• 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

It really doesn't matter what a couple of members of Congress think. They are responsible for following and upholding the law.

No.

The "President" is responsible for upholding the law.

The Congress is responsible for impeaching the President when he violates the law. Keeping the United States at war without the consent of Congress is the act of a despot and clearly fits the definition of "high crime".
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

1) Where is that inferred?
2) What does the United Nations have to do with the Libyan Civil War?

The United Nations isn't mentioned in any of your quotes when Obama was a candidate nor in the news paper article concerning this story.

This issue is enough of a valid criticism of President Obama's position without needing to go on a hyperbolic tangent against the UN. If you have quotes from Obama stating that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the power to approve or prohibit American military operations then please provide them. Otherwise, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, please stick to the issues at hand.

His actions speak volumes about what body he believes gives authority.

Obama's U.N. Authority?

President Obama has yet to explain to Congress and the American people how he received authority from the United Nations Security Council to initiate military operations against Libya. On March 21, he informed Congress that "at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council." An April 1 memo by the Office of Legal Counsel states that Security Council Resolution 1973 "imposed a no-fly zone and authorized the use of military force to protect civilians." Because Libya did not comply with the resolution, the OLC concluded that President Obama was justified in using military force against Libya to maintain "the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and the effectiveness of its actions to promote international peace and security."

May the U.N., rather than the elected representatives of Congress, authorize the United States to use military force against another nation? Is it possible to transfer the constitutional power of Congress to an international body? The answer to both questions: No...

Presidents have some discretion to use military force without advance congressional authorization, including repelling sudden attacks and rescuing American citizens. None of those justifications apply to Libya. America was not threatened or attacked by Libya. Obama has called the military operation a humanitarian intervention that serves the national interest. Yet launching hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and ordering air strikes against Libyan ground forces, for the purpose of helping rebels overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, constitutes war. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is only one source for authorizing war. It is not the Security Council or NATO. It is Congress.

Louis Fisher is scholar in residence with the Constitution Project. He worked for Congress as professional staff from 1970 to 2010 and is the author of Presidential War Power (2004). His articles and congressional testimony are available at Lou Fisher -- Constitutional Scholar.
The OLC is an office in the US Department of Justice.

Obama administration seeks more U.N. authority to intervene in Libya

Published: March 17

The Obama administration pressed Thursday for greater United Nations authority to confront Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s forces by land, air and sea...

Obama administration seeks more U.N. authority to intervene in Libya - The Washington Post


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

No.

The "President" is responsible for upholding the law.

The Congress is responsible for impeaching the President when he violates the law. Keeping the United States at war without the consent of Congress is the act of a despot and clearly fits the definition of "high crime".

Congress takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution too. It would be folly of us as American Citizens to forget that they are expected to know and uphold the law (that would be the Constitution) just as the President is.

All this talk of war, crime and corrupt judges/politicians has given me a craving for another view of The Godfather.

I’m signing out for the night. Buenos Nachos.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.

He did have Congressional approval.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

It really doesn't matter what a couple of members of Congress think. They are responsible for following and upholding the law.

"They" is a very ambiguous word. We are not in your head.
This appears that you are stating Congress is responsible for upholding the law. Congress is responsible for making the laws.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.

Shouldn't Congress somehow authorize war even within un scope?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Shouldn't Congress somehow authorize war even within un scope?

The UN treaty isn't the issue here, its the NATO treaty.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.

Bush did not invade two countries on his own. He had Congressional approval... of course the Lib vote was a vile one... after 911 they used it to cover for years of hostility to the military and intel services. That was a politically expedient vote, and then the Leftist scum turned on our troops when things got tough.

Bush went to the UN, got the votes necessary and gave the UN a role. Remember, the UN was in Iraq when Sérgio Vieira de Mello died on 19 August 2003 in a terrorist bombing of the UN building in Baghdad?

Fact is we don't need no stink'in UN to go to war. Congressional approval is needed though.

steve+bell+monkey+bush.JPG


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

So...with the NATO strikes at Libya, doesnt that mean they have gone beyond preventing civilians from being targetted and have moved on to an undeclared war against the government of Libya?
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

So...with the NATO strikes at Libya, doesnt that mean they have gone beyond preventing civilians from being targetted and have moved on to an undeclared war against the government of Lybia?

Pretty much, but unless Russia or China say anything, the UN security council won't bring up the issue, especially when most of the rest of the world approves of the actions. Hell, the ICC just indicted Gaddafi for crimes against humanity
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Pretty much, but unless Russia or China say anything, the UN security council won't bring up the issue, especially when most of the rest of the world approves of the actions. Hell, the ICC just indicted Gaddafi for crimes against humanity

ANd who could blame them. And since Obama went before thew world and said that a country's leader cant kill civilians and that it goes against Americas morals, then I have no doubt we will be attacking Syria imminently...
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ANd who could blame them. And since Obama went before thew world and said that a country's leader cant kill civilians and that it goes against Americas morals, then I have no doubt we will be attacking Syria imminently...

Thats what liberals would want, but Syria is a thorny issue due to Iran. You have to have a nuanced stance on military intervention in domestic affairs, even if a leader is slaughtering his own people, or else you never stop or you get drawn into major international conflict.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

So...with the NATO strikes at Libya, doesnt that mean they have gone beyond preventing civilians from being targetted and have moved on to an undeclared war against the government of Libya?

Moved on and moved up, Gaddafi's grandchildren were even killed in a NATO/US strike.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

ANd who could blame them. And since Obama went before thew world and said that a country's leader cant kill civilians and that it goes against Americas morals, then I have no doubt we will be attacking Syria imminently...

Right!



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

Thats what liberals would want, but Syria is a thorny issue due to Iran. You have to have a nuanced stance on military intervention in domestic affairs, even if a leader is slaughtering his own people, or else you never stop or you get drawn into major international conflict.

OR...it could be that he was babbling just enough bull**** so that his supporters could justify HIS war actions.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Shouldn't Congress somehow authorize war even within un scope?

I would prefer it. But let's not say it is equal to congress not declaring war and the UN not authorizing it. Our missions should be as clear, supported, and limited as possible.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The United States is not the UN's bitch. The United States has no benefit from taking the side of al qeada against Ghadaffy in Libya. That's it. Period.

Any American wishing to choose and fight for either side can buy an airplane ticket and go to Libya as private citizens. End of story.

repeating the silly strawman isn't very effective. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Bush had the consent of congress prior to committin troops. What Obama did was worse.

No, he had the bucked passed to him to make the decision. Congress didn't do it's job, republicna or democrat.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Didya wanna prove that the Wiretaps were illegal....or did you simply wish to continue being a Parrot?

As they did not follow the law, they were illegal. We can go back over the same old arguments and information if you want to, including the silly ass poor excuses used for doing it, but the fact is, Bush had little to know concern for the law. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Bush had little to know concern for the law

dept chair, huh?

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

At the end of the day we should not be in Libya, mainly because we don't even have our goals planned out.

Also, Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron stated in an op-ed last month:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.

Talk about the true objective.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Because, at the time, thats how he was presenting himself.

how he presented himself?

LOL!

it was SIX WEEKS ago

the only events that have changed since then are a couple hundred more syrians, including ambulances drivers and children, killed by the reformer's snipers
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Are Americans being bombed, killed?...No? Then its not our ****ing problem

The American public: December 6, 1941.
 
Back
Top Bottom