Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-20-2011, 10:05 PM   #16
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by shooz Quote
It's not an irrelevant distinction, nor is it partisan.

Libya is a NATO action. Remember, even France is in on it.
I do believe we signed that treaty.[...]

Remember, we are under contract.
No, that's an excuse. NATO and all the contracts in the world cannot send us to war without Congressional approval. We're now simply nitpicking at the definitions and technicalities that would allow us to escape what is clearly the right thing to do.

The illegal war in Libya:

QuoteQuote:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" -- candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

"No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers" -- candidate Barack Obama, August 1, 2007
_______________________

When President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval (even though, to use his words, it did "not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"), the administration and its defenders claimed he had legal authority to do so for two reasons: (1) the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) authorizes the President to wage war for 60 days without Congress, and (2) the "time-limited, well defined and discrete" nature of the mission meant that it was not really a "war" under the Constitution (Deputy NSA Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Obama OLC). Those claims were specious from the start, but are unquestionably inapplicable now.

From the start, the WPR provided no such authority. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's why Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman -- in an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Obama's Unconstitutional War" -- wrote when the war started that the "The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing" and that "in taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency."
ETC... The question is, why?

QuoteQuote:
There is little doubt that Congress would subserviently comply -- as it always does -- with presidential demands for war authorization. The Obama White House is simply choosing not to seek it because Obama officials want to bolster the unrestrained power of the imperial presidency entrenched by Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo, and because that route avoids a messy debate about purpose, cost and exit strategy.


05-20-2011, 10:29 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,511
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote


ETC... The question is, why?
Cause. If the rebels lose, Libya's a problem for another thirty years.

They are likely to lose, anyway, but now's no time to be a de facto friend of Khadaffi.

Simple fact: This is their shot right now. There will not be another for a while.

And in other cold facts, even in the eyes of the most ruthless, selfish person in the country: We lose nothing by taking tanks and artillery off the board in Libya. Whoever 'wins.'

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-20-2011 at 10:37 PM.
05-20-2011, 10:53 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
shooz's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,489
What war?
I hear a limited amount about two occupations, and some occasional bombings.
Nothing about a war. Stuff we've been doing for a while now.

You wanted a government that works more like a corporation.

Now that you have it. You complain?
Give me break.

You've let them buy it. So they run it like one.
Secrecy and all.
We are there because the corporations want us there.
05-20-2011, 11:43 PM   #19
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
While they debate the soaring national debt, contemplate even more cuts to libraries, schools, social programs and eventually cutting Social Security and student loans, this never ending war on several fronts continues. It doesn't seem to matter which party or which president anymore. This crap is totally bankrupting the future of this nation and THEY DON'T CARE.

They'll talk about cutting anything except the war budget. Our little economic problem could be solved very easily by FULLY pulling our troops out of where they don't belong, period. But that's just a forbidden notion apparently. In the meantime the economy sinks and sinks and people go hungry, they lose their homes, and no one can get a job hardly....

I'm way past caring what Congress does anymore. It's clear the White House has long ceased paying any attention to what the people of this country actually want. So why should the White House even bother to pay lip service to our representatives in either branch?

Call me cynical but at this point I think it's over for the USA. Even if they quit tomorrow it would take us 100 years to even begin to clean up this mess IF we do actually survive it.

05-21-2011, 04:08 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
I think it's over for the USA
I wonder if the American Empire isn't about where the British Empire was in 1920 - entering a period of terminal decline.

Welcome to Amerika Inc.
05-21-2011, 06:44 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,805
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
The tea partiers aren't just the same old washington politicians and aren't just about money...


Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Partly true. Partly the same old partisan hypocrisy. Look at the names on that letter. They are not all Rand Paul and his ilk. Most of the Republican signers who were in 2002 there voted for the hazy authorization for the invasion of Iraq, and never pressed a Republican with the need for a declaration of war to support other military ventures, including Afghanistan (very shaky authority, there). The Iraq resolution was not a declaration of war that would satisfy the Pauls, either. One of the signatories of this letter, John Cornyn, did not even want the troops in Iraq drawn down.

Gee, but if a Democrat engages in a far more limited exercise, they suddenly discover the constitution.

I'd like to see some use of the War Powers Resolution (it is not a law and the War Powers Act was only used in WWII). However, in the current political climate, all we would probably here is about the President protecting the continent where he was (allegedly) born.

Last edited by GeneV; 05-21-2011 at 07:44 AM.
05-21-2011, 06:48 AM   #22
Senior Member
skyredoubt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 243
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Cause. If the rebels lose, Libya's a problem for another thirty years.
I was asking why not seek Congressional authorization given that the law demands it (as the candidate Obama rightly used to claim) and it is all but assured anyway.
05-21-2011, 06:56 AM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,805
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
No, that's an excuse. NATO and all the contracts in the world cannot send us to war without Congressional approval. We're now simply nitpicking at the definitions and technicalities that would allow us to escape what is clearly the right thing to do.


ETC... The question is, why?
I would respectfully state that your post about a treaty being an "excuse" is way too dismissive. An actual treaty is approved by the senate under procedures set out in the Constitution, and it is the law of the land in many cases superior to statutes and other acts of congress. This is a very serious constitutional question which cannot be just labeled an excuse.

I agree that we have a long history of presidents being too quick to commit troops. However the constitutionality is not a black and white proposition, and the Supreme Court has seldom gotten involved. War and Treaty Powers of the U. S. Constitution

05-21-2011, 07:09 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,805
QuoteOriginally posted by skyredoubt Quote
I was asking why not seek Congressional authorization given that the law demands it (as the candidate Obama rightly used to claim) and it is all but assured anyway.

What "law" do you mean? The War Powers Resolution is not really a "law" in the usual sense of the word. It is a non-binding joint resolution. If the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, then a resolution consistent with the Constitution should declare war on someone. If it is not declaring war but just talking about troop movements, then there are questions about whether Congress is invading the President's role as commander in chief.

Assuming the resolution is within the power of Congress, this resolution basically says the President can commit troops (declare a little war?) for less than 60 days. If Congress could generally approve the use of force in advance with a resolution, why not with a treaty?

There is so much venom in the current congress, that I don't know that approval is "all but assured."

Last edited by GeneV; 05-21-2011 at 07:49 AM.
05-21-2011, 08:18 AM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Partly true. Partly the same old partisan hypocrisy. Look at the names on that letter. They are not all Rand Paul and his ilk. Most of the Republican signers who were in 2002 there voted for the hazy authorization for the invasion of Iraq, and never pressed a Republican with the need for a declaration of war to support other military ventures, including Afghanistan (very shaky authority, there). The Iraq resolution was not a declaration of war that would satisfy the Pauls, either. One of the signatories of this letter, John Cornyn, did not even want the troops in Iraq drawn down.

Gee, but if a Democrat engages in a far more limited exercise, they suddenly discover the constitution.
While it might be the case that the others have some partisan motivation, I hope that some of them have seen the light and are responding to the demands of the people that we get off of the war path. Dennis Kucinich is also against this but hes not in the senate.

The real thing that I see which is "limited" about libya is that we don't have human US troops in harms way and are getting the job done with robots and missles instead. To me, the impersonal war waged by machines on one side vs. humans on the other side has always been a very dangerous slippery slope. When I finished my degree, qinetiq tried recruiting me to work on the guidance systems for unmanned aircraft and I passed on that because it simply does not seem moral to me to operate like this. The enemy doesn't have a chance when the only thing they win when they win a battle against a drone is a short amount of time before the next drone, flown by the exact same pilot whose learned his tricks, comes back again. The real political motive for fighting this way is so that the cost of war is only measured (by the american electorate) as a line item on the federal budget rather than planes full of caskets. The goal is for people to say, "thats not a war, thats just a limited engagement because we don't have anyone fighting and dying there." There are still people dying that we are killing its just another way to dehumanize the enemy and numb the public to war.
05-21-2011, 03:27 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,805
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
While it might be the case that the others have some partisan motivation, I hope that some of them have seen the light and are responding to the demands of the people that we get off of the war path. Dennis Kucinich is also against this but hes not in the senate.

The real thing that I see which is "limited" about libya is that we don't have human US troops in harms way and are getting the job done with robots and missles instead. To me, the impersonal war waged by machines on one side vs. humans on the other side has always been a very dangerous slippery slope. When I finished my degree, qinetiq tried recruiting me to work on the guidance systems for unmanned aircraft and I passed on that because it simply does not seem moral to me to operate like this. The enemy doesn't have a chance when the only thing they win when they win a battle against a drone is a short amount of time before the next drone, flown by the exact same pilot whose learned his tricks, comes back again. The real political motive for fighting this way is so that the cost of war is only measured (by the american electorate) as a line item on the federal budget rather than planes full of caskets. The goal is for people to say, "thats not a war, thats just a limited engagement because we don't have anyone fighting and dying there." There are still people dying that we are killing its just another way to dehumanize the enemy and numb the public to war.
I really don't believe John Cornyn or Jim DeMint have seen any light. The letter would have more credibility without the signatures of Republicans who didn't care about this before a Democrat was in office.

I have mixed feelings about this action, but the difference of no troops on the ground is a big one. Troops on the ground make it much harder to end involvement.
05-22-2011, 07:59 AM   #27
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,890
just wondering since a President can deploy military assets for whatever he wants to for 60 days without any congressional approval as you people are saying does that also go for the nuclear option? just wondering where you people will draw the line? would it be ok for the President to level a country with conventional bombs for 59 days then stop?
05-22-2011, 08:14 AM   #28
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
just wondering since a President can deploy military assets for whatever he wants to for 60 days without any congressional approval as you people are saying does that also go for the nuclear option? just wondering where you people will draw the line? would it be ok for the President to level a country with conventional bombs for 59 days then stop?
Legally or morally????
05-22-2011, 08:17 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
shooz's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,489
QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
just wondering since a President can deploy military assets for whatever he wants to for 60 days without any congressional approval as you people are saying does that also go for the nuclear option? just wondering where you people will draw the line? would it be ok for the President to level a country with conventional bombs for 59 days then stop?
It would depend on what corporations would profit from it and how the ROI would be distributed to Wallstreet investors.
05-22-2011, 08:24 AM   #30
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,890
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Legally or morally????
both since you are asking
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cnn, law, paul, powers, president, son, violation, war
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landscape Endless River Rense Post Your Photos! 5 01-11-2011 08:30 AM
Nature turf wars eric59 Post Your Photos! 2 09-14-2010 05:32 PM
Nature Koala wars MoiVous Post Your Photos! 10 01-07-2010 05:03 AM
No brand wars! Adam Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 09-13-2009 10:48 AM
Endless beach bobwired Post Your Photos! 3 10-24-2007 10:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top