• 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

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
ABC NEWS LINK: HERE




In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said
“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.”
BOSTON GLOBE LINK

In the above article he goes on to say “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.”

Candidate Obama seemed to think that it was important that the American people knew what his positions were and went so far as to speak about the trust the American people must have in someone whom they might elect President. Here are his words again:
Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.

In lite of the fact that he started a war Libya, what has changed since then, other than the fact that he is now President and there aren’t any real anti-war protests anymore? President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.

Obama is not alone in his flip-floppery either. Vice President Biden, then Senator and Presidential candidate Biden, threatened to impeach then President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites claiming that the President has no Constitutional authority to take America to war unless we are attacked or there is proof that we are about to be attacked (see videos below).





What has changed? Why aren’t the American people outraged? I suspect it is because the majority of Americans want to support this President and want to see him succeed so badly that they allow him to lull them into utter ignorance by twisting words and coming up with phrases like “non-kinetic operations” and “reduce spending in the tax code”. If you plan to raise taxes and you call it “to reduce spending in the tax code”, you aren’t being honest and real with the American people.

However, when you take the country to war and claim that it isn’t a war because we are now only performing “non-kinetic operations”, you are basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was never at war with the US because he only engaged in “non-kinetic operations” aren’t you?
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

If Congress presses the issue, how quickly could this get in front of the Supreme Court? They can move their schedule for urgent cases, right? If Congress can stop this, hopefully they will sue the Obama Administration and get an injunction for him to cease and desist this war immediately.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

If Congress presses the issue, how quickly could this get in front of the Supreme Court? They can move their schedule for urgent cases, right? If Congress can stop this, hopefully they will sue the Obama Administration and get an injunction for him to cease and desist this war immediately.

I want to place an addendum to this sentiment. Congress should demand the President do it the RIGHT WAY or immediately defund all combat operations involving Lybia. American's will support military action, but when you act like "Our Lord and King" with **** like this, we're gonna rise up.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Obama is once again playing fast and loose with the Laws of the Nation, and it's time he got shut down.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 for those too young to remember, President Nixon Vetoed it and was promptly Overidden in the House and Senate.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

American's will support military action, but when you act like "Our Lord and King" with **** like this, we're gonna rise up.

Like you even care whats going on in libya. Like anyone except 2% of the population knows wtf is going on there. This is just a next step, global policing made easy. Relax, max :cool:
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Even his Kool Aid followers, who will loyally support his every move, should be able to think this through.

When will they finally say "enough"?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Like you even care whats going on in libya. Like anyone except 2% of the population knows wtf is going on there. This is just a next step, global policing made easy. Relax, max :cool:

Kt seems he's supporting a "Muslim Spring" in the Middle East.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.

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

The War Powers Act needs serious revision. It needs to be specifically limited to something like 6 months. Using to justify years of war as it has been recently seems to be a clear violation of Constitutional intent.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The War Powers Act needs serious revision. It needs to be specifically limited to something like 6 months. Using to justify years of war as it has been recently seems to be a clear violation of Constitutional intent.

The US President has gone rogue.

Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

ABC NEWS LINK: HERE




In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said BOSTON GLOBE LINK

In the above article he goes on to say “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.”

Candidate Obama seemed to think that it was important that the American people knew what his positions were and went so far as to speak about the trust the American people must have in someone whom they might elect President. Here are his words again:



In lite of the fact that he started a war Libya, what has changed since then, other than the fact that he is now President and there aren’t any real anti-war protests anymore? President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.

Obama is not alone in his flip-floppery either. Vice President Biden, then Senator and Presidential candidate Biden, threatened to impeach then President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites claiming that the President has no Constitutional authority to take America to war unless we are attacked or there is proof that we are about to be attacked (see videos below).


What has changed? Why aren’t the American people outraged? I suspect it is because the majority of Americans want to support this President and want to see him succeed so badly that they allow him to lull them into utter ignorance by twisting words and coming up with phrases like “non-kinetic operations” and “reduce spending in the tax code”. If you plan to raise taxes and you call it “to reduce spending in the tax code”, you aren’t being honest and real with the American people.

