Author Topic: Military Options kept from Trump  (Read 1341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

stellarpanther

  • Guest

Offline Donald H

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2020, 12:39:50 »
The Hill:
Quote
The president did instruct a military attack that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani earlier this year, which Tehran responded to by launching a strike against a U.S. base in Iraq, injuring several.

A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.

Great topic for discussion here!
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2020, 14:50:38 »
The Hill:
A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.

Great topic for discussion here!

I don't know Don

Remember that President Clinton cancelled the strike against Osama and President Obama ordered the second strike against Osama.

All I'm saying its very possible Trump ordered the strike.
“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,830
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2020, 22:39:06 »
The Hill:
A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.

Great topic for discussion here!

It seems likely to me that such a strike wouldn’t be launched without a thumbs up from the president. I imagine that probably he had given direction to seek an opportunity to spank Iran in a surgical way that would send a message, and they came back with that strike as an option, seeking his assent. The president (any president) would likely not have the knowledge or expertise to really have much to do with target selection; that’s pretty in the weeds, even if a particular target is an important one. He would have probably been offered one or more options to approve or choose from.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2020, 13:14:23 »
Drafting women into military service? I thought it was a done deal

Federal appeals court: Male-only draft is constitutional
By KEVIN McGILLAugust 13, 2020

https://apnews.com/6240679fed466f36679b7492d015cf0c

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the constitutionality of the all-male military draft system Thursday, citing a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In a decision that overturned a 2019 ruling by a Texas-based federal judge, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said “only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.”

The case was argued in March and was the result of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men and two men challenging the male-only draft. They argued that the 1981 case was decided at a time when women were largely absent from combat.

Thursday’s unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel acknowledged that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed. However, the judges noted, “that does not grant a court of appeals license to disregard or overrule that precedent.”

Plaintiffs in the case could seek a rehearing before the full 17-judge appeals court or go to the Supreme Court. Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men, said organization leaders will discuss their next move with attorneys. “All I can tell you is we will be moving the case forward,” he said.

The U.S. government stopped drafting young men into the military in 1973. But every male must still register for the draft when he turns 18.

Earlier this year — after the arguments before the 5th Circuit — a federal commission recommended including women in the military draft system.
“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the commission’s final report said.

The 2019 district court decision declaring the male-only draft unconstitutional had been appealed by the Selective Service System, the federal agency that administers the draft. The appeal was argued during a series of 5th Circuit hearings at Tulane University. The judges were Carl Stewart, Don Willett and Jacques Weiner.

Arguing for the National Coalition for men was Marc Angelucci, an attorney who was shot to death in July. Authorities later linked the killing of Angelucci in California to Roy Den Hollander, 72, who was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on July 20, the day after an ambush shooting in New Jersey that killed U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ 20-year-old son and wounded her husband.

“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Online Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2020, 14:53:37 »
Drafting women into military service? I thought it was a done deal

It probably doesn't have to be said, given Canada's past negative experiences with conscription, but men-only peacetime conscription simply could not happen anytime in the future in Canada. It would be a clear violation of section 15 of the Charter. Men-only wartime conscription, on the other hand, could be passed by Parliament, for five years at a time, under the notwithstanding clause.

In theory, the US doesn't have such a notwithstanding clause written into their constitution, but in practice their Supreme Court tends to allow things in wartime for short periods (as seen in the US Civil War, WWI, WII) that wouldn't pass muster as permanent peacetime practices. Even should the US Supreme Court rule that the peacetime Selective Service Act has to also register women, that wouldn't necessarily bind a future wartime US Government to actually conscript them.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,830
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2020, 15:34:59 »
It probably doesn't have to be said, given Canada's past negative experiences with conscription, but men-only peacetime conscription simply could not happen anytime in the future in Canada. It would be a clear violation of section 15 of the Charter. Men-only wartime conscription, on the other hand, could be passed by Parliament, for five years at a time, under the notwithstanding clause.

In theory, the US doesn't have such a notwithstanding clause written into their constitution, but in practice their Supreme Court tends to allow things in wartime for short periods (as seen in the US Civil War, WWI, WII) that wouldn't pass muster as permanent peacetime practices. Even should the US Supreme Court rule that the peacetime Selective Service Act has to also register women, that wouldn't necessarily bind a future wartime US Government to actually conscript them.

It wouldn't be that clean. While S.15 can be 'notwithstood', Parliament built an explicit protection of sex into the Charter in S.28. That section cannot be notwithstood.

Quote from: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

So- while Parliament can invoke the Notwithstanding clause on S.2 and Ss.7-15 for the purpose of any legislation, that option is *not* open to it where there would be discrimination in violation of S.28. If there were a male only draft, that would be a prima facie violation of S.7, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Because the Notwithstanding Clause could not apply in this particular case, male only draft legislation would have to be able to withstand Charter challenge by somehow passing the Oakes test that applies S.1's 'reasonable limitations'. I can't see that happening.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: Military Options kept from Trump
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2020, 17:24:06 »
It wouldn't be that clean. While S.15 can be 'notwithstood', Parliament built an explicit protection of sex into the Charter in S.28. That section cannot be notwithstood.

Good catch. Looks like during WW3 Parliament will have to content itself with internment camps and the death penalty. Which are both probably still notwithstanding-capable. Oh, and also gender-neutral conscription.