US Army captain is suing Obama on the legality of fighting the Islamic State; claims Obama does not
50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50266907]way2generalize[/QUOTE]
And when I'm right what do I win?
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
I'd like a pack of Oreos and a milkshake.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50266649]Pretty certain he's fully aware of the ramifications of this on his career.
Also pretty certain he's not caring.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how he'll feel then after this is all over and his career has completely tanked. Moron.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50266892]Okay, let's pretend for a short moment that that "legality" is somehow relevant to anything; what's it matter if we impromptu recognize it as a sovereign entity? We're going to war to wipe it off the map anyway.[/QUOTE]
Congress's silence is their consent. You don't need to do something unprecedented like declare war on a state that doesn't exist.
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
We can't sit around and do fuck all while the republicans jerk themselves off in congress because they can't dare to help Obama lest they damage their possible chances at election by making the Democratic President look good.
[QUOTE=Richoxen;50266920]And when I'm right what do I win?
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
I'd like a pack of Oreos and a milkshake.[/QUOTE]
why not an Orea milkshake ?!
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50267033]why not an Orea milkshake ?![/QUOTE]
Glad someone in this thread makes sense.
[QUOTE=Richoxen;50266903]99% chance he's just some republican trying to stick it to the big bad negro president.
If he's actually doing this because of his conscious then I can respect that at least.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's probably just a racist trying to get back at the big bad black guy. That's way more likely than it being someone against the fighting or a proponent of having all major conflict go through congress.
Due to the warpowers act signed in 73 after vietnam the President can only deploy troops overseas for 60 days before having it further approved by Congress. This is also prevelant because to deploy troops overseas in the first place the President has to notify congress within 48 hours. This guy is suing Obama because he's technically in violation of the warpowers act. As for all of our military engagements after 1973 they have been generally described as Police Actions, UN intervention, Regular intervention, and part of the war on terror. Meanwhile with Korea we were technically under the banner of the UN as a justification for not declaring war on North Korea. And with Vietnam I guess we were under a banner of interventionalism.
As for the Civil War it was just that really, a civil war; it is a bit different than a war we declare for since it was twchnically against an illegitimate state. But regardless of its title a war is a war even if we dont declare for it we are still engaging in acts of war, whether they're interventionist or for security measures.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50266772]What exactly was Korea, then? Vietnam? Gulf War I & II?[/QUOTE]
None of those even touch the scale of WW1 and WW2 in terms of American hardware that was mobilized. The entire doctrines are different.
This will make for interesting precedent, regardless of how the suit unfolds.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50266890]Sounds like you're happy to see a man's career get destroyed.[/QUOTE]
I mean if any Army Captain is going to be enough of a smart ass to pull a stunt like this it's the only thing I would expect.
scorpious, I understand that you argue that semantics are pointless but semantics in territories like war are important for many reasons, like history and transparency of the events
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
like it's actually laughable that vietnam was never declared a war officially
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
seems like an insult to everyone involved really, someone dying in a war (which is the case) or someone dying in an UN security resolution
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
I believe that Richoxen was just stating the facts that these are semantics, wasnt really taking a side
[QUOTE=GunFox;50267783]None of those even touch the scale of WW1 and WW2 in terms of American hardware that was mobilized. The entire doctrines are different.[/QUOTE]
Since when does the level of mobilization define a state of war?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50268268]Since when does the level of mobilization define a state of war?[/QUOTE]
Legal language wise it does. This guys thing probably won't have much to stand on, intervention does not require congressional approval.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50269047]Legal language wise it does. This guys thing probably won't have much to stand on, intervention does not require congressional approval.[/QUOTE]
The intervention without Congressional approval in Vietnam is the whole reason the War Powers Act was passed in the first place.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50269061]The intervention without Congressional approval in Vietnam is the whole reason the War Powers Act was passed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Still has never resulted in a successful charge against a president. On top of that Obama hasn't even officially invaded ISIS territory, it's only really been spec ops and bombing runs, so this guys charge holds very little water.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50269112]Still has never resulted in a successful charge against a president. On top of that Obama hasn't even officially invaded ISIS territory, it's only really been spec ops and bombing runs, so this guys charge holds very little water.[/QUOTE]
Just because there isn't an invasion doesn't mean it's not a war. We're dropping explosives, people are dying. You don't have to have a land invasion for that to happen.
If they aren't an enemy we're at war with, then we are literally dropping bombs on civilians massively, who by happenstance are heavily armed.
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
And just because it's never successfully been charged to a president doesn't mean it never will - or shouldn't.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50269344]Just because there isn't an invasion doesn't mean it's not a war. We're dropping explosives, people are dying. You don't have to have a land invasion for that to happen.
If they aren't an enemy we're at war with, then we are literally dropping bombs on civilians massively, who by happenstance are heavily armed.
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
And just because it's never successfully been charged to a president doesn't mean it never will - or shouldn't.[/QUOTE]
Dropping bombs isn't necessarily considered war, which is why presidents don't get charged for doing things like that without congressional permission. Essentially nothing will happen, they tried to do the same to Bill Clinton with Kosovo and similarly nothing happened.
the war powers resolution of 1973 isn't exactly constitutional anyways, but its not like obama HASN'T been asking for authorization, infact he's been demanding it for 18 months now, but congress won't even move on it for a yes or no
I don't see Obama getting angry about this. He was a law student after all. In fact, I'll bet he welcomes the opportunity to have this argued over. Maybe it will redefine the law or set a precedent.
The only opponents I could see this man having would be his other superiors.
tbh I thought he was just suing to get out of his deployment in kuwait.
I'd probably do the same honestly
[QUOTE=Rowtree;50272177]tbh I thought he was just suing to get out of his deployment in kuwait.
I'd probably do the same honestly[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there are numerous other ways of achieving that if it were his intention.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.