At first I wanted this vote to be a no because going into Syria would be stupid. Now I want it to be a no vote so that Kerry can have egg on his stupid face.
140 bipartisan signatures and counting from congress? Why demand Obama get congressional approval if they aren't going to approve it?
Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.
But if congress does vote no, then Obama will have an out not to strike Syria and save face. The decision might also depend on what the French and UK Parliments vote as well. I think the UK will be making a second vote now that the UN report is out.
A black and white statement that falls flat on its face. The series of strikes aimed at Al Qaeda in both Yemen and Pakistan in particular come to mind, as does the assassination of Al Awlaki.
Then why his reluctance despite his personal red line being crossed?A black and white statement that falls flat on its face. The series of strikes aimed at Al Qaeda in both Yemen and Pakistan in particular come to mind, as does the assassination of Al Awlaki.
Then why his reluctance despite his personal red line being crossed?
Why not call congress back a week early if he truly believes it is urgent?
Why no plan in place after a year to prepare?
Why no coalition built in anticipation of this happening.
He is passing the buck and washing his hands.
Why Targeted Assassinations Violate US and International Law
by DENNIS BERNSTEIN
Marjorie Cohn is a Professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is also the editor of “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse.”
DB: You say the recent memo coming out of the Justice Department on the administration’s plans to keep up its targeted assassinations and expand the program runs afoul of international and US law. Please explain.
Read the answer here:
Why Targeted Assassinations Violate US and International Law » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Then why his reluctance despite his personal red line being crossed?
Why not call congress back a week early if he truly believes it is urgent?
Why no plan in place after a year to prepare?
Why no coalition built in anticipation of this happening.
He is passing the buck and washing his hands.
The arrogance of this administration knows no bounds. How stupid do you have to be to pull back on your rabid talk of military action because you "want the approval of the representatives of the American people in congress" and out of the other side of your mouth claim that even if congress says no, you may go ahead with a strike anyway?
If I was in congress, I'd tell the President and the Secretary to go **** themselves and grow some balls - if you think my vote is irrelevant, then don't waste my time - act if you think it's right and suffer the consequences if not - don't seek the cover of congress just because you don't have the backbone to do it yourself.
The supposed appropriateness or legality of the actions mentioned are largely irrelevant. The claim that Obama's foreign policy to this point has been entirely reactive was simply incorrect. It happens to the best of us :shrug:
Congress intervenes on Sept. 9. Debates and delivers "no" vote on Sept. 10. Obama issues strike order on Sept. 11. Is this a doable scenario? What are the pros and cons of striking on Sept. 11?
Congress intervenes on Sept. 9. Debates and delivers "no" vote on Sept. 10. Obama issues strike order on Sept. 11. Is this a doable scenario? What are the pros and cons of striking on Sept. 11?
What are the "pros" to striking without the American people's support, on a "no" vote from congress and no authorization from the UN?
What are the "pros" to striking without the American people's support, on a "no" vote from congress and no authorization from the UN?
For a liberal and or progressive? That would be.....that the Pro is. There is a legal way to get round the Law. Just sayin.
I see how that violates domestic and international law, but how does it get around it?
I ain't lettin him off on no technicality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?