The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:59 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:56 pm Can you say "special military operation"?

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:59 pm EVERY HUMAN BEING has rights to due process and fair treatment by the government.

"Fair"? What is "fair" for what you call an "unlawful" foreign invader? What "process" is due to somebody who invades your country, in an "unlawful" way?

I think incarceration, followed by deportation, is really a good deal. It's certainly proportional, humane and deserved. Some countries, like Socialist ones, traditionally just shoot border-jumpers.

the UDHR.

Has nothing to it. Nobody can explain what legitimizes anything the UN decides, let alone a claim to "human rights." The UN itself, too, has been pretty awful on living up to its own demands.

Okay, Gary...let's make this simple by making it unfettered by US particulars.

You're in a democratic country, let's say. Let's say it's not the US. You're in Canada, or Australia, or Holland...you pick it.
There are two political parties in the country. Let's call them X and Y. Or three, if you like: X, Y and Z.
Y is elected by a majority of over 50%, in an open election.
What makes Y's election "undemocratic"?

You're in a democratic country, let's say. Let's say it's not the US. You're in Canada, or Australia, or Holland...you pick it.
There are two political parties in the country. Let's call them X and Y. Or three, if you like: X, Y and Z.
Y is elected by a majority of over 50%, in an open election.
What makes Y's election "undemocratic"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:59 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:56 pm Can you say "special military operation"?

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:19 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:59 pm
Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

"I believe"? Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:11 pm Per usual IC detests the UN

...and human rights...

I thought, according to you, it was only atheists who had no moral sensibilities.

Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

AI Overview

President George W. Bush did not declare war, as that power belongs solely to Congress, but he launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without a formal declaration. Instead, Congress passed joint resolutions—the AUMF of 2001 for Afghanistan and the 2002 Iraq Resolution for Iraq—authorizing the use of military force, which acted as legal authorization.

Afghanistan (2001): Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible, which was passed nearly unanimously.

Iraq (2003): Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" with bipartisan support.

Legal Standing: The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have generally supported the idea that Congressional authorization (AUMF) suffices for military action, satisfying constitutional requirements without a formal "declaration of war".

War Powers: While the Constitution splits war powers, no formal declaration of war has been issued by Congress since World War II.

AI Overview

No, Congress did not approve the February 2026 military strikes against Iran. President Trump ordered the attacks on Iranian facilities without prior congressional authorization, bypassing a formal vote. While top lawmakers were notified beforehand, the administration acted under executive authority and the War Powers Act, with a House resolution to end the action subsequently failing.

No Formal Approval: Congress did not pass a vote or Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the attacks.

Administration Action: The White House launched the strikes against Iranian military facilities, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating the administration fulfilled required notifications, even as the action bypassed congressional authorization.

War Powers Conflict: The move raised constitutional issues regarding Congress's sole power to declare war, though the administration maintained the strikes were not "acts of war" needing prior approval.

Failed Constraints: The House of Representatives later narrowly rejected a resolution designed to end the U.S. military engagement in Iran, effectively allowing the military action to continue without formal congressional approval.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:19 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:09 pm
I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

"I believe"? Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:26 pm AI Overview

thomyum2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution.

Actually, that's not correct. Many of the so-called 'rights' under American law are codified in the constitution as limitations on the powers of government, not as privileges granted to individuals.

Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and others are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

Truthfully, I think it's questionable whether the US election process can really be called 'democratic' at all. In 3 out of the last 7 US elections, the individual elected did not receive a majority of the votes cast, and in 2 of those cases, they didn't even win a plurality. Trump has never been elected by a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the population.

No thank you. I never trust AI. You shouldn't, either.

The Supreme Court has long construed the Declare War Clause to mean not only that Congress can issue formal declarations of war, but also that it can authorize the use of armed force for more limited operations short of a full-scale war.1 Congress has, on various occasions, passed what have become known as authorizations for the use of military force (or AUMFs), which permit the President to use United States military forces in pursuit of set objectives and within defined parameters.2 Early examples include congressional authorization to protect American commercial vessels from pirates and hostile foreign countries.3 Since the Second World War, Congress has not formally declared war, and AUMFs have become its predominant method to authorize hostilities. For example, Congress passed and the President signed into law statutory authorization during the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the post-September 11, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War.4

Actually, that's incorrect. But let's ask a very Leftist source, just so you don't doubt me.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:38 pm

No thank you. I never trust AI. You shouldn't, either.

Look it up yourself.

The Supreme Court has long construed the Declare War Clause to mean not only that Congress can issue formal declarations of war,

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:33 pm

thomyum2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution.

Actually, that's not correct. Many of the so-called 'rights' under American law are codified in the constitution as limitations on the powers of government, not as privileges granted to individuals.

Yes, but so what?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:33 pm

thomyum2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:16 pmConstitutional rights such as freedom of speech and others are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status

Please quote the constitutional section that says this. I'm unaware of it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

thomyum2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:16 pmTruthfully, I think it's questionable whether the US election process can really be called 'democratic' at all. In 3 out of the last 7 US elections, the individual elected did not receive a majority of the votes cast, and in 2 of those cases, they didn't even win a plurality. Trump has never been elected by a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the population.

Actually, that's incorrect. But let's ask a very Leftist source, just so you don't doubt me.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/resul ... ning=false