Anonymous ID: 935a3e Feb. 14, 2019, 6:02 p.m. No.5179605   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9862 >>0021 >>0106

Britain’s Royal Navy “Should Develop a Reign of Terror”. “Russia Should Go Away and Shut Up.”

 

Statement by UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson

 

The Royal Navy should be able to “develop a reign of terror down enemy coasts”, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said today.

 

During a speech outlining military spending priorities, Williamson said:

 

“In 1940, Winston Churchill said: “Enterprises must be prepared with specially trained troops of the Hunter class who can develop a reign of terror down enemy coasts”.

 

Our actions mean we will deliver on Churchill’s vision for our Royal Navy and for our Royal Marine commandos.”

 

According to the National Army Museum, Churchill’s quote ends by proposing a “butcher and bolt policy” of commandos behind enemy lines, “leaving a trail of German corpses behind them”.

 

Williamson’s speech was interpreted as a show of force against both Russia and China, as he said he would send the military’s new aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.

 

The Defence Secretary also defended the concept of foreign military intervention, saying that the price of not intervening is often higher than the price of intervening.

 

Williamson’s “reign of terror” comments are characteristic of the inflammatory language he favours. He was widely mocked when he said that “Russia should go away. It should shut up.”

 

According to BuzzFeed News, Williamson’s general use of language has angered his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. One former adviser reportedly said:

 

“The shooting from the hip and choice of words has raised a few eyebrows because it’s not particularly statesmanlike.

 

There is a tendency for some who arrive in the department to want to play with the toys and grandstand, which is something to be avoided – it’s not great. The language has been a little bit alarming to those in the services.”

 

Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith also criticised Williamson’s “sabre-rattling”. In response to his speech, she said:

 

“The Conservatives have slashed the defence budget by over £9bn in real terms since 2010 and they are cutting armed forces numbers year after year.

 

“Instead of simply engaging in yet more sabre-rattling, Gavin Williamson should get to grips with the crisis in defence funding that is happening on his watch.”

 

On the other hand, Campaign Against Arms Trade criticised Williamson’s current planned increase in military spending instead of the cuts of the past eight years.

 

The anti-arms organisation also objected to Williamson’s comments about increasing “lethality” and “hard power”. Spokesperson Andrew Smith said:

 

“With the UK at a crossroads, the Government should redefine its role, but that should mean an end to interventionism and the focus on projecting military strength around the world – not more of the same failed policies that have done so much damage.

 

Williamson rightly condemns those that flout and ignore international law, but the Government is arming and supporting Saudi forces widely accused of violating international humanitarian law in atrocities against Yemen.

 

At a time when budgets are being squeezed and cut across the country, and when millions are being hit by austerity, the Government is finding even more money for the military.

 

It’s time for Williamson and his colleagues to take a different view on security. Where the UK, and other rich nations, can make a positive difference is through overseas aid, supporting civilian peace-building efforts, and investing in renewable energy and green technologies to combat climate change, which is the number one threat to our security and that of the world.”

 

Williamson is rumoured to be planning either a Tory leadership run himself, or to support another candidate in exchange for a top job under the next leader.

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/britains-royal-navy-should-be-capable-of-a-reign-of-terror-russia-should-go-away-and-shut-up/5668617

Anonymous ID: 935a3e Feb. 14, 2019, 6:15 p.m. No.5179845   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9859 >>9914 >>0021 >>0106

Klukowski: President Trump Must Ensure Spending Bill Does Not Cancel Emergency Powers

 

The White House should be extremely cautious in studying every single word in Congress’s spending bill, because even a single phrase could negate every authority President Donald Trump currently has under federal law to build and fund the border wall, even canceling his authority to declare a national border emergency.

 

Insiders around D.C. are talking about how the president can sign the spending bill that was unveiled this week, take the money that it authorizes for building a wall, then use executive authority to fund the rest of it. The president must proceed with extreme caution, because the opponents of the wall are the ones writing this 1,169-page monster legislation, and a single unnoticed sentence could lead to a court ruling that the president has signed away all of this legal authority to secure the border – including emergency authority.

 

As President Trump announced that he will declare a national emergency, Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) immediately decried the act, saying they will defend their Article I authority against the president’s power grab. They call this an “end run around Congress.”

 

That is laughable to the point of being absurd. President Trump is not claiming any inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. Instead, he is acting exclusively within the authority that Congress has explicitly granted to any president under the National Emergencies Act, which triggers 136 separate statutory powers that Congress has embedded in various laws. Presidents have declared 59 emergencies since 1979, most recently this month when President Trump declared an emergency regarding the turmoil in Venezuela.

 

This is only one more emergency, similar to the previous 59. Congress has authorized this. The Constitution will not burst into flames. The sky will not fall.

 

Try the decaf.

 

Under current law, the president has a host of methods to build the border wall. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorizes building the wall, so the issue becomes one of funding. He does not require any additional authority from Congress; he requires only money.

 

If President Trump declares an emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (found at 50 U.S.C. § 1601) – as he says he will – then under 33 U.S.C. § 2293 he would have immediate access to $14 billion and could direct the acting defense secretary to order the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall with that money.

 

That is far more than the $5.7 billion he needs for the most critical 231 miles of border wall, and does not even count whatever Congress has supposedly given him in this enormous spending bill.

 

Even without an emergency, the president has authority under 10 U.S.C. § 284 to have military resources build the wall, though his lawyers must be absolutely certain that this power also includes the ability to fund the building project without an emergency.

 

Under current law, the president has transfer authority, by which he could move certain funds from specific government programs and departments to others that could be used to build the wall.

 

Additionally, under the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the U.S. Department of Defense can deploy troops to help secure the border whenever the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informs the Pentagon that it requires assistance. If DHS requests such assistance, this NDAA also suspends the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally prohibits U.S. troops from performing law enforcement duties on U.S. soil.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/14/klukowski-president-trump-must-ensure-spending-bill-does-not-cancel-emergency-powers/