[–] Rocky_Bindhamer ago (edited ago)
The language of the AUMF was that it didn't supercede the War Powers Act. Which means it would be in effect.
You cannot utilize the War Powers Act without declaring war. It's a given.
GW Bush used the War on Terror combined with the resistance of Saddam to UN inspectors to the tenets of the ceasefire and claims that Saddam was supporting terrorism to re-engage in Iraq.
Obama also used the War on Terror to justify allegedly targetting ISIS in Syria, then invading. This turned into our involvement in the Syrian Civil War, which was never approved by Congress.
Our troops were required to work with Al Queda terrorists which made no sense as Al Queda was tied to 9-11. There are numerous photos of our troops protesting the arrangment. Every NATO country involved in Syria were partnered with 1 or more terrorist factions.
When the War on Terror was declared, there was some opposition to it (Barbara Lee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists) as it was too inspecific and could be used for actions virtually anywhere.
You are pulling the distraction game with the Global Magnitsky Act. The Executive Order National Emergency wasn't about foreigners. It was about Human Rights abuses involving Human Trafficking and seizing assets involved in that. The Magnitsky reference was to address precedence as the 2016 Congressional global version extended it's use to ANYWHERE in the world, which would include the US. If you reread the Act, it pertains to "Foreign Persons" and "United States Persons". The actions pertaining only to Foreign Persons would only apply to them.
It's actually multi-faceted. Since the EO about 13,000 pedophiles have been arrested, their rings shut down, property and moneirs seized, and numerous children rescued. Most recently in Detroit, Michigan where 123 children were taken from their captors.
Some of the Human Trafficking involved the movement of captive persons in both directions across our boarders; Children brought into the the country by adults falsely claiming to be their parents, and American citizens taken captive bound for the South American slave trade.
[–] Are_we__sure ago
Yes, I know we have fought a bunch since 2001. No we have not declared war. I cited the official authority on that, the Congressional Research Service. I have nothing more to say.
No. I am laying out the facts and correcting your misunderstanding.
The executive order is the about implementing the Global Magntisky Act and that only applies to non US persons. When the EO was issues Treasury sanctioned 13 foreginers along with 39 associated people/entities.
How do I know the executive order is about implementing the Global Magnitsky act? Because the Trump admistration told us several times. The web page on the Treasury site is called "Issuance of Global Magnitsky Executive Order" https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20171221.aspx
It's the first thing after the date in the Press Release. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0243
It's the Title of the FAQ
And mentioned in the first answer
So now that it's clear that this executive order is about implementing the Global Magnitsky Act, how do I know it only applies to foreigners? It's directly from the law itself. Here's the entire definition of what this Act is
The part of the law giving the Presiden the authority to issue sanction only mentions "foreign person."
This law does not apply to US persons. Why? It's because the law is intended for folks outside the reach of American Justice, for US persons, they could just be arrested and tried for their actual crimes in civilian courts and asset forfeiture is already part of the civilian courts if you can show the assets are the results of the crime like seizing a drug dealer's house.
No you may want to reread it. United States Person is mentioned four times. Three times is defining US or foreign persons and here where they detail the blocking all property and interests in property of a foreign person.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The blocking, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), of all transactions in all property and interests in property of a foreign person if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.
The sanction only applies to foreign people and the property can be blocked if
A. The property is in the US. You own a ranch in Montana and an oil company in South Dakota B. The property comes into the United States: You ship your Piccasso to a bank vault in Miami C. The property comes into the possession on control of a United States Person. You put your Picassos in the bank vault of an American Bank in the Dominican Republic.
It's not about Human Trafficking at all. The Executive Order never mentions this and the Global Magnitsky act doesn't mention this. There was a later executive order about human trafficking and I think folks get them confused.
Here are the crimes mentioned
Human trafficking is never mentioned. Here's the list of the original 52 people/entities sanctioned. None are sanctioned for human trafficking. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20171221.aspx
One person is sanctioned for Organ trafficking.
I actually don't think human trafficking is covered by this. I'm not a lawyer, but based on what I read "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" has a very specific legal meaning covering in another law that is decades old.
I very much doubt your numbers and the case of the 123 is most definitely wrong, but you are wrong on your larger point, not a single one of these cases relied on the executive order. Most of these came from long standing multi agency stings using federal and local law enforcement and laws that have been on the books for years. Many of these operations happen year after year. You need to back up your claim that properties and monies were seized and that that had to do with the executive order.
The 123 children in Detroit was not a case of 123 victims of sex trafficking. It was about 123 missing kids. One kid was homeless and living in an abandoned building.
103 kids were listed as missing, but were not. There probably were missing for a bit, but returned home and the official channels were never notified.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2018/10/09/boy-found-squatting-abandoned-detroit-house/1584201002/
There's possibly three and possibly zero kids involved in sex trafficking.
[–] Rocky_Bindhamer ago (edited ago)
Did you not listen to Lindsey Graham talking to Brett Kavanqh about "Enemy Combatants" and if it could pertain to US citizens in wartime?
Kavanaugu said yes
Why would Graham bring that up?
Drop 2380 discussed military law v civilian law then Enemy Combatant.
You don't comprehend the sign up significance? What ever. I'm done with you. Believe what you want to believe.