Delta Force In Israel Faces Published

[Kathianne]

Unreal if true. Heads should roll. Picture at site:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/10/19/holy-cow-white-house-shares-uncensored-picture-of-delta-force-operators-in-israel-n2165283


Massive Security Breach: White House Shares Uncensored Picture of Delta Force Operators in IsraelBy Bonchie | 11:55 AM on October 19, 2023The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.



AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Just when you think the Biden administration can't be any more incompetent, they somehow find a way to lower the bar. That's the story after the White House published a photo on Facebook of Delta Force operators that are on the ground in Israel.


The picture was put up by the official White House account and captioned as the president meeting "with first responders to thank them for their bravery and the work they're doing in response to Hamas terrorist attacks."


There are not enough face-palm memes in existence to describe how insane this is.


Putting aside the ridiculous description of the soldiers in the picture being "first responders," the White House just confirmed that American troops are on the ground and operating against Hamas (at least according to the description). That doesn't necessarily mean a larger deployment and a broadening of U.S. involvement is coming, as special forces often operate covertly like this in small numbers, but I don't think the plan was to announce to the world that the United States is involved in direct combat with Hamas.


Now, is the description on the post actually accurate? That's another question because it is very possible these operators are actually there to protect the embassy, a task Delta Force has often been called on to do in tense situations. If that's the case, then whatever Biden handler posted that picture could have just been mouthing off without knowing what they were talking about. Perhaps they honestly thought these were Israeli troops, though, it's kind of hard to miss the American flags on all their sleeves.


Whatever the explanation, though, there is zero doubt that this is a huge security breach. It is standard protocol to never show the faces of any active special forces in the U.S. military, and any details about their specific operations are never supposed to be shared. Whoever did this screwed up badly, and it's not the kind of thing that can just be ignored. This is a firable offense. Will that happen? Of course, not.

[Gunny]

Unreal if true. Heads should roll. Picture at site:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/10/19/holy-cow-white-house-shares-uncensored-picture-of-delta-force-operators-in-israel-n2165283Unbelievable. What a bunch of morons.:rolleyes:

I was going to point this out before then got caught up in the circus here: To preempt the exclamations of shock, outrage and whatnot, there are and have been Marines in Israel since at least before I was there. Not a secret, just kept on the down-low by the WH and minus hostilities, too boring for the MSM. Just a small training/liaison unit unworthy of mention which contains the nucleus to expand rapidly into a Marine Brigade.

Putting Delta Force in camera and on location is inexcusable. Its presence is supposed to be classified, IIRC. Wonder how many heads won't roll for that since it was "just Joe":rolleyes:

[revelarts]

"security breech" seems to be folks main concern here but
my problem is of course the idea that U.S. troops are there to fight (are fighting?) another undeclared "war" in a foreign country.

1st of all it's unconstitutional, if anyone cares about that anymore.
Presidents have ZERO authority to send U.S. military to fight secretly or overtly in foreign wars.
The only acceptable reason for them being their is to free U.S. hostages, which -to my knowledge- is not a specialty of the military. maybe some one can remind me of the times military freeing hostages ended well.

2nd, Israel is not some nation handicapped with a half-baked military of its own. It's MORE than capable of fighting it's own battles.
So why are ANY U.S. troop in harms way? much less aircraft carriers floating off shore from a group that has no planes or ships.

If Israel only had 3 airplanes and 3 ships they'd have 600 times more than Hamas does.
It makes no logical sense and simply stirs the regional pot for no good reason.

for those primarily outraged by the stupid security breech.
If they hadn't been sent there in the 1st place, there would have been no breech.

[fj1200]

"security breech" seems to be folks main concern here but
my problem is of course the idea that U.S. troops are there to fight (are fighting?) another undeclared "war" in a foreign country.

1st of all it's unconstitutional, if anyone cares about that anymore.
Presidents have ZERO authority to send U.S. military to fight secretly or overtly in foreign wars.
The only acceptable reason for them being their is to free U.S. hostages, which -to my knowledge- is not a specialty of the military. maybe some one can remind me of the times military freeing hostages ended well.

2nd, Israel is not some nation handicapped with a half-baked military of its own. It's MORE than capable of fighting it's own battles.
So why are ANY U.S. troop in harms way? much less aircraft carriers floating off shore from a group that has no planes or ships.

If Israel only had 3 airplanes and 3 ships they'd have 600 times more than Hamas does.
It makes no logical sense and simply stirs the regional pot for no good reason.

for those primarily outraged by the stupid security breech.
If they hadn't been sent there in the 1st place, there would have been no breech.


These guys disagree.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Delta_force_poster.jpg

Five years later, in 1985 a group of Palestinian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian) terrorists hijack American Travelways Airlines Flight 282, a Boeing 707 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707) flying from Cairo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo) to New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) via Athens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens) and Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome). Taking all 144 passengers and crew hostage

[Gunny]

"security breech" seems to be folks main concern here but
my problem is of course the idea that U.S. troops are there to fight (are fighting?) another undeclared "war" in a foreign country.

1st of all it's unconstitutional, if anyone cares about that anymore.
Presidents have ZERO authority to send U.S. military to fight secretly or overtly in foreign wars.
The only acceptable reason for them being their is to free U.S. hostages, which -to my knowledge- is not a specialty of the military. maybe some one can remind me of the times military freeing hostages ended well.

2nd, Israel is not some nation handicapped with a half-baked military of its own. It's MORE than capable of fighting it's own battles.
So why are ANY U.S. troop in harms way? much less aircraft carriers floating off shore from a group that has no planes or ships.

If Israel only had 3 airplanes and 3 ships they'd have 600 times more than Hamas does.
It makes no logical sense and simply stirs the regional pot for no good reason.

for those primarily outraged by the stupid security breech.
If they hadn't been sent there in the 1st place, there would have been no breech.The President has the authority to deploy US Forces for up to 180 days without so much as notifying Congress. It is Constitutional.

Delta Force was there to protect the President, not fight a war. Delta Force does not fight conventional wars. I guarantee you for the President of the US to fly to Israel during a war, the sky and Earth around him was locked up tighter'n a frog's ass. Also not unlawful.

US military units are rotated in and out of Israel for joint training. Have been for decades. Not unconstitutional.

Any other incorrect bitches you got?

[revelarts]

Delta Force was there to protect the President, not fight a war. Delta Force does not fight conventional wars. I guarantee you for the President of the US to fly to Israel during a war, the sky and Earth around him was locked up tighter'n a frog's ass. Also not unlawful.
Glad you have the inside info on what they were doing. That makes sense but is that true?
the article and reports didn't say that, it said
..."The picture was put up by the official White House account and captioned as the president meeting "with first responders to thank them for their bravery and the work they're doing in response to Hamas terrorist attacks."



US military units are rotated in and out of Israel for joint training. Have been for decades. Not unconstitutional.

True. no problem with that, but the white house said
..."The picture was put up by the official White House account and captioned as the president meeting "with first responders to thank them for their bravery and the work they're doing in response to Hamas terrorist attacks."




The President has the authority to deploy US Forces for up to 180 days without so much as notifying Congress. It is Constitutional.
hmm no, sorry you're incorrect here,
on all points.

unconstitutional
the War powers Act is "constitutional" in the same way that banning guns and spying on citizens is "constitutional".
Congress voted on some rules that unconstitutionally granted the president war powers that are constitutionally based in congress.
But even what they grant is "legally" limited to...
War Powers Resolution:
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces"


Notifying congress
ALSO even then he's suppose to submit a Written statement to congress with a heads up
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement...
As far as I can tell NONE of the above applies to what's going on in Israel.

60 days
And as far as 180 days go,
OK maybe they've updated the Act (or you're thinking about the BUSH/CHENNEY "i'm the decider" rule) but last I check it was 60 days not 180 days.
EVEN IF the CIC met the previous unconstitutional war powers standards.
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


But gunny if I'm missing some new unconstitutional but "legal" powers the congress and/or president have granted the CiC let me know.

[jimnyc]

the way I red things was that the president must notify congress within 48hrs (I'm sure Biden did whether requires verbal or a quick writing)...

After that he can send along and keep them active for 60 days and then an additional 30 days for withdrawal.

Wiki:

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.

But from what I also understand, their only goal is help within Israel; and may be involved in retrieving hostages if possible. But from what I know, Israel was last in successfully retrieving a mass amount of protected hostages. They can likely handle with their own commandos but it's possible it can have Seals or whomever of our elite assisting. Should our military contingent enter Gaza, that would give them 90 days to work that would be fully constitutional.

As for 180 and how the extra 90 is on top of the war resolution powers - I defer to those in the know and especially military. Not to say that Gunny can't be off on the total amount of days. I'll let him clarify the 90/180 day difference. If he's wrong, someone @ me in here so I can remember to come back in here and make fun of his bald head.

** Just noticed now that your post did include the full 90 days but I dumbly read the bold portion and missed that. My bad, Rev!

[fj1200]

FWIW I don't believe the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has been tested.

[Gunny]

Glad you have the inside info on what they were doing. That makes sense but is that true?
the article and reports didn't say that, it said
..."The picture was put up by the official White House account and captioned as the president meeting "with first responders to thank them for their bravery and the work they're doing in response to Hamas terrorist attacks."


True. no problem with that, but the white house said
..."The picture was put up by the official White House account and captioned as the president meeting "with first responders to thank them for their bravery and the work they're doing in response to Hamas terrorist attacks."



hmm no, sorry you're incorrect here,
on all points.

unconstitutional
the War powers Act is "constitutional" in the same way that banning guns and spying on citizens is "constitutional".
Congress voted on some rules that unconstitutionally granted the president war powers that are constitutionally based in congress.
But even what they grant is "legally" limited to...
War Powers Resolution:
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces"


Notifying congress
ALSO even then he's suppose to submit a Written statement to congress with a heads up
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement...
As far as I can tell NONE of the above applies to what's going on in Israel.

60 days
And as far as 180 days go,
OK maybe they've updated the Act (or you're thinking about the BUSH/CHENNEY "i'm the decider" rule) but last I check it was 60 days not 180 days.
EVEN IF the CIC met the previous unconstitutional war powers standards.
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


But gunny if I'm missing some new unconstitutional but "legal" powers the congress and/or president have granted the CiC let me know.

You are nit picking.


In short, here are the President’s powers as Commander in Chief:


He can order U.S. forces into military action if, in his judgment, the safety or strategic interests of the United States are threatened. Period.
He must inform Congress of these actions within 48 hours of the event.
The troops cannot be committed for more than 60 days, without Congressional approval. He may use an additional 30 days to re-deploy the troops.
Until a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF (https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf)) is passed by Congress, our last three presidents have all used the AUMF passed after 9/11/2001 as broad permission to fight all terror groups and acts of terror, anywhere in the world. This is the justification for the thousands of troops presently deployed to Iraq and Syria, and for other Special Operations missions in places like Somalia and Yemen.


What Powers Does the President Have to Take Military Action without Congressional Approval? | American Center for Law and Justice (aclj.org) (https://aclj.org/national-security/what-powers-does-the-president-have-to-take-military-action-without-congressional-approval)

Always looking for a dig. In practice, the President can do whatever the F he wants. I admit, you got me on the number of days and notifying Congress within 48 hours:rolleyes:. That's about it.

Which is irrelevant to this topic since the President has not deployed US forces in any other than defensive positions for the purpose of projecting force. Prove otherwise.

If you don't know even the basics of Delta Force, don't open your mouth. Stop trying so hard to prove yourself incorrect.

The CinC is the CinC and needs no new powers to deploy forces in "emergencies" and/or ahead of hostilities. As CinC, in a military situation, the CinC does not hand his own security. The military does.

[revelarts]

FWIW I don't believe the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has been tested.

Spying on US Citizens hasn't been fully tested , torturing people hasn't been fully tested, putting citizens in jails without trial hasn't been fully tested.
but anyone reading the constitution honestly can see clearly that the U.S. gov't does not have the authority to do it.

with the 2nd amendment many on the right are amazingly able to read it and see where the limits of the federal gov't are.
but somehow in other areas they need the supreme court to tell them what it says... if they prefer that it said otherwise.

like here,
Gunny you say


In short, here are the President’s powers as Commander in Chief:



He can order U.S. forces into military action if, in his judgment, the safety or strategic interests of the United States are threatened. Period.
He must inform Congress of these actions within 48 hours of the event.
The troops cannot be committed for more than 60 days, without Congressional approval. He may use an additional 30 days to re-deploy the troops.
Until a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF (https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf)) is passed by Congress, our last three presidents have all used the AUMF passed after 9/11/2001 as broad permission to fight all terror groups and acts of terror, anywhere in the world. This is the justification for the thousands of troops presently deployed to Iraq and Syria, and for other Special Operations missions in places like Somalia and Yemen.



where in constitution does it say
"strategic interests of the United States "
"He must inform Congress of these actions within 48 hours of the event."
" troops can be committed for more than 60 days"
"that an AUMF (https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf) gives a president the right to commit forces" willy nilly around the world

It's not there.
why is this hard to see?

it's CLEARLY 100% outside of the constitutional powers granted to the President.
just because some people LIKE the president having these powers (when he attacks people they are afraid of) does not mean they are constitutional powers.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to write unconstitutional laws. They can't change constitutional powers by simply writing an act or by giving "authorization".
Just because "other presidents have done it" (got away with it) doesn't mean it's constitutional.



In practice, the President can do whatever the F he wants.

So in practice the president has become a dictator.
That's what I've been trying to point out to folks since 2002.

Torture is what dictators do, spying on citizens is what dictators do, putting people in jail without trials and sending military hither & yonder on their whims to kill people and start wars without any accountability is what dictators and kings do.
It's what the constitution was written to cancel.

But If you like that fine. If you think that's what's needed to keep you/us safe. OK.
I don't think so, so we disagree.
But if you think that it's all "legal" or constitutional. Sorry, at that point you are simply wrong. And are trying to gaslight me or yourself.
Maybe both. Because in the real world all that crap is unconstitutional.

If you want to debate what can be done about it. fine. That's a real discussion.
But 1st people have to be honest about what it IS.
And stop pretending that this crap is "legal" or "constitutional' when they happen to LIKE what the gov't is doing. Who or why the gov't is banning, controlling, spying on, jailing, torturing or killing.

It's EXACTLY what the left does. ZERO difference. zero.
Same results LESS freedom, less influence by the people - of the people, more gov't controls.

chickens have already started to come home to roost ya'll.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
James Madison

[Gunny]

Spying on US Citizens hasn't been fully tested , torturing people hasn't been fully tested, putting citizens in jails without trial hasn't been fully tested.
but anyone reading the constitution honestly can see clearly that the U.S. gov't does not have the authority to do it.

with the 2nd amendment many on the right are amazingly able to read it and see where the limits of the federal gov't are.
but somehow in other areas they need the supreme court to tell them what it says... if they prefer that it said otherwise.

like here,
Gunny you say



where in constitution does it say
"strategic interests of the United States "
"He must inform Congress of these actions within 48 hours of the event."
" troops can be committed for more than 60 days"
"that an AUMF (https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf) gives a president the right to commit forces" willy nilly around the world

It's not there.
why is this hard to see?

it's CLEARLY 100% outside of the constitutional powers granted to the President.
just because some people LIKE the president having these powers (when he attacks people they are afraid of) does not mean they are constitutional powers.
Just because "other presidents have done it" (got away with it) doesn't mean it's constitutional.




So in practice the president has become a dictator.
That's what I've been trying to point out to folks since 2002.

Torture is what dictators do, spying on citizens is what dictators do, putting people in jail without trials and sending military hither & yonder on their whims to kill people and start wars without any accountability is what dictators and kings do.
It's what the constitution was written to cancel.

But If you like that fine. If you think that's what's needed to keep you/us safe. OK.
I don't think so, so we disagree.
But if you think that it's all "legal" or constitutional. Sorry, at that point you are simply wrong. And are trying to gaslight me or yourself.
Maybe both. Because in the real world all that crap is unconstitutional.

If you want to debate what can be done about it. fine. That's a real discussion.
But 1st people have to be honest about what it IS.
And stop pretending that this crap is "legal" or "constitutional' when they happen to LIKE what the gov't is doing. Who or why the gov't is banning, controlling, spying on, jailing, torturing or killing.

It's EXACTLY what the left does. ZERO difference. zero.
Same results LESS freedom, less influence by the people - of the people, more gov't controls.

chickens have already started to come home to roost ya'll.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
James Madison

As usual, you toss out that all-encompassing lasso and snare more irrelevant brush than you do cows. Off on one of your rants about tyranny and whatnot simply because you don't like the answers that disagree with your wishful thinking that in no way deals with anything close to the reality on the ground.

The system is fine. It is not designed however to be run by the boobs that currently have their fingers on the triggers. In this case, for once, and against your trying to wordsmith everything you don't like into being illegal, I agree with the decision to support Israel the same as I do Ukraine. There is nothing unconstitutional about it, nor does it have anything to do with the allegations of unconstitutional behavior you have injected into the conversation out of left field.

The President/CinC chose to take a trip to Israel in the middle of a terrorist war. Delta Force accompanied. Makes perfect sense. One of Delta Force's primary missions is extraction of noncombatants. If shit goes south, they didi the Prez the Hell out. Nothing nefarious. Simple application of skills as they pertain to the mission.

If Chuck Norris went with them, that's a different story:poke:

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F80VLw1W8AAHk3Q?format=jpg&name=small

Yes it's all constitutional I'm sure.

Because congress has already declared a war with the middle east.
or it's all just for "training".

and the president can do what the F he wants... it's in the constitution.

[Gunny]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F80VLw1W8AAHk3Q?format=jpg&name=small

Yes it's all constitutional I'm sure.

Because congress has already declared a war with the middle east.
or it's all just for "training".

and the president can do what the F he wants... it's in the constitution.The Pentagon ordering troops to be ready for deployment is in-house military. Marines in deployable units have to be able to deploy within 48 hours at ALL TIMES as SOP.

The Pentagon itself has no authority to deploy troops.

The President has the authority to respond to emergencies and it is within the parameters of his duties listed in the Constitution. The being prepared part is just using your brain.