The long arm of American law extends beyond our borders, you may not all know that. We can go capture these guys. It happens regardless of who it is. There is no legal immunity under international law. Our courts endorsed this when Noriega was captured in 1989. Marauder has conveniently missed that. And I don't like writing about faieries like Obama and Biden, so let us get down to business.
Trump had power going into to Venezuela and get this guy. You and our daddies did not complain when Obama used military force in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq ,Lybia , Afghanistan, .....you condemn Trump for what Obama did and what Biden did. What in the hell, ittle fellers? You are eat up with trying to get Trump, but I am seeing now you you are eatup with putting htis cretin back in power!!!!
Article 2 Section 2 gives the president the power to do what he has done. Look at it. His authority is inherent. Protects and defends without consulting congress. You fellers are hysterical, and driven by politics, Look At The Law.
The War Powers Resolution Act in 1973 is simply a requirement of notification. It prohibits nothing that the president can do. AND, the Authorization For the Use Of Military Force, which was passed a week after 9/11, gives the President the UNILATERAL power to capture and eliminate terrorists. He can rely on that Law alone. Y'all please regard all this before going off the handle, if for no other reason, to realize that he has several avenues which he relies on to justify his getting Maduro.
It will save a lot of Laborious Languishing, none of which will go anywhere.
Go out on the town, maybe carry a sign in Doral Florida if you like a good party!!
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidTransparent lies. Nothing in Section II, Article 2 authorizes the President to start a war; that power is explicitly given to Congress in Article I, Section 8. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
The long arm of American law extends beyond our borders, you may not all know that. We can go capture these guys. It happens regardless of who it is. There is no legal immunity under international law. Our courts endorsed this when Noriega was captured in 1989. Marauder has conveniently missed that. And I don't like writing about faieries like Obama and Biden, so let ...[text shortened]... l go anywhere.
Go out on the town, maybe carry a sign in Doral Florida if you like a good party!!
As for the 2001 Authorization of Force it does not give the President any broad power to "capture and eliminate terrorists". It's quite specific:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(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.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/text/enr
Since Venezuela had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks, the claim you have gullibly swallowed is utter BS.
@no1marauder saidI think you know the truth about all this but your aim is to mislead people who dont know better. Here is some relevant information from Claude AI:
Transparent lies. Nothing in Section II, Article 2 authorizes the President to start a war; that power is explicitly given to Congress in Article I, Section 8. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
As for the 2001 Authorization of Force it does not give the President any broad power to "capture and eliminate terrorists". It's quite specific:
SEC. 2. AUTHO ...[text shortened]... othing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks, the claim you have gullibly swallowed is utter BS.
*************************************
The President has 60 days to use the armed forces for military action without Congressional approval.
The Basic Rule:
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and armed forces cannot remain for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization ETIAS.
Important Clarifications:
This is not a "60-day free pass" for the president to use force anywhere for any reason. Any use of force by the president during these 60 days must fall within the parameters of the president's defensive war power as Commander in Chief EPC. The law states the president can only introduce forces into hostilities under three conditions: a congressional declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.
How It Works in Practice:
After submitting (or being required to submit) a report to Congress, the president must terminate the use of armed forces after 60 days unless Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the action, extended the period by law, or is physically unable to meet due to an attack on the United States European Commission. The president can extend this by an additional 30 days if military necessity requires it for safe withdrawal.
Reality Check:
The Resolution has been controversial since its passage. Many presidents have challenged its constitutionality, and it's often been ignored or circumvented in practice—from Kosovo in 1999 to Libya in 2011 and beyond.
****************************************
@no1marauder saidStart a war? Nono no They arrested a single citizen and his wife who were under indictment. Put them in a ship, instead of a paddy wagon, put them
Transparent lies. Nothing in Section II, Article 2 authorizes the President to start a war; that power is explicitly given to Congress in Article I, Section 8. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
As for the 2001 Authorization of Force it does not give the President any broad power to "capture and eliminate terrorists". It's quite specific:
SEC. 2. AUTHO ...[text shortened]... othing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks, the claim you have gullibly swallowed is utter BS.
In jail.
I would venture that ther is not a word about war in the legal docs which have transpired since the arrest.,
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidTrump said it was a war at his press conference today. And he asserted the US was now going to "run" Venezuela, hardly something consistent with a mere "arrest".
Start a war? Nono no They arrested a single citizen and his wife who were under indictment. Put them in a ship, instead of a paddy wagon, put them
In jail.
I would venture that ther is not a word about war in the legal docs which have transpired since the arrest.,
And nothing in the Constitution gives the President any authority to make arrests in foreign countries nor does US law permit it.
