• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

So, you're saying Bush was on a UN mission? Do tell. :roll:
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

united nations mission---LOL!

hey, at least libya's not AS ILLEGAL as iraq

what an idiot obama is
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

You are joking right? You aren’t seriously claiming that Congress was referring to the United Nations when it said “specific statutory authorization” are you?

I bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

In short, the UNPA gives the president the authority to negotiate peace agreements w/the U.N. Security Counsel in an effort to help establish peace in the face of hostilities abroad provided that a U.N. Resolution has been established concerning such hostilities. However, the President cannot go beyond the limits and scope of the U.N. resolution as mandated.

Bottom Line: The UNPA is that "statutory" authorization per section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Act.

So what you are saying is that Obama thought it would be unconstitutional for Bush to invoke the War Powers Act to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities but NOW thinks it is constitutional for him to bomb the crap out of Libya for many months without congressional approval right?

Without knowing the exact circumstances that prompted GW Bush to take the pre-emptive offensive measures he took against Iran, I can't say for sure if his actions were right or wrong. However, what I will say is if Iran did not pose an imminant threat to U.S. national security interests (i.e., attacking their neighbor causing instability in the region that required U.N./NATO involvement towhich the U.S. became a part of per a U.N. resolution), then I'd be inclined to say yes, GW Bush may have gone a step too far in that regard.

UN resolutons, not being US law, are not statutory authorizations.

Again, see above as well as this linked thread that discusses the matter in full detail (far better than I could, I must confess).
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

absolutely

bush's iraq war was NOT, unlike obama's actions in libya, a UNITED NATIONS MISSION

LOL!

"Prof" huh? thats funny

do you know how many other nations were involved in Iraq?

I'm going on memory, but I believe it was 21

you can google it if youd like..
probably a good idea before you make afool of yourself with such a statement
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

House GOP kills vote on Libya

absolutely, libya is barry's war, he's prez, he can do what he wants

and he owns it, whether he breaks it or not

it's his china shop
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

i know, i know

but libya is a UNITED NATIONS MISSION

haven't you read?

just kidding

you're right, of course: Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya - President Obama - Fox Nation

Just so you know, coaltion of the willing means outside the UN.

Coalition of the willing
"Coalition of the willing" is a phrase which has been used since the 1980s to refer to groups of nations acting collectively and often militarily outside of United Nations auspices.

Coalition of the willing - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Coalition of the willing? What is Coalition of the willing? Where is Coalition of the willing? Definition of Coalition of the willing. Meaning of Coalition of the willing.

I know you need a link to tell you, so i gave you one. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

yup

and the UNITED STATES MILITARY---with barack the slasher hussein as a killer commander in chief---is very, very WILLING

good thinking
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The Prof,

It's funny.

You guys had no problem whatsoever with Bush going into Iraq and buggling the job terribly because in your eyes that war was justified. But have we ever found the WMDs he and others within his administration ever claimed were there?

And if you think the fighting has stopped there, think again! The fighting continues, just no so much with American and coalition forces. Our national media has simply choose to stop reporting the scermishes that have taken place since our combat troops have withdrawn, but people are dying over there. U.S. forced democracy hasn't solved anything in that country. But after 8-years of U.S. involvement, yourself and others still support Bush's actions despite the enormous cost and loss of life to American, coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.

Yet you can't bring yourself to support U.S. military involvement in a supporting role in Libya, and such involvement is more justified than our involvement in Iraq? :doh

Just an FYI for those who are curious, per CNN, the President did notify Congress and Speaker Boehner requesting continued involvement in Libya.

On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday sent a letter to Congress expressing support for a bipartisan resolution favoring military operations in Libya.

A spokesman for Boehner said his office has yet to see the resolution and therefore could not comment on whether the House leadership would be willing to bring it up for a vote.

"We received the president's letter but have yet to see the draft resolution it mentions. No decisions will be made until such a review takes place and we discuss the matter with our members," said spokesman Kevin Smith.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

You guys had no problem whatsoever with Bush going into Iraq

who, w-stands-for-what's-his-name?

you don't know what you're talking about

meanwhile, yesterday: Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.

The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.

Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.

Mr. Obama’s only allies were top Democratic leaders, who said neither resolution was helpful as the president tries to aid U.S. allies’ efforts.

i guess the 91 members of nancy's nervous caucus didn't get the president's...

what was it again?

oh yeah, the letter

i guess they didn't get the president's letter
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

First, let me note that I fully support Obama's actions and feel he did not go far enough. I don't care much about UN blahblah or even congressional blahblah. Some of congress knew damn well knew what was happening and could have taken actions, but instead congress enjoys plausible deniability (calculated plausable deniability, mind us). Nonetheless, that Gaddafi remains is an international shame. The goals were clearly stated, including - Gaddafi's removal - so... what's happening here?


Yet you can't bring yourself to support U.S. military involvement in a supporting role in Libya, and such involvement is more justified than our involvement in Iraq?

Gaddafi bombed his own people with his air force and employed international mercenaries (because the army, at first, balked) to execute martial law, killing thousands.

Saddam gassed 200k Kurds, drained land killing 50k Marsh Arabs and sold food-from-oil to the tune of 400k starved children (who would have had food, had he not sold it).

You so sure Gaddafi had it coming more?
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Why are we in Libya again? Why do we care if Libya explodes from within?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

First, let me note that I fully support Obama's actions and feel he did not go far enough. I don't care much about UN blahblah or even congressional blahblah. Some of congress knew damn well knew what was happening and could have taken actions, but instead congress enjoys plausible deniability (calculated plausable deniability, mind us). Nonetheless, that Gaddafi remains is an international shame. The goals were clearly stated, including - Gaddafi's removal - so... what's happening here?




Gaddafi bombed his own people with his air force and employed international mercenaries (because the army, at first, balked) to execute martial law, killing thousands.

Saddam gassed 200k Kurds, drained land killing 50k Marsh Arabs and sold food-from-oil to the tune of 400k starved children (who would have had food, had he not sold it).

You so sure Gaddafi had it coming more?

I disagree. Why did Qaddaffi have it coming. The rebels started the revolution and the killing. That is what militants do. Qaddaffi attempts to maintain his country's stability, including free education, healthcare, housing, and food with moneys generated by Libyan oil and gas reserves. The USA helps by killing lots of civilians and stating that killing these civilians stops the killing of civilians. A very deceptive brand of kool-aid, but there are lots of believers to that nonsense. We are helping to get control of the Libyan oil for Europe and the UK and that is the root of this war. If you think there is any other cause, your mind has been neatly manipulated. End of story. Qaddaffi has been good for Libyans and Africans. Who are his responsibilities?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I disagree. Why did Qaddaffi have it coming. The rebels started the revolution and the killing. That is what militants do. Qaddaffi attempts to maintain his country's stability, including free education, healthcare, housing, and food with moneys generated by Libyan oil and gas reserves. The USA helps by killing lots of civilians and stating that killing these civilians stops the killing of civilians. A very deceptive brand of kool-aid, but there are lots of believers to that nonsense. We are helping to get control of the Libyan oil for Europe and the UK and that is the root of this war. If you think there is any other cause, your mind has been neatly manipulated. End of story. Qaddaffi has been good for Libyans and Africans. Who are his responsibilities?

This appears to be a move by the Muslim Brotherhood and has little to do with 'freedom and democracy'. We can look to Egypt to see what happens there.

I can see the same thing happening in Egypt and Libya as what happened in Iran, with the main difference being that this time the Islamists will have US support.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Oppressive Arab regimes are absolute ****ers, but there is no denying that they keep the Jihadis in their place. If Libya was to go from Colonel Gaddaffi's regime to a populist Islamic council in a few short months or years, that would be a backwards step for the Libyans and they may as well have stuck with the devil they knew.

Again....exactly where do we get the right to intervene in Libyan...infiltrate their base, and assassinate the colonel? What do we gain by doing that?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:



In short, the UNPA gives the president the authority to negotiate peace agreements w/the U.N. Security Counsel in an effort to help establish peace in the face of hostilities abroad provided that a U.N. Resolution has been established concerning such hostilities. However, the President cannot go beyond the limits and scope of the U.N. resolution as mandated.

Bottom Line: The UNPA is that "statutory" authorization per section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Act.



Without knowing the exact circumstances that prompted GW Bush to take the pre-emptive offensive measures he took against Iran, I can't say for sure if his actions were right or wrong. However, what I will say is if Iran did not pose an imminant threat to U.S. national security interests (i.e., attacking their neighbor causing instability in the region that required U.N./NATO involvement towhich the U.S. became a part of per a U.N. resolution), then I'd be inclined to say yes, GW Bush may have gone a step too far in that regard.



Again, see above as well as this linked thread that discusses the matter in full detail (far better than I could, I must confess).

For a guy who wants me to think he is fully capable of reading and interpreting the War Powers Resolution or other federal laws, you seem rather incapable of common sense when it comes to statements Obama made when he was running for President.

Unless you make a valid argument to the contrary, the answer to the question “what has changed” is obvious: Obama changed his mind about the war powers of the President once he became President and has acted in violation of the Constitution. I pointed to this in the OP and it stands uncontested.

Please point to a single instance where a single Democrat demanded that Bush go get permission from the UN Security Council before bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. You can’t because it didn’t happen.

If you can take the time to look up laws from 1945, I’m sure you can take the time to look up the issues pointed to in the OP. Just like Boo, you are more interested in throwing as much chaff out as possible to avoid the real issues and more importantly, to avoid the need to determine what principles guide your political perspectives. If you don’t have principles that outrank the talking points a political party gives you, you are a brainless tool of the worst kind.


You must have been very excited when you found a blogger who tried to make the argument that you are now trying to make (in support of your “conclusions first, facts second” modus operandi). The problem is, you never bother to read anything you think you understand so you are left with egg on your face once again.

22 U.S.C. § 287d requires congressional approval for Presidential acts of war. Did you even read what you quoted from it? Did you look up the law (like I did) and see what it is really about? Did you bother to ask whether a law from 1945 has been superseded by a more recent law? Obviously not; if you had, you would realize that it says “which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution” which means Congress isn’t handing war powers over to the UN with this act.

If you had bothered to read further, you would have realized it was all about the US providing non-combat assistance to the UN. Bombing Libya into the stone-age without congressional approval isn’t constitutional any way you slice it, Republican president or Democrat President, because congress has never relinquished its sole constitutional power to declare war to the United Nations.

If you had even bothered to read the full code you posted before making the claim that it is proof that the “UNPA” can give “statutory authorization” as written in the War Powers Resolution, you might have noticed that the code you quoted was another restriction on presidential powers rather than a relinquishment of congressional power to the UN.

You crack me up. Do you really think an independent like me who hates all politicians is so easily sidetracked?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Haha. He owned everything for 42 years. Who else could get credit for anything? Truth is, Libya developed despite Gaddafi much like the USSR developed despite Stalin. Instead of praising the development that occured despite tyranny, we should ask what might have been.

Quite frankly, it is very possible there wouldn't be a state known as "Libya" with out Khaddafy. He held that country together through personal force of will. That isn't to say this is a good thing, but it is reality. What will happen after his fall is less certain. There is not the historical national identity in Libya that there is in Egypt or Tunisia. This makes the prognosis for the country much less clear once Khaddafy does in fact fall from power...
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Quite frankly, it is very possible there wouldn't be a state known as "Libya" with out Khaddafy. He held that country together through personal force of will. That isn't to say this is a good thing, but it is reality. What will happen after his fall is less certain. There is not the historical national identity in Libya that there is in Egypt or Tunisia. This makes the prognosis for the country much less clear once Khaddafy does in fact fall from power...

Quite frankly, it is very possible that Libya could look like Japan today without Gaddafi.

Anyway, Obama has not broken any rules. He'll leave it to NATO, except funding by congress, soon enough.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

For reference from wiki:
...this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
This seems pretty clear to me. Haven't prior presidents skirted the issue by limited involvement to a shorter time or by complying even though they believe it is unconstitutional?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Like waterboarding?
Waterboarding is a *good* thing. Starting a war not agreed to by the Congress, is a little less so.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is not equal to a declaration of war.
Actually it is. If the Congress approves the use of force and funds the effort that is equal to a declaration.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

A declaration of war is much more specific, mythical could bes aside.

DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
2. This power is vested in congress by the constitution, art. 1, s. 8. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.

declaration of war legal definition of declaration of war. declaration of war synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

This is legal, binding, and states congress' position. Saying you do what you want is not specific, is not laid out by the Constitution.

Of course the real answer may be somewhat different. This from wikipedia. Not that it quotes the appropriate portion of the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
A number of wars have been declared under the United States Constitution, although there is some controversy as to the exact number as there is controversy over what format a declaration of war must be issued in. The US constitution is mum on the topic.

Congressional format is acceptable. Sometimes it is formal. More often than not it isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom