Page 45 of 51 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 503

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

  1. #441
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    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.

  2. #442
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    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?

  3. #443
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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?

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  4. #444
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    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...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #445
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,325

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    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.

  6. #446
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    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?

  7. #447
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    . . .I think we should lay off Biden.
    I think he should be laid off too.

  8. #448
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Like waterboarding?
    Waterboarding is a *good* thing. Starting a war not agreed to by the Congress, is a little less so.

  9. #449
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.

  10. #450
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.

Page 45 of 51 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... 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
  •