Obama was interested in military force in Syria after Syria crossed Obama’s redline, but Obama wanted authorization from Congress. Congress didn’t want to be on the record one way or the other, and told Obama to act if he wanted to act.
Then for Libya, some of the Congressmen who said they didn’t want to be on the record and they wanted Obama to act if he wanted to, complained that Obama didn’t get authorization for Libya.
Not only were Congress people derelict of their duty to discuss and vote on military action, but they dishonestly portrayed their true feelings to the public.
Former US Colonel Peter Mansoor says Trump thought Iran would surrender just from air attacks and didn’t have a plan for if they didn’t. He also said the war is unconstitutional, and that while a part of him is happy to see Iran get pain after killing hundreds of Americans in the Iraq war, most of him worries that Trump doesn’t have a plan and has opened a can of worms.
The US military is awesome, but I’m skeptical it will achieve substantial war aims. Killing a lot of people and destroying a lot of equipment is a means to an end. It means very little if we don’t have a long-term major success. I’m skeptical the US and Israel will get there, but I hope they do.
“”Imagine if we had to go through the process of getting a judicial warrant.”
Those are the complaining words of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.), who was voicing his support for the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which now claims that its agents have the right to forcibly enter private homes without first obtaining a warrant signed by a judge. According to ICE, its agents may forcibly enter homes in certain immigration enforcement contexts based merely on a so-called “administrative warrant,” which is not actually a warrant at all, but is rather just a piece of paper signed by someone in the executive branch.”
Trump administration arrests journalist Don Lemon because he tagged along with and covered a protest that invaded a church and interrupted its service. Career officials refused to charge him, but the administration found people willing to bend the law and attack the freedom of press.
“A federal judge handling a lawsuit over the deportation of pro-Palestinian activists excoriated top administration officials, including President Donald Trump, for trampling on the First Amendment and for what the judge described as a fearful approach to freedom.
“There was no policy here,” said U.S. District Judge William Young, an 85-year-old Reagan appointee who has been on the federal bench in Boston for 40 years. “What happened here is an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people.”
…
“I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government — cabinet secretaries — conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States,” Young said. “These cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”
…
Young used extraordinarily stark language during the hearing, describing Trump as an “authoritarian” while insisting that he was choosing the term carefully, rather than simply using a “pejorative.”
…
The judge found the president and his aides targeted the members of the group for their First Amendment-protected views and speech, guided by an anonymously run private website targeting Palestinian students in the United States.
“I’ve asked myself why — how did this happen? How could our own government, the highest officials in our government, seek to infringe the rights of people lawfully here in the United States? And I’ve come to believe that there’s a concept of freedom here that I don’t understand,” the judge continued. “The record in this case convinces me that these high officials, and I include the president of the United States, have a fearful view of freedom.”
…
“These professionals were taken off anti-terrorist investigations. They were taken off human trafficking investigations all to look up … what dirt they could find on this group that some private agency, at the very highest levels of the DHS decided — that’s the best use of those people,” Young said. “If ever you want chapter and verse about how the government can be weaponized against a disfavored group, that’s the record of it.””
“”Observing, following, and recording law enforcement are unambiguously protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Bier tells Reason. “They are not obstruction of justice. The right to record helps guarantee justice by ensuring accountability and an accurate record of events.”
…
The guiding First Amendment principle behind these court decisions was most memorably expressed in the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Houston v. Hill, which struck down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer: “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state,” Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote.”