Current Affairs Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
roydo said:
Its what happens when populist politicians tell folk stuff they want to hear, without being brave/intelligent enough to be able to present or acknowledge the possible outcome(s).

Y'know.
Click to expand...

You are thinking of Cameron and Osborn now…..
 
random said:
It won't be the Americans mate, it would violate Executive order 12,333

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=cilj

No Assassinating foreign leaders.
Click to expand...

page 413…

”Although congressional efforts to ban assassination have failed, the presidential prohibition still exists in Executive Order 12,333. How- ever, executive orders may raise issues about the legitimacy of presiden- tial lawmaking, because lawmaking is essentially a legislative function. Consequently, the current ban on assassination raises numerous ques- tions regarding the constitutionality and legal effect of executive orders.
By merely prohibiting assassinations via executive order, a presi- dent is essentially performing a legislative function. He is creating "presidential legislation" that may be unconstitutional. 75 In Youngstown
Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court delineated a clear test to assess the constitutionality of an executive order: "The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself."76 Unless the President can cite either statutory or constitutional authority for his actions, the order will be held unconstitutional.
 
peteblue said:
Consequently, the current ban on assassination raises numerous ques- tions regarding the constitutionality and legal effect of executive orders.
By merely prohibiting assassinations via executive order, a presi- dent is essentially performing a legislative function. He is creating "presidential legislation" that may be unconstitutional. 75 In Youngstown
Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court delineated a clear test to assess the constitutionality of an executive order: "The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself."76 Unless the President can cite either statutory or constitutional authority for his actions, the order will be held unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Like I said, its banned

I didn't know until I saw it on an episode of the west wing when Martin Sheen wanted to clip someone
 
ste d' indica said:
I think he also may be willing to take the political heat on this so that the 2024 democratic candidate isn't tarnished with the act (at least not to the extent he would be if he ran again).
Click to expand...
I suspect you are right. At his age a one term presidency is probably enough and as long as the economy and everything back in the US is ticking along nicely, all should be fine.

Hell, by the time of the next election no one will even be talking about the pandemic, let alone the abandoment of Afghanistan.
 
random said:
Like I said, its banned

I didn't know until I saw it on an episode of the west wing when Martin Sheen wanted to clip someone
Click to expand...
They did assasinate the Iranian general Suleimani in 2020. They seemed to dance round the legality by declaring him part of a terrorist organisation, so there is form for that sort of action. Where there is a will, there is a way
 
The Afghans seeking help to escape Afghanistan, those desperate people in dire circumstances, are having to ring a premium UK Government phone line and when they get through, there are no translators.
 
Hickson9 said:
The Afghans seeking help to escape Afghanistan, those desperate people in dire circumstances, are having to ring a premium UK Government phone line and when they get through, there are no translators.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right for this government.

Seen that MP yesterday as well saying we are completely reliant on the USA staying in country, as we “cannot secure the airfield on our own”. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
 
Lord Buckethead said:
To be fair Biden doesn't have much choice about anything.
Trump released 5,000 Taliban leaders and fighters and signed a treaty with them promising not to interfere with the internal workings of the Afghanistan once the US has left, as long as the Taliban were nice and didn't kill too many of their own people. Then he started the withdrawal.
Oh, well that's alright then
Click to expand...

Lord Buckethead said:
Biden would have had to redeploy thousands of troops to retain any sort of order, and even then there was the treaty to abide by as he was already past the point of no return when he came to power, due to the prisoner releases
Click to expand...
No troops will be redeployed back.

The US...and the rest of the 'peace keeping' nations will turn their backs and the initial slaughter of those on the lists will begin...out of the eye of the media and carry on as and when required.to keep the rest in line.

There will be much wringing of hands
 
Lapeno77 said:
They did assasinate the Iranian general Suleimani in 2020. They seemed to dance round the legality by declaring him part of a terrorist organisation, so there is form for that sort of action. Where there is a will, there is a way
Click to expand...

I was going to mention him….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top