SecDef Esper: 'I didn't see [evidence] with regard to four embassies'

[SkylarkTempest]

Section 4 A was completed, and 4 B is not applicable as there is no war and no continued use of forces.

4A was completed? So after the briefing, the senators understood the "circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"? That's not what they said. I wonder why (at least) four Republicans are willing to vote with the Democrats on a resolution to limit Trump's ability to engage with Iran?

4B does apply. There is no requirement of "continued use of forces". The grammar of the sentence is clear: "to committing the Nation to war" and "to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad".

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Say..you must get paid a lot more than Sappy and Tranny...amirite?

I don't know what you and some other people on here are talking about. I checked out somd.com about two weeks ago to see if there was any activities to take my kids to. I made the mistake of looking at the forums and down the rabbit hole I went. Trust me, I'm not going to stay long. This little excursion has been humorous, frustrating, and quite educational.

 

[BOP]

Yea, I'm sure. Just like Iraq having WMD. We should take their word for it, huh? It's not like they haven't lied to us before, right?

Are we cool with the intel community now? Just making sure I know when to believe them and when not to. So far, it's whenever Trump tells you to.




And I know this is beyond your comprehension levels, but questioning the "imminent" nature of a threat (especially considering the ever-changing nature of what defines "imminent") used to justify the action is not the same as justifying Soleimani or his actions. But you're making that argument because it's the only one you have. Your "law and order" President doesn't actually care about it (but secretly, neither do you). You all just enjoy being lied to.

Thanks for that scintillating and insightful post, Tranny.

 

[PsyOps]

Geez, this exhausting. Let me try to explain it to you and then you can decide if I’m “good at this” or not.

Ken King said “Everyone wants to see the evidence of the imminent attacks. Problem is that by disclosing that evidence the source of it or the method of obtaining it might well be disclosed thereby resulting in a loss of the source or the method. Is it any wonder that many are talking around it versus just spilling guts.”

Then I said “How about just showing it to Congress then, like they're supposed to.”

Spitfire then made the following claim: “There is no requirement for this to have been shared with Congress.”

I replied “That's debatable.

If it's debatable, then how do you conclude there is a requirement? The only responsibility congress has is to authorize to wage war. After that, the president has full discretion to execute that war without any further engagement with congress. The "Authorization to use military force" states:

"The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."

There is nothing in that bill that demands the president report or justify anything to congress. So, you can "debate" that until your blue in the face, but it's all right there in writing.

And, as you can see in my post (#73) Iran gave aid to al Qaeda, which makes them culpable in 911.

 

[BOP]

Most countries make you prove you can support yourself before allowing you to immigrate.

In this country, the "proof" is a given; the American taxpayers will fully support you, your spawn, and your America-hating relatives for as long as you live (whether the American taxpayers like it or not).

All you have to do is agree to vote Demonrat for the rest of your lives.

 

[PsyOps]

Here's a link the War Powers Resolution. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg555.pdf

Check out Section 4.

Section 4 speaks about the absence of a declaration of war. There has been a lot of debate about whether the AUMF was an actual declaration of war since it doesn't use the actual terms "Declare War". I happen to feel that we are at war with Islamic terrorists. I can assure you, they are at war with us. When we deploy troops and establish a battlefield, and bullets start flying, we are at war.

 

[PsyOps]

Uh oh, straw man + non-sequitur. Two, Two, I said two fallacies for the price of one.

Chris0nliyn: The government sometimes lies to the people. We should be skeptical about its claims.
PsyOps: Chris0nliyn wants us to believe the Iranian government over our own. He's a terrorist sympathizer.

If you know anything about Chris, he believes our government always (especially the police) lies to us. That being said, I am nearly as skeptical as he is when it comes to how our government operates; mostly at the higher levels. Comey, Brennan, Clapper and their ilk has even moreso established that in my mind. I've watched our agencies be weaponized to destroy all sorts of peoples' lives without due process.

