• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

v

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'. True or False?

  • Total voters
    20
J

JoeyJoystick

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
1,846
Reaction score
979
Location
Thailand
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In response to the attack of the US on Iran, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'.

True or False?

I think the answer should be 'False'. It is my understanding that the President needs approval from congress to declare war, but does not need to do so for military action on a one-off basis. Hence my own vote. Can some of you clarify what the real situation is?

I would like to add the following; though morally you may expect him to inform congress, this would also risk jeopardizing mission secrecy. And I think this last one is a clear indicator that it should be possible for a president to undertake military action without approval. Am I wrong in this logic?

Joey
 
I went with other, because when I looked it up there are, apparently conditions where impeachment could be appropriate. From GPT:

  • If Trump launched a full-scale war with Iran without congressional authorization, it could arguably violate the Constitution and War Powers Resolution.
  • If it were shown to be done recklessly, for personal political reasons, or in defiance of Congress, those factors could strengthen the case for impeachment.
  • Ultimately, impeachment is up to the House of Representatives, and removal is up to the Senate, meaning the political climate matters greatly.

However, it does appear to be correct that strikes like this are within the power of the president. I guess the question is, what does this turn into, and was it justified, and it's probably going to take a while to answer both of those questions.
 
My understanding is that Trump has the authority to authorize a strike like this, and that there is precedent from virtually all of his predecessors regardless of D or R who have done the same. While I personally believe it was an unforced error on his part, that doesn’t mean he does not have the authority to do so, and it’s certainly not an impeachable offense. This is an example of why I cannot take someone like AOC seriously as strong Presidential material compared to a Whitmer or a Kelly; she’s prone to embellishing and overstating things, and while that works for Donald with his cult members, it doesn’t work for AOC trying to appeal to an actual big tent party filled with progressives, independents, moderates, centrists, RINOs etc.

I do think Congress needs to decide if it wants to have any future role in governance going forward. Both parties in Congress appear content to be a simple rubber stamp if their party controls the White House. If that’s the case, perhaps we can save a lot of money in salaries for Congress critters and their staffers and just axe that branch of government if they don’t think they should be holding the executive in check. (And I aim this at both parties in Congress.)
 
100% True. First, a President can be impeached for any reason Congress deems fit. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. But yes, I would say that this should qualify as impeachable. This was not an emergency. This was a surprise attack and starting a war conducted against a sovereign nation not as a result of an immediate threat to our country, but on behalf of a belligerent ally. And if we did not have corporate-bought Republican and Democratic Representatives and Senators, Trump would have been impeached and convicted the first time around.
 
JoeyJoystick said:
In response to the attack of the US on Iran, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'.

True or False?

I think the answer should be 'False'. It is my understanding that the President needs approval from congress to declare war, but does not need to do so for military action on a one-off basis. Hence my own vote. Can some of you clarify what the real situation is?

I would like to add the following; though morally you may expect him to inform congress, this would also risk jeopardizing mission secrecy. And I think this last one is a clear indicator that it should be possible for a president to undertake military action without approval. Am I wrong in this logic?

Joey
Click to expand...

The president has the right to unilateral action for these actions.

AOC is lost.

Where was AOC when Obama was bombing Yemen?
 
Trump has committed so many crimes that Congress can take their pick when they're finally done with him. I highly doubt the trigger will be using the War Powers Act for military action against a longtime adversary, when it isn't obviously unpopular (at least not yet).

The good news is that since Trump commits exciting new crimes practically every day, it won't be difficult to find a pretext when the time comes. You just need to get 67 senators to agree.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
100% True. First, a President can be impeached for any reason Congress deems fit. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.
Click to expand...

Hi Felis,

Sorry, have to split your response.

This is the most convincing response I see. Not a single word I can argue. And I like your approach on it.

Felis Leo said:
But yes, I would say that this should qualify as impeachable. This was not an emergency.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. I think this was an emergency.

Forget intelligence for a second. Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. There are basically 2 atomic bombs and we're going to leave the hydrogen bomb out of this, because this is not at play here at all.

So we have Uranium bombs and Plutonium bombs. First we go by elimination. Both the added difficulties to manufacture Plutonium and the complexity to make a weapon out of this will dictate Iran the use of a conventional Uranium weapon. So we are going to look at just the Uranium weapon. What do we need for that? Enriched Uranium, the mechanics to bring 2 pieces of Uranium together rather quickly and precise, and a delivery system. They already have the delivery systems. They have been running centrifuges for many years already. And the actual manufacture of a bomb is something you and I can do provided we have money and Uranium. Lot's of money, but that's besides the point.

So given that at least they have had the possibility to produce enough U-235 by now, I think it is fair to say that there is an emergency.


Felis Leo said:
This was a surprise attack and starting a war conducted against a sovereign nation not as a result of an immediate threat to our country, but on behalf of a belligerent ally.
Click to expand...

Very true, provided it was not an emergency.


Felis Leo said:
And if we did not have corporate-bought Republican and Democratic Representatives and Senators, Trump would have been impeached and convicted the first time around.
Click to expand...

No argument here.


Joey
 
Gatsby said:
Trump has committed so many crimes that Congress can take their pick when they're finally done with him. I highly doubt the trigger will be using the War Powers Act for military action against a longtime adversary, when it isn't obviously unpopular (at least not yet).

The good news is that since Trump commits exciting new crimes practically every day, it won't be difficult to find a pretext when the time comes. You just need to get 67 senators to agree.
Click to expand...

Hi Gatsby,

67 Is the tricky part, isn't it... But than again, in a normal world, he wouldn't even have been allowed to run for president in the first place. Both times!


Joey
 
Felis Leo said:
100% True. First, a President can be impeached for any reason Congress deems fit. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. But yes, I would say that this should qualify as impeachable. This was not an emergency. This was a surprise attack and starting a war conducted against a sovereign nation not as a result of an immediate threat to our country, but on behalf of a belligerent ally. And if we did not have corporate-bought Republican and Democratic Representatives and Senators, Trump would have been impeached and convicted the first time around.
Click to expand...

Right, it was done recklessly, and as such we are nevertheless at the mercy of a 100% dysfuntional Republican Party who is behaving like Saddam's Baath Party after the big purge.
So it is a moot point unless overwhelming evidence appears that show that the recklessness of this strike was so indisputable as to constitute a clear and present danger to our own security as a direct and provable result of his actions.

Still, a House and Senate majority that is unwilling to even address anything is crippling our ability to pursue remedies in accordance with the Constitution.
Our Constitution is in tatters, it is torn to shreds as it is right now.
Impeachment is a pipe dream and frankly, even if we did have the ways and means to carry it out and remove him from office, it is not even enough.

Truth be told, this strike is theater. It may be dead serious and deadlly theater but it is performative nonsense designed to wag many dogs.
 
Gatsby said:
Trump has committed so many crimes that Congress can take their pick when they're finally done with him. I highly doubt the trigger will be using the War Powers Act for military action against a longtime adversary, when it isn't obviously unpopular (at least not yet).

The good news is that since Trump commits exciting new crimes practically every day, it won't be difficult to find a pretext when the time comes. You just need to get 67 senators to agree.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a mushroom cloud, nuclear or even non-nuclear, appearing in a red state major city, as a gift from an Iranian sleeper cell, maybe that would trigger sixty-seven lawmakers.
The point is, this may have been done so recklessly that we're sitting ducks right now as you read this.
If a blue city gets hit, he will view it as a bonus. If a red city gets hit on the other hand, he's going to be caught with his thumb up his ass.
 

Does Trump have the authority to order U.S. strikes on Iran?​

His Article II powers include authority not only to order the use of military force to defend the United States and U.S. persons against actual or anticipated attacks, but also to advance other important national interests. Presidents of both parties have deployed U.S. forces and ordered the use of military force, without congressional authorization, on numerous occasions.

In addition to the powers granted to the president in Article II, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “declare War.” But this authority has never been interpreted — by either Congress or the executive branch — to require congressional authorization for every military action that the president could initiate.
www.pbs.org

Does Trump have the authority to order U.S. strikes on Iran?

As the United States joins Israel's bombing campaign of Iran, some have questioned whether the president has the authority to involve the U.S. military in this conflict.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Defund PBS! It's liberal brainwashing.
 
My biggest concern is that we bombed the facility, it's that we did not need to, and my other biggest concern is that tens of thousands of military personnel in the region are now at great risk to their lives. Trump tore up the JCPOA which held for many years and was effective. A strike on an Iranian nuke plant is nothing like a strike against Yemen, or even Libya.
Iran is much more capable of initiating retaliatory attacks, quite possibly even here at home, and of course, at our installations around the world.

The issue is not whether eliminating Iran's nuke plant is good or bad, it's the fact that it's Trump ordering the bombing, Hegseth running the operation, and neither of them are remotely qualified to pull this off without creating avoidable long term grave risk.

How does it feel to look over one's shoulder every few minutes of every day?
We may be about to find out.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
My biggest concern is that we bombed the facility, it's that we did not need to, and my other biggest concern is that tens of thousands of military personnel in the region are now at great risk to their lives
Click to expand...

Hi Checkerboard Strangler,

They were placed their because there is a high risk. I am not denying the risk level has now increased, but the idea is that the overall risk level will be reduced after this. But facing risks is kinda in their job description, isn't it? So the I think the question is whether or not the risks are justified. I think they are. I share many of the concerns, but for me the scale tips the other way.


Joey
 
Retaliation will come. I don’t expect it to be immediate. It will come in different forms and different places. It will be a long and different war.

They may attack embassies and bases around the world. They will attack military members and Americans wherever.

Think about it. Weaponized viruses. With RFK and understaffed medical and research and response even understaffed and under experienced FEMA and intelligence departments what would be a more opportune time. Half the nation would choose to ignore vaccines or even wearing masks.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Retaliation will come. I don’t expect it to be immediate. It will come in different forms and different places. It will be a long and different war.

They may attack embassies and bases around the world. They will attack military members and Americans wherever.

Think about it. Weaponized viruses. With RFK and understaffed medical and research and response even understaffed and under experienced FEMA and intelligence departments what would be a more opportune time. Half the nation would choose to ignore vaccines or even wearing masks.
Click to expand...

Hi Ticket,

The more reason to deal with it now. Eliminate the risk(s).


Joey
 
Risky Thicket said:
You are suggesting what exactly?
Click to expand...

We did the right thing.

Obama would have done the same thing. Trump did it quicker. The two-week notice was brilliant and a masterclass in strategy.
 
While I see this unprovoked attack upon a sovereign Nation, Iran, as perhaps unconstitutional, I do not see it as an Impeachable Act.
 
Gatsby said:
Trump has committed so many crimes that Congress can take their pick when they're finally done with him. I highly doubt the trigger will be using the War Powers Act for military action against a longtime adversary, when it isn't obviously unpopular (at least not yet).

The good news is that since Trump commits exciting new crimes practically every day, it won't be difficult to find a pretext when the time comes. You just need to get 67 senators to agree.
Click to expand...
Are you serious ???........

Well why in the hell haven't they PICK ANY OF THESE NEW CRIMES YET ???.......

Instead they fabricate LIES and try to impeach him for "Russian Collusion" ???....
They impeached him for pausing a loan for ~ 2weeks to Ukraine!
Then impeached him for incitement of insurrection following the January 6 Protest!.....
Which was clearly not an incitement of violence but a protest of Obvious Election Fraud ! (See Video)

Well what in your mind makes you believe that IF these Rabbit Loony DEM's DID have a REAL/VALID
reason to impeach or jail Trump that they wouldn't have done so at the first chance they got????.....

Do you think the DEM's Plan is to let Trump continue to FIGHT FOR AMERICA and that will get more people
to like the DEM's for HARMING AMERICA???....

(Note the date, and that they continued with the kangaroo court Jan 6th sham)
 
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
Are you serious ???........

Well why in the hell haven't they PICK ANY OF THESE NEW CRIMES YET ???.......

Instead they fabricate LIES and try to impeach him for "Russian Collusion" ???....
They impeached him for pausing a loan for ~ 2weeks to Ukraine!
Then impeached him for incitement of insurrection following the January 6 Protest!.....
Which was clearly not an incitement of violence but a protest of Obvious Election Fraud ! (See Video)

Well what in your mind makes you believe that IF these Rabbit Loony DEM's DID have a REAL/VALID
reason to impeach or jail Trump that they wouldn't have done so at the first chance they got????.....

Do you think the DEM's Plan is to let Trump continue to FIGHT FOR AMERICA and that will get more people
to like the DEM's for HARMING AMERICA???....

(Note the date, and that they continued with the kangaroo court Jan 6th sham)
Click to expand...

To pick just one of many recent examples at random, Trump's recent efforts to get a personal jet from the Qatari government would be a career-ending scandal for any normal politician. But since he does this kind of shit every week, the story gets one news cycle at most and then it's forgotten.

That's fine, file all these corrupt acts in a drawer for now, and whenever Republicans decide they're ready to throw Trump under the bus, they can take their pick of whatever reason for impeachment they'll support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom