Page 8 of 51 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 503

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

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. #72
    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 Mayor Snorkum View Post
    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.
    Where do you get your information?

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

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

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so.
    No such obligation exists. There are, always, revolutions and rebellions against despots the world over. The United States never has been, and never will be, morally obligated to choose sides and participate. Almost everytime the US has chosen to get involved it's meant death and dismemberment for US citizens and precious little to show in return. The Mayor points to Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq as perfect examples of why the United States should let other people fight their own battles.

    Given that the so-called "rebels" in Libya have al qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood as sponsors and participants and the United States has no side it wants to take in that squabble. Let the terrorists murder each other, and be done with them.

    If we have our own political system based on a democracy with the consent of the governed then we should support those who work for the same for themselves.
    We can cheer. Spending money and blood is a different matter. Especially when neither side is especially friendly to the US in the first place.

    Just as the French provided aid to the rebels in the Colonies that allowed us to become our sovereign nation of the United States, so to should the U.S. provide aid to the rebels in Libya to help the people of Libya develop a democratic political system.
    The French were supporting the US for one purpose, to divest their enemy, England, from it's most valuable colony. The French had no interest in the United States per se, and the US was having an undeclared war against the French within twenty years.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Where do you get your information?
    The news. Where do you hide from information?

  5. #75
    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 Mayor Snorkum View Post
    The news. Where do you hide from information?
    Which news station?

    Clarification: Rush =/= news. I listen to the news pretty much 24/7

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    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".

  7. #77
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,452
    Blog Entries
    12

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

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    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 by zimmer; 05-22-11 at 03:03 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  8. #78
    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 Mayor Snorkum View Post
    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.

    "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.

  9. #79
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    From the ashes.

  10. #80
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    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.
    From the ashes.

Page 8 of 51 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •