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

ecofarm said:

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.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I'm pretty sure that's a code and a secret agent, somewhere, has sprung into action.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

He hasn' broken any rules. He has ~20 days to withdraw the drones and write to congress why the extra time was needed - as per the WPA.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

He hasn' broken any rules. He has ~20 days to withdraw the drones and write to congress why the extra time was needed - as per the WPA.

Click to expand...

ludahai said:

And what excuse will you make for him in 20 days?

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

(2) specific statutory authorization,

Click to expand...

[SEC. 5.](b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), 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.

Click to expand...

SEC. 4. (a) 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;

Click to expand...

ludahai said:

And what excuse will you make for him in 20 days?

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

You don’t answer real questions but in the off chance that you have decided to answer them, I’ll ask again.

Did candidate Obama claim that 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?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

And I have answered. This refers to an opperation outside a UN opperation. If you don't look at things in context, you will often get the wrong answer.

Click to expand...

Remember, Bush was outside the UN.

Click to expand...

He was not offering support, but invading a country on a pretext without real justification, like an actual or imminent threat.

Click to expand...

These differences matter.

Click to expand...

It is dishonest to ignore them.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

This refers to an opperation outside a UN opperation.

Click to expand...

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Nope. I stand by everything I said then and now. I know the difference between the two situations, and it is silly, not to mention partisan, to pretend that what Obama has done here is equal to what Bush did. Perhaps it is because you know you can't win the debate n merit that you seek to distort?

Click to expand...

American said:

I see, well Obama is doing exactly what Bush did......actually continuing what Bush did; plus the bonus of getting involved in a matter only really of any concern to Europe. But of course this is different since it's Obama, and he needs to be a war presdient for 2012. Anyway, I don't see the national interest in Libya, and that's why I never supported it.

:coffeepap:

Click to expand...

ManofthPeephole said:

based on what, exactly?



I see absolutely nothing in this quote that lends credence to your interpretation, especially considering that the UN charter specifically denotes that military action, on behalf of the UN, must comply with each nations domestic code

Click to expand...

mattillac said:

Nobody remembers the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric?

Click to expand...

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.

"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."

THE AXIS PANDEMIC

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.

"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

Click to expand...

ManofthPeephole said:

1) do you remember the page number?

2) rereading the quote I provided, I still see absolutely no basis for your claim that it referred to only operations outside of the UN. In fact, it makes absolutely no mention of it. So regardless of what the specific law says, or what someone's interpretation of it is, there is no basis to say there was such a caveat contained in the remark under discussion

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

No, I don't. Might even have been on the other thread on this issue. but, I'd state with Articles 43 and 45 of the UN charter. These are things we've agreed to, hence the law.

Click to expand...

ManofthPeephole said:

you mean the article that states "The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and ***shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.***"?

again, clearly being a UN action does not grant the president the power to ignore his constitutional requirments

*secondly*, you have provided nothing lending any credence to your interpretation of Obama's remarks, concerning the POTUS's power to wage war

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

More this one:

The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43

Click to expand...

ManofthPeephole said:

again, from resolution 43: "The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and ***shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.***"

secondly, you have, again, failed to cite anything from Obama's statement that lends *any* credibility to your interpretation of it

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Allow me to continue now that I'm back:

....When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes.

The War Powers Resolution: An Unnecessary, Unconstitutional Source of "Friendly Fire" in the War Against International Terrorism? » Publications » The Federalist Society

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I choose that one, and refer to the WPA.

Click to expand...