Page 24 of 51 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 503

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

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's my argument. I'm looking forward to being confirmed, one way, or another.
    And its a valid one because it hasn't been reported much n the media.

    Obama's argument appears to be that since this is a NATO operation he doesn't need Congressional approval. I doubt that will wash though and it might eventually reach the Supreme Court.

  2. #232
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is from about a month ago, but I haven't heard anything about it being stopped since then. As far as I know, Predator drones are still being used to strike Libyan targets.
    Drones can be used by Nato forces in Libya, says Obama | World news | The Guardian
    Are NATO lead forces covered by the war's power act, or does the NATO treaty superseded it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    And its a valid one because it hasn't been reported much n the media.

    Obama's argument appears to be that since this is a NATO operation he doesn't need Congressional approval. I doubt that will wash though and it might eventually reach the Supreme Court.
    You'd have to read the NATO treaty. Treaties typically supersede other laws.
    Last edited by xpiher; 05-23-11 at 05:51 PM.

  3. #233
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,226

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

    It doesn't state any confirmed information, though. Unless Obama has the media, completely in his pocket--which I wouldn't doubt--then there's no way this would stay quiet.

  4. #234
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,226

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Are NATO lead forces covered by the war's power act, or does the NATO treaty superseded it?
    It applies to U.S. forces, no matter what.

  5. #235
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,226

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    And its a valid one because it hasn't been reported much n the media.

    Obama's argument appears to be that since this is a NATO operation he doesn't need Congressional approval. I doubt that will wash though and it might eventually reach the Supreme Court.
    That's definitely a no-go.

  6. #236
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It doesn't state any confirmed information, though. Unless Obama has the media, completely in his pocket--which I wouldn't doubt--then there's no way this would stay quiet.
    So Fox News is in Obama's pocket?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It applies to U.S. forces, no matter what.
    Prove it.

  7. #237
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Are NATO lead forces covered by the war's power act, or does the NATO treaty superseded it?
    I don't know the answer as I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like it would be fairly easy to abrogate any war-related federal law if that's the case. All a president would have to do is find some pliant country and create a treaty. Then he could do as he pleases, launching any war he wanted under the auspices of the US-Micronesia Alliance (for example) rather than as an action of the US government.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #238
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't know the answer as I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like it would be fairly easy to abrogate any war-related federal law if that's the case. All a president would have to do is find some pliant country and create a treaty. Then he could do as he pleases, launching any war he wanted under the auspices of the US-Micronesia Alliance (for example) rather than as an action of the US government.
    You do realize that treaties are approved of by the senate right? Presidential agreements do not have the force of law.

  9. #239
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    You do realize that treaties are approved of by the senate right? Presidential agreements do not have the force of law.
    Well, OK. He could get the US-Micronesia Alliance approved in the Senate, and then do as he pleases under the auspices of that alliance rather than as an action of the US government. The point is that if it's that easy to abrogate the War Powers Act, it might as well not even exist. And we really need the War Powers Act (or something like it) to serve as a check and balance on executive power.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #240
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    You'd have to read the NATO treaty. Treaties typically supersede other laws.
    I rather doubt that foreign treaties supersede American laws.

    Can you support this claim with any documentation?

Page 24 of 51 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •