Yes, Trump attacking Iran was an illegal war of choice.

 I have to keep saying it: 

You need to watch your back if you want to stand with Israel

Which is beginning to be more and more obvious after Trump dragged the US into an ill-prepared war.

But there's a reason for this: Trump sold out to Israel.

The Iranians were willing to make concession when Israel and the United States attacked it without provocation.

 So much for "no more forever wars", "making America great again", or even "America First".

Trump sold out the US to Israel.

The upside of this will be that Israel will cease to be. 

How to declare war.

The power to declare war belongs to US Congress under the US Constitution. This is clearly stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny. 

I'm going to cite once again this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).

The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process. 

The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be actual and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.

I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.

Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration  to  international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.

The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it. 

It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars. 

War Plan for Operation Epic Failure

 If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:

There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.

Police Brutality???

 

OK, I am doing an experiment on cultural attitudes toward policing. I'm hoping that a US audience will see this and give their opinion.

This was posted by the French @gendarmerie_nationale_officiel with the caption:
The trend gone wrong #humour #gendarmerie #gendarme

 

I've mentioned that I have seen British police beat the crap out of people who resisted arrest.

I am also aware of the cultural differences in policing.

I am curious as to how this would be received by a US audience.

Just curious about the common law position on "gun rights"

 So, I did another AI search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "What is the British common law position on gun rights". Here are the results.

AI Overview

In British common law, there is no enshrined right to bear arms; rather, gun ownership is considered a strictly regulated privilege. The state controls access to firearms to protect public safety, requiring individuals to obtain licenses and demonstrate "good reason" for possession, such as sport, hunting, or occupational use. 

Key details:
No Right to Bear Arms: Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, the UK has no legal right to bear arms.
Licensing and Control: The Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent acts strictly regulate, and often prohibit, the possession of firearms.
Requirements: A valid license is required from the local police, which involves a vetting process to ensure the applicant is fit and has a "good reason" for ownership.
Restrictions: Handguns have been generally illegal since 1997.
Self-Defense: Firearms are not considered a legal means of self-defense. 
The law focuses on public safety, making gun ownership highly conditional. 

what is the british common law position on gun rights

In British common law, gun ownership is currently viewed as a privilege, not a right. While a historic right to bear arms was once recognized, it has been effectively superseded by a series of parliamentary statutes, particularly since 1920. 

Historical Common Law Context
Historically, the common law position was rooted in both an obligation and a right for citizens to be armed: 
Mandatory Armament: Dating back to the 12th century (e.g., the Assize of Arms 1181), free Englishmen were required by law to maintain weapons suitable to their rank for the defense of the realm and local order.
English Bill of Rights (1689): This document codified the right of subjects who were Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This was largely a response to attempts by King James II to disarm his opponents.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: In the 18th century, jurist William Blackstone described the right to have arms as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" and a "public allowance" to prevent the suppression of other liberties. 

Shift from Right to Privilege
The transition from a common law right to the modern regulated system occurred through several key legislative milestones: 
Firearms Act 1920: This marked the definitive end of the "right" to bear arms by introducing a mandatory licensing system where applicants had to prove a "good reason" to own a firearm.
Removal of Self-Defense: While self-defense was initially considered a valid reason for ownership, the Home Office ceased recognizing it as such in 1937 (Great Britain only).
Modern Prohibitions: Following mass shootings in Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996), Parliament banned most semi-automatic rifles and nearly all handguns. 

Current Legal Status
Today, the "common law" has been almost entirely displaced by the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent amendments: 
Licensing: All firearms must be licensed by the local police, who must be satisfied the applicant is not a danger to public safety and has a "good reason" (e.g., sport, hunting, or work).
Northern Ireland Exception: Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK where "personal protection" may still be accepted as a legitimate reason for a firearm certificate under specific, verifiable risks. 
Would you like to explore the specific licensing requirements or the list of prohibited weapons under current UK law?

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

My addition is this quote from Blackstone on the subject:

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

And this is a link to a Parliamentary paper: 

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
 

What The F*** Is Wrong With USS Gerald R. Ford?

 OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.

 Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control.