However, when you take the country to war and claim that it isn’t a war because we are now only performing “non-kinetic operations”, you are basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was never at war with the US because he only engaged in “non-kinetic operations” aren’t you?

I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.

However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.

On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.

I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The US President has gone rogue.

Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?

But if he is then that means the criticisms conservatives lob against him are unfounded and therefore they should be supportive of him.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

For reference from wiki:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a non-binding Joint Resolution intended to restrict the power of the President to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; 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."[citation needed]
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3]some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

But if he is then that means the criticisms conservatives lob against him are unfounded and therefore they should be supportive of him.

Attacking Libya sans the approval of anyone is hardly 'conservative'. As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place. That's not a conservative position either.

The point is that BHO is behaving in a manner usually reserved for Left Wing criticisms of the Right, without ever considering that Dr. Strangelove could be a Leftist,
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.

However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.

On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.

I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 and the only President who broke it previously was Bill Clinton over Kosovao, but at least he presented an argument as to why he was sidestepping the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The US President has gone rogue.
Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?
Obama's not the first.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War.

Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?

Gadaffi accountable to Obama? Why?

And last....Why the ****'s Obama such an idiot?

Enough of ME involvement!!!
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place.

What? There's a transitional government in place that has been recognized by England, France, Italy, Qatar and Kuwait last I checked - as the legitimate government of Libya. They have organized local tribunals in rebel-held areas to demonstrate committment to democracy.


Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?

Who said we're gonna pick someone? Do we have the right to take out dictators who use their Air Force against their own people? Yes.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Obama's not the first.

Obama's not the first what?

To break the break the law in the case of the War Powers Act?

Clinton was the first in the case of Kosovo but Clinton at least tried a legal defense. Obama has no such defense, legal, moral, or otherwise.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

What? There's a transitional government in place that has been recognized by England, France, Italy, Qatar and Kuwait last I checked - as the legitimate government of Libya. They have organized local tribunals in rebel-held areas to demonstrate committment to democracy.

And who is heading this "transitional government", what are its aims, political philosophies and who are its Libyan supporters?

Who said we're gonna pick someone? Do we have the right to take out dictators who use their Air Force against their own people? Yes.

You have no idea who will use violence against whom once the dust has settled. My guess that it will become another Islamic theocracy.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Once again Obama is ignoring the law.

Once again the left-wing media is ignoring the story.

Nothing new in America.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.

However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.

On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.

I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.

The "President" has had two whole months to present his case before the American people and the Congress for continued American presence in Libya.

The "President" has failed to make his case.

If he refuses to present his case and demand either a declaration of war (which is constitutional) or at least Congressional authorization for further expenditures, his violating the law.

As a criminal, he should be impeached and his case remanded to whatever court is applicable for presidential dereliction of duty and misapppropriation of funds.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

And who is heading this "transitional government", what are its aims, political philosophies and who are its Libyan supporters?
.

A vision of a democratic Libya

The interim national council hereby presents its vision for rebuilding the democratic state of Libya. This vision responds to the needs and aspirations of our people, while incorporating the historical changes brought about by the 17 February revolution.
We have learnt from the struggles of our past during the dark days of dictatorship that there is no alternative to building a free and democratic society and ensuring the supremacy of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations. This can only be achieved through dialogue, tolerance, co-operation, national cohesiveness and the active participation of all citizens. As we are familiar with being ruled by the authoritarian dictatorship of one man, the political authority that we seek must represent the free will of the people, without exclusion or suppression of any voice.
The lessons of our past will outline our social contract through the need to respect the interests of all groups and classes that comprise the fabric of our society and not compromise the interests of one at the expense of the other. It is this social contract that must lead us to a civil society that recognises intellectual and political pluralism and allows for the peaceful transfer of power through legal institutions and ballot boxes; in accordance with a national constitution crafted by the people and endorsed in a referendum.
To that end, we will outline our aspirations for a modern, free and united state, following the defeat of the illegal Gaddafi regime. The interim national council will be guided by the following in our continuing march to freedom, through espousing the principles of political democracy. We recognise without reservation our obligation to:
1. Draft a national constitution that clearly defines its nature, essence and purpose and establishes legal, political, civil, legislative, executive and judicial institutions. The constitution will also clarify the rights and obligations of citizens in a transparent manner, thus separating and balancing the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Form political organisations and civil institutions including the formation of political parties, popular organisations, unions, societies and other civil and peaceful associations.
3. Maintain a constitutional civil and free state by upholding intellectual and political pluralism and the peaceful transfer of power, opening the way for genuine political participation, without discrimination.
4. Guarantee every Libyan citizen, of statutory age, the right to vote in free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as the right to run for office.
5. Guarantee and respect the freedom of expression through media, peaceful protests, demonstrations and sit-ins and other means of communication, in accordance with the constitution and its laws in a way that protects public security and social peace.
6. A state that draws strength from our strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality.
7. Political democracy and the values of social justice, which include:
a. The nation’s economy to be used for the benefit of the Libyan people by creating effective economic institutions in order to eradicate poverty and unemployment – working towards a healthy society, a green environment and a prosperous economy.
b. The development of genuine economic partnerships between a strong and productive public sector, a free private sector and a supportive and effective civil society, which overstands corruption and waste.
c. Support the use of science and technology for the betterment of society, through investments in education, research and development, thus enabling the encouragement of an innovative culture and enhancing the spirit of creativity. Focus on emphasising individual rights in a way that guarantees social freedoms that were denied to the Libyan people during the rule of dictatorship. In addition to building efficient public and private institutions and funds for social care, integration and solidarity, the state will guarantee the rights and empowerment of women in all legal, political, economic and cultural spheres.
d. A constitutional civil state which respects the sanctity of religious doctrine and condemns intolerance, extremism and violence that are manufactured by certain political, social or economic interests. The state to which we aspire will denounce violence, terrorism, intolerance and cultural isolation; while respecting human rights, rules and principles of citizenship and the rights of minorities and those most vulnerable. Every individual will enjoy the full rights of citizenship, regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity or social status.
8. Build a democratic Libya whose international and regional relationships will be based upon:
a. The embodiment of democratic values and institutions which respects its neighbours, builds partnerships and recognises the independence and sovereignty of other nations. The state will also seek to enhance regional integration and international co-operation through its participation with members of the international community in achieving international peace and security.
b. A state which will uphold the values of international justice, citizenship, the respect of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations, as well as condemning authoritarian and despotic regimes. The interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected. Immigration, residency and citizenship will be managed by government institutions, respecting the principles and rights of political asylum and public liberties.
c. A state which will join the international community in rejecting and denouncing racism, discrimination and terrorism while strongly supporting peace, democracy and freedom.


A vision of a democratic Libya | The Libyan Interim National Council
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Attacking Libya sans the approval of anyone is hardly 'conservative'. As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place. That's not a conservative position either.

The point is that BHO is behaving in a manner usually reserved for Left Wing criticisms of the Right, without ever considering that Dr. Strangelove could be a Leftist,

Let's see.

Does the phrase "war of choice" apply only to Republicans? Apparently. No one is using it in this instance.

Does the phrase "nation building" apply only to Republicans? Apparently. What else can it be called when the "President" takes sides in a civil war in which both sides are completely inimical to the United States?

Does the phrase "Obama lied and people died" have any legs? It should. Obama is killin people in Libya right now.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 and the only President who broke it previously was Bill Clinton over Kosovao, but at least he presented an argument as to why he was sidestepping the law.

The United States had no business intervening in what was never anythin but a minor regional conflict of no importance to the United States. If France or Britain or Germany wanted to intervene they should have been told to go have fun, but under no circumstances would the United States become involved.

Clinton needed an excuse to upstage the Cox Report, is why he pushed the US into Kosovo.
 
Back
Top Bottom