@Rajk999 saidI suggest you read the "Important clarifications" part.
I think you know the truth about all this but your aim is to mislead people who dont know better. Here is some relevant information from Claude AI:
*************************************
The President has 60 days to use the armed forces for military action without Congressional approval.
The Basic Rule:
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president m ...[text shortened]... practice—from Kosovo in 1999 to Libya in 2011 and beyond.
****************************************
Nothing in that law does nor could it give the President powers the Constitution doesn't.
@no1marauder saidI sure did and it is vague enough for Trump to justify his taking down Maduro. Trump has 60 days from when he started this action before he has to withdraw. Thats more than enough time.
I suggest you read the "Important clarifications" part.
Nothing in that law does nor could it give the President powers the Constitution doesn't.
The thing is, you were trying to mislead people, with your Trump hating agenda.
@no1marauder saidPolitical rhetoric. And he hasn’t slept for 24 hours You are so touchy. I’m with you! There is no declared war, but we can haggle about drug wars, yeah great , then we can catch up on Epstein Yawn city.
Trump said it was a war at his press conference today.
And nothing in the Constitution gives the President any authority to make arrests in foreign countries nor does US law permit it.
While I have you, don’t misrepresent the ‘they stole our oil’ either. When Trump says Venezuela “stole our oil,” he’s using political language referring to historical nationalization of oil assets once operated by U.S. companies and framing it as a grievance against Venezuela as a whole. Venezuela owning and controlling its own oil reserves isn’t “stealing U.S. oil.”
Quit spreading misinfo , Sue will label you!!!!
Get a grip, your pulse rocked today. But 12 months of whining has gotten y’all nowhere. Get some signs!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat the heck man? The president was arrested. That is literally how you start a war.
Start a war? Nono no They arrested a single citizen and his wife who were under indictment. Put them in a ship, instead of a paddy wagon, put them
In jail.
I would venture that ther is not a word about war in the legal docs which have transpired since the arrest.,
What are they feeding MAGA these days?
@Rajk999 saidYou obviously didn't read it. None of the conditions required in the "important clarifications" paragraph were met making Trump's war both illegal and unconstitutional.
I sure did and it is vague enough for Trump to justify his taking down Maduro. Trump has 60 days from when he started this action before he has to withdraw. Thats more than enough time.
The thing is, you were trying to mislead people, with your Trump hating agenda.
@no1marauder saidTo say nothing of murdering 2 helpless dudes trying to survive on a wrecked boat where international law some 80 years old says you RESCUE dudes in that situation not MURDER them which is a WAR CRIME.
You obviously didn't read it. None of the conditions required in the "important clarifications" paragraph were met making Trump's war both illegal and unconstitutional.
@wildgrass saidWildgrass...................he is/was not....the President.
What the heck man? The president was arrested. That is literally how you start a war.
What are they feeding MAGA these days?
Libs see only what they want to see, they fabricate, cherry pick, the whole tamale.
If Lichenstein comes here and arrests Moonbeam for having broken their law, the will not be starting a war.
@no1marauder saidWe both read it, and we interpret it differently. Wildgrass interprets, for instance, that he is/was President. I say he was not.
You obviously didn't read it. None of the conditions required in the "important clarifications" paragraph were met making Trump's war both illegal and unconstitutional.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThis will add to edification what Trump means with what they 'stole', seems like oil men agree with him. You and I need to brush up on the history of oil in Venezuela.
You obviously didn't read it. None of the conditions required in the "important clarifications" paragraph were met making Trump's war both illegal and unconstitutional.
This will also edify you guys that Trump is way ahead of everyone. He has been communicating for some time with the oil businesses. Amazing. Never sleeps. But sonhouse hates him. Go figure.
And, I don't think Trump is getting the oil for himself and his family, I think it is for America. Another misinterpretation!!!
From the WSJ: (Note the reference to 'seized property'. Was it seized, or not?)
'Administration officials have told oil executives in recent weeks that if they want compensation for their rigs, pipelines and other seized property, then they must be prepared to go back into Venezuela now and invest heavily in reviving its shattered petroleum industry, two people familiar with the administration’s outreach told POLITICO on Saturday. The outlook for Venezuela’s shattered oil infrastructure is one of the major questions following the U.S. military action that captured leader Nicolás Maduro."
@AverageJoe1 said"The law states the president can only introduce forces into hostilities under three conditions: a congressional declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces."
We both read it, and we interpret it differently. Wildgrass interprets, for instance, that he is/was President. I say he was not.
None of those conditions existed. Surely we can agree on that.