe nobody on the planet can beat the US military and they want anyone who can challenge the US taken out. This includes Russia and China. Israel is in bed with the neocons. Putin is figuring eventually common sense will prevail and it's why he is sitting back. No response from Russia means we will just keep provoking Russia. Theres a chemical attack and before we even have the details we strike something. Well we could get away with that in the past but now we are up against a nuclear power. One that can wipe out the UK with one large ICBM. NATO is acting like we are going after Saddam Hussain. I'm afraid things are going to escalate until they get out of control. The US has no interests in Syria but Israel would like us to attack it for them. See Israel figured out a long time ago they just have to buy off our politicians and it gets whatever it wants. Of course Israel is self destructive and I'm afraid they might take the west down with them. This is a more dangerous situation than the Cuban missile crisis because Kennedy and Kruschev were both working to end it. Right now the nuclear weapons are far more powerful. There are no war protestors anymore. Even the left has thrown in with the military industrial complex. Trump is over his head and seems to be letting the warmongers have their way. In short. Everyone is bullied or bought and the people who think we can beat Russia in a war are moving forward and the public can't do shit about it.
Ooooooooooh, "on notice." How cliche. Some notice: The FAT Orange Blunder launched an estimated 100 missiles. Meanwhile 30 to 40 year-old Soviet anti air defenses somehow manged to knock down over 70% of them. So it appears they can stop it. The Russia MoD claims to have the radar data and are willing to share it with anyone who wants it. They specifically mentioned "anyone thinking about buying their (USA-made) junk." This is the main reason they stayed well away from Russian forces. The bandits and fascists of Anglo-American and French imperialism would have been dealt a good old fashioned blood-letting. Again, some notice.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
They didn't knock down anything, you dolt! They didn't even fire until after the cruise missiles hit and their AA defenses were swarmed. You attack Ford for posting RT shit, then believe the same fucking Russian bullshit propaganda nonsense...
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Politely go and fuck yourself. They most certainly did, you CNN troll.
See, here is is, folks! Straight propaganda from the pseudo-left. slave FORD still refuses to admit even his master Bernie and the rest of his pseudo-lef groups are pro-war because they belong to a privileged upper-middle class layer that stands to benefit materially from the imperialist pillaging of the Middle East. Every single god damn one of them.
Same cheeks on the same butt. Both the Democrats and Republicans are owned by the military industrial complex. Washington DC and the middle east are quite similar. It's impossible to find good leadership in either place.
I don't care. slave FORD needs to come clean about master Bernie.
Trump is toast. Mike Pence will be taking over. The only question will be will Trump resign or will he be fired?
Democratic socialist my ass. Bernie is quite the capitalist. He sure seemed to like Clinton Foundation money. Really he didn't get a bad deal. Take the fall and get paid and enjoy the money you got without having to be bothered by being president. Senators really don't do anything anymore. Lot's of vacation time to enjoy things.
Kristy (04-16-2018)
Do you really believe that?
Not being sarcastic...I wouldn't want to take odds on that happening, since I can easily see Trump making it to the end of his term...and possibly winning another one.
Oh look, the pothead is a military analyst now!
Please post the articles where is says this, moron...
Last edited by Nickdfresh; 04-16-2018 at 07:13 PM.
I haven't looked into it, but I've never heard him claim the socialist mantle. Mostly in interviews he sounds like an FDR-style capitalist advocating reforms and regulation, but not nationalization, of business...
FORD (04-16-2018)
Upon further review, here's a Fortune magazine article on Sanders and why he isn't really a "democratic socialist" despite adopting the moniker:
http://fortune.com/2017/07/11/bernie...are-socialism/
In short, he wants to break up banks and not nationalize them, which isn't socialism at all but a throwback to The New Deal style of regulation and reform...
It's all in the definition. Half the political parties in Europe are in a Democratic Socialist alliance in the EU including the likes of Tony Blair's party and no one there looks like wanting to start nationalising banks any time soon.
The cold war mentality programmed everybody to equate "socialism" with "communism". And for that matter, to equate "communism" with Stalin's USSR or Mao's China, as opposed to anything Karl Marx actually wrote about.
Of course Marx based his theories on the old Jewish Kibbutz system. Bernie himself actually lived in a Kibbutz in Israel for a while.... of course that was back in the pre-Likud/NuttyYahoo days, when there was still some sanity present in that country's leadership.
I consider myself a "Democratic Socialist" in the same way that Bernie does.... in the respect that some things, such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare (among others) should NEVER be privately owned, for profit systems. But I have never, nor will ever advocate that government own "the means of production". I don't mind that corporations make my shoes, my car, or my TV. I'd just rather they did so in America and paid their workers a living wage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
