quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007
Well, I guess that was about Iran, not Syria [;)] What's the imminent threat Syria posses I wonder?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I think that the imminent threat is of no consequence, since he has already been authorized for ANY FUCKING THING he feels like, by AUMF.
Unintended consequences from the nutsuckerisms over there in the nutsucker party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007
Well, I guess that was about Iran, not Syria [;)] What's the imminent threat Syria posses I wonder?

I am starting the rumor that it's really because Syria won't build a golf course for Obama to play on. [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I think that the imminent threat is of no consequence, since he has already been authorized for ANY FUCKING THING he feels like, by AUMF.
Unintended consequences from the nutsuckerisms over there in the nutsucker party.

How does the AUMF allow him to attack Syria?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I think that the imminent threat is of no consequence, since he has already been authorized for ANY FUCKING THING he feels like, by AUMF.
Unintended consequences from the nutsuckerisms over there in the nutsucker party.

How does the AUMF allow him to attack Syria?

any al-Queda, or terrorist groups in Syria? even remotely plausibly, or connections to them? QED

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007
Well, I guess that was about Iran, not Syria [;)] What's the imminent threat Syria posses I wonder?

I am starting the rumor that it's really because Syria won't build a golf course for Obama to play on. [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Thats all well and fine, but pure watery moonbeams, you might want to read the AUMF in its entirety.
What proof do you have that al-Queda is linked to the rebels, and what proof do you have that al-queda is not linked to Assads military? What proof do you have that they are separable? I mean we all agree they are there, right? Hasn't that been the hue and cry? If we go it alone that is. If other nations join us, then it is treaty shit.
Otherwise, it better be better proof than Hans Blix the weapons inspector saying there are no WMD in Iraq. Cuz ---
a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Really, very unfortunate wording, and should have been repealed immediately, should have never been brought up to a vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007


Well, I guess that was about Iran, not Syria [;)] What's the imminent threat Syria posses I wonder?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound
Its ridiculous! We're going to attack Syria because Syria is attacking Syria... what sense does that make. And Syria is about to experience the "freedom and democracy" package. They better hold onto their children because they haven't seen anything until they experience our government spreading "freedom". Sigh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Its ridiculous! We're going to attack Syria because Syria is attacking Syria... what sense does that make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound
Its ridiculous! We're going to attack Syria because Syria is attacking Syria... what sense does that make. And Syria is about to experience the "freedom and democracy" package. They better hold onto their children because they haven't seen anything until they experience our government spreading "freedom". Sigh.

Oh, come on, now. They'll learn to love the way we make them experience freedom! [:D]