Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 December 15

= December 15 =

Position of Isis In/Around Aleppo after Syrian Government has taken Control.
I am looking for clarification on the position of ISIS after the rebels have lost control of Aleppo, my confusion comes after looking at the Syrian Civil War detailed map on the map you see that ISIS has some positions on the countryside outside of Aleppo, I have seen many people suggesting Rebels are ISIS (Which I know is not particularly accurate) because ISIS has more control near ar-Raqqah, This is a complex situation, and from an independent education perspective, I want to understand how ISIS plays a role in the battle of Aleppo, or if it even had a role, more confusion arose after I read this from PBS NewsHour

HARI SREENIVASAN: Joshua Landis, what about ISIS and al-Qaida that almost seem forgotten in this giant proxy war? What happens? Is ISIS taking advantage of this opportunity, as Margaret Warner reported?

JOSHUA LANDIS: Yes, ISIS did. We saw that, as Syrian troops went to Aleppo, ISIS took Palmyra. But ISIS’ days are numbered.

I am just trying to get to the truth of this topic, because it is hard to dissect every aspect of this topic. NoLegMan (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell, ISIS is not involved in the battle for Aleppo, but the diversion of Syrian troops from Palmyra to Aleppo did allow them to retake that site. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was gathering, from the sources I posted, I was only curious because I have seen wild accusations all over the web especially, just hard to keep everything straight.NoLegMan (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose, in a sense, the Free Syrian Army rebels are a bigger priority for the Assad regime than ISIS is. The world will destroy ISIS anyways, but much of the world, barring Russia obviously, would be very happy to see the Free Syrian Army rebels overrun Damascus and execute Assad. Eliyohub (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Especially given how well the assassination approach has worked in the past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Worked well against Nicolae Ceaușescu. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nicolae Ceaușescu wasn't assassinated.  He was arrested along with his wife trying to leave the country illegally, they were brought before a military tribunal charged with genocide, tried, found guilty and executed. 86.141.140.240 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ceaușescu's trial was sometimes called a kangaroo court; but legitimate or not, it happened after he was deposed, making StuRat's comment strange. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a kangaroo court, but it achieved it's goal of convincing any remaining pro-Ceaușescu forces to give up. The assassination of Qaddafi was similar, in this respect, although there wasn't even a show trial in that case. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Eliyohub, agreeable ISIS seems to be less of a priority to Assad, and the global forces will and have been pushing them back especially because of the Syrian Democratic Forces, with the recent launch of phase 2 of the Northern Raqqa Operation heating up.NoLegMan (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * NoLegMan, I converted the first of your links to what I consider a more convenient format; hope you don't mind. Note the leading colon to 'escape' it from its template function. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Congressional declaration of war, opposed by the President
It's congress which has the power to declare war, as I understand it, but it's the president who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. So what would be the legal and constitutional situation if congress passed a declaration of WAR (yes, actual WAR, not just a quasi-declaration authorising military action, of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution sort!) BY a margin large enough to override a presidential veto, AGAINST to express wishes of the president? Could the president simply say "I accept that us and country X are now in a state of war, but I absolutely refuse to authorise any actual military action against country X"? Or would the president be obliged to allow military action to be undertaken, despite his opposition? Or would congress be limited to taking steps which ARE within its control, in pursuit of harming country X, such as a trade embargo or the like?

I'm thinking of a hypothetical situation where, for example, two-thirds of both houses of congress are opposed to Trump giving Russia a free hand to shore up the Assad regime in Syria by bombing America's allies who were fighting the regime. Assume they were willing to do ANYTHING within their constitutional powers, even a war declaration against the Assad regime, to thwart this policy of his. Are they powerless? Eliyohub (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It has never happened before. So I don't know that we can provide you with an reliable references.  This article by the Council on Foreign Relations may contain some background for the checks and balances intentionally built into the Constitution surrounding the powers WRT war being split between Congress and The President.  -- Jayron 32 04:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The question comes down to how Congress could compel the president to actually carry out whatever declaration they've passed? The president typically initiates the request for a declaration of war, and the Congress typically accepts that request, assuming by that time that the need for the declaration is obvious (as with Pearl Harbor). The legislative provides the resources that the executive needs. If there was a disagreement about the declaration, the high court would probably be consulted, given the murky constitutional issues as Jayron suggests. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember some factoid to the effect that the Korean War, or maybe it was US participation in WW2 or something like that, didn't officially end until the signing of some document in the past few decades (and the former enemy countries had already become US allies by that time). So yeah, in that picture there can be a declared war officially in effect, while there's no actual hostilities going on.  If Congress declares war on Trump's hair, he might refuse to attack it and it's not clear to me that Congress could do anything. As another example, the governor of California refused to defend Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry because they agreed with the plaintiffs (Perry etc) that the statute was unconstitutional.  Hollingworth (a pro-prop-8 guy) took the matter to SCOTUS, which ruled that he didn't have standing.  In the Trump's hair case, maybe someone could sue for a writ of mandamus for the Pentagon to deploy chicken cannons against it, but the issue of standing would probably arise again. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you might have been thinking of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The Republic of Korea and its allies are still kinda sorta technically at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as they have never signed a peace treaty, only an armistice to halt the fighting. And there's also the Kuril Islands dispute. See also: List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a recent question regarding the vice president and others getting together to oust the president. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There really isn't a clear answer, I'm afraid. Of course part of the issue is that since WWII, Congress has largely abdicated to the President its Constitutional powers relating to war, so in small-"c" constitutional terms, these days the President effectively decides whether to go to war. So, this is constitutional crisis territory. As a purely practical matter, in the scenario you've presented, if Congress has two-thirds support for challenging the President on the matter, they can just impeach and remove the President from office if they don't do what Congress wants. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Congress can declare a state of war, but it cannot force him or her to take specific military actions, nor can it remove the President as commander-inn-chief, short of impeachment. If the opposing country cooperates by not actually waging war on the United States, then there will be a state of war that is de jure but not de facto.  States of war that are de jure but not de facto are actually fairly common in the world, so from a global perspective this would not be terribly unusual.  It's inherently unpredictable as to how this would play out if Congress were determined to wage war while the President is not.  Certainly Congress has many ways to pressure the President.  John M Baker (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a few obvious observations. Congress could impeach the president for not enforcing the Constitution.  People who were found aiding the declared enemy could still be tried for treason.  Indeed, the president himself might be impeached for giving comfort to the "enemy". μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Medieval pilgrimage in England
A few weeks ago, I found online a list of English pilgrimage sites and their associated shrines (eg Canterbury for St Thomas Becket and Durham for St Cuthbert etc). I didn't bother to copy the URL because I thought it would be easy to find again, but now It seems to have vanished. I think it was on Google Books. If anybody can find such a list, I shall be indebted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does anything here help? -- Jayron 32 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What I was looking for was a list of about 30 sites; I have tried all the search terms I can think of, but no luck. However, I somehow missed the Catholic Encyclopedia page which is a start, so thanks for that. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find a list like that, but this book has a short list of the most important sites, and this book has lengthy discussions of a large number. Warofdreams talk 14:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's helpful. I was thinking about a List of medieval pilgrimage sites in England without having to do too much work. Maybe something to do over Christmas. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Walter Skeat gives a list of a dozen of the most popular "English" (actually English and Welsh) pilgrimage destinations, together with a couple of refs for further reading. His Bury is Bury St. Edmunds rather than the Lancashire one, and his Holywell is the Flintshire one.  And we have a Category:Christian pilgrimages if you need more ideas. --Antiquary (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further sources:
 * A list in Jean Jules Jusserand's English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages
 * A whole two-volume PhD thesis called An Archaeology of Sensory Experience: Pilgrimage in the Medieval Church, c. 1170 - c. 1550. I'll be honest, I haven't read it all through, but there's got to be a list of sites somewhere. --Antiquary (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I found it in the end: Christian Shrines of Britain. Thanks User:Antiquary, I borrowed and amended the Google search term that you used in your the link above. The successful search term was "canterbury, walsingham, glastonbury, winchester". Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the additional sources User:Antiquary; my cup runneth over. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)