I believe Chris made a false analogy. Iran's propaganda regarding Soleimani is that he's some hero, a national leader. He may be all that to them, but we shouldn't be sucked into their propaganda. Soleimani was a terrorist. He's responsible for the butchering of hundreds of Americans, and countless civilians in the region. His primary method of destruction was IEDs (more accurately known as "explosively formed penetrator (EFP)). Our government is not lying to us about who Soleimani was. But Chris, in his never-ending desire to hate everything-government, can't help himself in claiming our government is lying to us, and the killing of Soleimani wasn't justified.

 

[nutz]

4A was completed? So after the briefing, the senators understood the "circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"? That's not what they said. I wonder why (at least) four Republicans are willing to vote with the Democrats on a resolution to limit Trump's ability to engage with Iran?

4B does apply. There is no requirement of "continued use of forces". The grammar of the sentence is clear: "to committing the Nation to war" and "to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad".

As like all other things, I can tell you the facts, I cant make you believe or understand them. A briefing was done. Their are more tons of people that want to see this Presidency destroyed, no matter the cost.

 

[Midnightrider]

We do not on any minute level have to give any credence to how Iran views anything especially this country. The fact that you believe Iran's thoughts about our military and political leaders is somehow valid is disturbing; but not all that surprising.

What I believe is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we get to declare people are terrorists to justify killing them, then so do other countries. I’m sure they don’t recognize our categorizing solimani as a terrorist any more than we recognize their designating our leaders as such.

 

[Kyle]

What I believe is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we get to declare people are terrorists to justify killing them, then so do other countries. I’m sure they don’t recognize our categorizing solimani as a terrorist any more than we recognize their designating our leaders as such.

That's all fine and well when dealing with civilized nations and peoples but Iran is neither.

 

[Midnightrider]

That's all fine and well when dealing with civilized nations and peoples but Iran is neither.

All the same, that’s exactly how they view us.

 

[Kyle]

All the same, that’s exactly how they view us.

And IDGAF what a bunch of 7th century primitives think.

If we'd turned their region into molten glass 40 years ago the entire world would have been better off.

.... It's probably still not too late to do so.

 

[Spitfire]

What I believe is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we get to declare people are terrorists to justify killing them, then so do other countries. I’m sure they don’t recognize our categorizing solimani as a terrorist any more than we recognize their designating our leaders as such.

Greetings:

This is exactly right.

Formal and informal laws of war aren’t a strategy. They don’t designate one side as “righteous” and the opposite side as murderous evil incarnate.

Each side is privileged to attack the other as they see fit, provided formal laws of war aren’t violated.

While POTUS was “legal” in his response, expect more and more and more killing.

 

[PsyOps]

What I believe is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we get to declare people are terrorists to justify killing them, then so do other countries. I’m sure they don’t recognize our categorizing solimani as a terrorist any more than we recognize their designating our leaders as such.

In this discussion, it boils down to whether you - as an American - validate their sentiments about us. And you have to come to some sort of central belief of what defines terrorism.

In your eyes, is this country engaged in acts of terrorism? Is our military, FBI, and CIA state-sponsored terrorist organizations?
In your eyes, is al Qaeda a terrorist organization?
In your eyes is ISIS a terrorist organization?
In your eyes, is al Shabaab a terrorist organization?
In your eyes, is Iran a terrorist state?

When we're in military conflict other countries or groups, we don't go around validating their sentiments about us.

 

[Kyle]

When we're in military conflict other countries or groups, we don't go around validating their sentiments about us.

You're arguing with one of Terrorisms best defenders.

 

[Barabbas]

4A was completed? So after the briefing, the senators understood the "circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"? That's not what they said.

You understand, 4A does not require the Representatives or Senators to understand. It requires the executive to provide the brief within 48 hours. So, yes, 4A was completed. That's not really debatable unless you just argue to argue.

I wonder why (at least) four Republicans are willing to vote with the Democrats on a resolution to limit Trump's ability to engage with Iran?

You really have no reason to wonder, you can just read (or, listen to) their reasonings. They tell us.

In short, they think Congress was wrong for giving so much authority over to the executive branch. It has nothing to do with Trump, or Iran, or anything specific to the current issues beyond the big one of Congress giving up its authority.

4B does apply. There is no requirement of "continued use of forces". The grammar of the sentence is clear: "to committing the Nation to war" and "to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad".

The president, Mr. Trump, is not committing the nation to war, thus that does not apply. President Trump is not using forces abroad except where Congress has authorized and previous presidents have signed and used as well. Thus, in this instance, it does not apply.

Thus, 4B has no applicability to your point.

 

[Barabbas]

What I believe is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we get to declare people are terrorists to justify killing them, then so do other countries. I’m sure they don’t recognize our categorizing solimani as a terrorist any more than we recognize their designating our leaders as such.

I think you're correct that they don't really care what we designate their leaders, and we don't really care what they designate ours. You're absolutely correct.

If I understand correctly, they don't vote on our actions, and we don't vote on theirs. So, our reaction to what they decide to do will be judged by us, and our reaction to what we decide to do is also decided by us. Similarly, their reactions are judged by them.

They've already made the decisions to kill a lot of our ambassadors abroad (you know, servicemen and servicewomen), so it's not like any action we take would suddenly change their perception of killing us being ok.

I'm not sure why you care what they think. We've given them billions of dollars, sold them armaments, appeased them in virtually every possible way, and they bomb our troops. Maybe weakness is not what they respond to.

 

[Midnightrider]

I think you're correct that they don't really care what we designate their leaders, and we don't really care what they designate ours. You're absolutely correct.

If I understand correctly, they don't vote on our actions, and we don't vote on theirs. So, our reaction to what they decide to do will be judged by us, and our reaction to what we decide to do is also decided by us. Similarly, their reactions are judged by them.

They've already made the decisions to kill a lot of our ambassadors abroad (you know, servicemen and servicewomen), so it's not like any action we take would suddenly change their perception of killing us being ok.

I'm not sure why you care what they think. We've given them billions of dollars, sold them armaments, appeased them in virtually every possible way, and they bomb our troops. Maybe weakness is not what they respond to.

You understand me pretty well.
the only place I disagree is in calling our servicemen ambassadors. They are pretty much the opposite. Iran targeting our troops is exactly like us targeting theirs. That’s the generally accepted practice in modern warfare. We don’t generally target government leaders. However IF we choose to do that, we can only expect the other side will do the same. That’s just logic.

It becomes terrorism when civilians and non-combatants are targeted with no valid military objective.

 

[Barabbas]

You understand me pretty well.
the only place I disagree is in calling our servicemen ambassadors. They are pretty much the opposite. Iran targeting our troops is exactly like us targeting theirs. That’s the generally accepted practice in modern warfare. We don’t generally target government leaders. However IF we choose to do that, we can only expect the other side will do the same. That’s just logic.

It becomes terrorism when civilians and non-combatants are targeted with no valid military objective.

So, a General would be a military leader, and fit the acceptable category?

How does it work when the enemy is not a government? As in, when we kill ISIS, is that terrorism since they're not a government's military?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Uh oh, straw man + non-sequitur. Two, Two, I said two fallacies for the price of one.

Chris0nliyn: The government sometimes lies to the people. We should be skeptical about its claims.
PsyOps: Chris0nliyn wants us to believe the Iranian government over our own. He's a terrorist sympathizer.

Welcome to the forum.

Section 4 A was completed, and 4 B is not applicable as there is no war and no continued use of forces.

The WH said they completed the action under the 2002 AUMF. That AUMF says the same things as the WPA.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— (1) reliance by

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

Except that the action wasn't taken against Iran, it was taken against the "international terrorist" Soleimani, the fact that he is also a commander of Iran's QUDS Force is irrelevant. The Iraq AUMF directly reference this in section 3(b)(2) which I provided in the post above.

If another country, take Iran for example, killed a US General they deemed a terrorist in another country, would that action not be against the United States?

Section 3(a) is the authorization and is pretty clear. The President is authorized to use the military in order to stop threats by Iraq.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

Like I said previously, this spilled over to fighting ISIS because ISIS was trying to overthrow the Iraqi government, thus making it a threat by Iraq. I don't agree that argument nor the 2002 AUMF authorizes any conflict with Iran and I guess we'll have to disagree that killing a top Iranian general is not a conflict with Iran.