Trump's order to fire on civilians is illegal as hell, and already being used to justify murder

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No President, on principle, can allow the judicial to reduce Presidential powers, which is precisely why the Bush cabal used that condition.

Right. It would fall to Congress to get the ball rolling, but would require the assent of the President eventually. The party of a sitting President doesn't want those powers reduced, since it all comes out of their "pocket" and some of that power would accrue to the opposition if not held by the President by their party. Party before Country has slowly consumed our political landscape.

I think it's more fundamental than that. The problem Obama faced was that Congress (read: Republicans) kept refusing to revoke the AUMF, which bound the President to act. Had he refused to act according to its mandate, he would face impeachment, thus he chose to adhere more strictly to the letter of the mandate (i.e., to focus on Al Qaida rather than the expanded language that the Bush cabal used to justify the invasion of Iraq).

That left as a recourse for citizens only the judiciary (i.e., to sue the President). But the judiciary is constitutionally prohibited from imposing any limitations on Presidential powers. That is strictly only for Congress. Thus, as the man in the Oval, Obama likewise had no choice but to defend against any encroachment on Presidential powers through the courts.

It was a deliberate legal Catch 22 by the Bush cabal. If the President doesn't act, the Office is in breach of Congressional mandate and faces impeachment. If the President doesn't fight any judicial attempts to limit Presidential authority, it triggers a constitutional crisis that could likewise cripple the Presidency.

Thus, his only course of action was to self-limit (and note his objections in the signing statements) AND fight any and all judicial challenges, regardless of the fact that he personally would agree with the goal of the judicial challenge. A very strange position to be in, no doubt, but if you were following closely to any of the challenges you see time and time again that the argument being made by the government was always first and foremost the fact that the Judicial branch cannot limit presidential powers.

Iow, he had no choice but to continue to defend the fact that ONLY Congress could act in regard to the AUMF; not the President; not the Judicial branch. Only the Legislative.

And, of course, Republicans would use this fact to their advantage in attacks against him; attacks that way too many ignorant/gullible liberals would likewise take up, because they didn't bother to dig deeper into what was actually going on.The complainant may have been focusing on horrific things like baby killing or whatever, but the DOJ had no choice but to ignore the incendiary impetus for the complaint--and face countless PR nightmares as a result--in light of the more fundamental issue of encroachment.

We're talking about killing babies and you're talking about constitutional crisis!? How DARE you, sir! That kind of bullshit.

Or like the whole bullshit over the use of drones. Instead of using massive deadly force and invasion as the Bush cabal did to fulfill the Congressional mandate, Obama instead scaled everything way the fuck down to tactical/surgical strikes, using primarily the new drone technology. It was a way to fulfill the mandate, but without the hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of innocent people being harmed and/or killed as a result.

We went from harming millions to hundreds almost over night.

But then Republicans starting whispering in liberal ears about how Obama was killing innocent people with all of his drone strikes and how horrible they were, etc., separating out what Obama was doing from what the Bush cabal had been doing, as if the two were not directly related (which they were; Obama's being a massive de-escalation from Bush) BUT that Obama was using the same AUMF that Bush had used, etc. Conveniently omitting the fact that it bound the President to act and wasn't optional.

From there, we then had liberals pressing for judicial restraints, which in turn forced Obama to defend the Office of the President as noted above.

So, in reality, Obama was saving millions of innocents from being displaced, maimed, killed, etc, and fulfilling the goal of getting all of the people responsible for 9/11, while at the same time defending the Constitution (as all Presidents swear to do) yet he was painted as a murderer and "worse than Bush" (a common false equivalence tactic used so effectively against him that they revived it for Hillary).

 

[KeepTalking]

I see this thread has taken its own course, but back on topic, I have no qualms with meeting an attack with counterattack.

I see it shameful to characterize attackers as merely women and children looking for a better life. When you're a leader and you put people in harms way of an attack, some compartmentalizing is in order. Do not care who is attacking. Do not care whatever else it is that they are doing. Positive spins aside, if you are at risk of harm of injury causing rocks, consider it an attack.

This is our land, and we have a right to defend it. I'm not saying napalm the border on a regular basis until the message "stay the fuck out and go away" sinks in, but if US soldiers on US land are being attacked, and if I have to choose between supporting my president who is supporting what I want (which is to protect us and come back to their families) vs siding with others so overly compassionate that they can't see the evil, well, call me complicit.

Fine, have it your way. You are complicit (or will be if it actually happens).