• 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

Please link me to the court decision that ruled as you state on this matter.

And why do you think Congress has not taken a stand on our participation in Libya over the last two months?

You shouldn't need a court decision to tell you what common sense does. Obviously, if Congress doesn't vote on authorization, no authorization exists.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I know I'm chiming in late on this issue, but I wanted to do alittle more research as to the mechanics of the War Powers Act and then try to find the "60-day letter" the President apparently delivered to Congress concerning continued involvement in Libya.

For starters as I understand the wording of the War Powers Act, per Section 1543(c), after the President has notified Congress that he has committed armed forces in support of hostilities in a foreign nation and Congress has subsequently granted him permission to do so (either by Congressional resolution or by not objecting to his actions), the President has 30 days to issue either an initial report of action to Congress or he must make a reporting not later than 6 months from the date he notified Congress of his initial force committment. Frankly, I find this reporting criteria confusing, but per my search of correspondence at Whitehouse.gov, the President did make his initial report to Congress on or about March 20 and made a follow-up report in April. (Note: Search criteria used: "letter Libya")

The President then as 60 days to notify Congress if he believes it is warranted to retain armed forces in theater per Sect. 1544(b).

According to the President's Press Secretary, Jay Carney, and as supported by the OP, the President notified Congress within the 60-day window according to the law. From a recent press briefing given on May 25, 2011:

Q Ben, but how can the U.S. continue to support the war without having Congress -- now that 60 days have expired late last week -- how can you continue to participate in a war without Congress approving a resolution to say the U.S. can still participate?

MR. RHODES: Well, Ed, I think we addressed that through the letter the President sent up to Congress at the end of last week, again, reaffirming our ongoing efforts in Libya and expressing support for a resolution that is currently being worked in the Senate by a number of senators including, for instance, Senator McCain, Senator Kerry and others. So we believe we have the authorities we need.

We believe we have the obligation to continue to consult with Congress on this issue, and we, again, expressed our support for the resolution that is being worked in the Senate.

Q -- Congress’s support why didn’t you get it before the 60 days expired? I don't understand, if you continue to do it, if you don't have the approval you say you're going to seek --

MR. RHODES: It’s Congress’s decision as to whether and when they take up a resolution. So, again, that's -- Congress will determine the timing of when it might consider a resolution. What we've done is consistently consult with Congress through testimony and other means, and again, in the letter from the President we've expressed support for the particular resolution that was brought to our attention.

So, for those who believe the President has violated the law, sorry to disappoint...

This takes me back to the article in the OP. From the article:

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.

Until I or someone else can post the letter or a link thereto, I think what we have here is speculation by the reporter because nothing in the quoted comments from the article suggests the President was even considering by-passing Congress on this matter. The very fact that the author indicates that the President notified Congress "this afternoon" (the article is dated May 20) should have clued the skeptics in.

Congress then has 24 days to act on the President's request (per Sect. 1544(b)(2)) to which it can extend armed forces involvement in theater for up to an additional 30 days from the day Congress acts on the President's 60-day notification (Sect. 1545(a)).
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Do you have a link for that news item? I found this from just 2 hours ago -

"Washington (CNN) -- The exact timing of a Senate vote on a resolution to back U.S. military action in Libya is not decided, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday, adding the vote would not come this month.

Specifically, he said the vote would not happen before the Memorial Day recess, which begins when senators leave this week and is scheduled to run through June 5."
Reid: Senate not to vote on Libya resolution this month - CNN.com
The delay would make sense considering Congress has 24 days to act once the President notifies it of his desires to keep armed forces in theater.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

hey, it's his war and he can do what he wants

and he is

today:

LONDON—U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron warned that military operations in Libya will be a long slog that continues until Col. Moammar Gadhafi leaves power, a shift from the president's initial stance that the military intervention in Libya would be limited in nature.

Mr. Obama's remarks—first in a news conference with Mr. Cameron, then in a high-profile speech before both houses of Parliament—made clear that the U.S. and its allies are bracing for a long battle not just to remove Col. Gadhafi from power, but also to guide the burgeoning democracy movement in other Arab nations to a successful conclusion.

In both appearances, Mr. Obama stressed that a long game is under way throughout the Middle East. He said military action in Libya is going to be "a slow, steady process in which we're able to wear down the regime forces and change the political calculations of the Gadhafi regime to the point where they finally realize that they're not going to control this country."

He said there were no "artificial" timetables for U.S. forces to pull back. Both leaders once again ruled out sending in ground forces.

The U.S. position has evolved from being one of limited intervention to one where Mr. Obama is now preparing the country for a lengthy battle. In recent days, North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces have intensified their bombing of Col. Gadhafi's military, sinking naval ships and destroying regime headquarters in Tripoli.

Obama, Cameron See Long Slog in Libya

days, not weeks?

no fly zone?

nato's war, not ours?

limited?

and remember, if you break it, mr president...

nation building

exactly how far has the commander in chief seen thru all this?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

hey, it's his war and he can do what he wants

and he is

today:



Obama, Cameron See Long Slog in Libya

days, not weeks?

no fly zone?

nato's war, not ours?

limited?

and remember, if you break it, mr president...

nation building

exactly how far has the commander in chief seen thru all this?

What's his exit strategy?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Now that's another question, but as I told you back when Bush was president, that the real mistake was going in. That once we went in, there was no good way to end this. The mistake and damage was done. Obama has less choice than you guys like to think he has. Iraq is winding down, and it is now up to the Iraqis. Afghanistan, while problematic, is at least more understandable, as that is where we should have been in the first place.

You might also recall I never called on Bush to be impeached or arrested. What he did was illegal in the fact that he broke agreeements we made in good faith and without any of the justifications that would allow him to do that (Obama hasn't btw). I want congress to go back to declaring war, as is there charge, but recognize that they haven't for a long time (a mistake in my view). The argument you have entered into is about what is meant by declaring war. The person I'm speaking to seems to believe in a much broader interpretation that I do, one that ignore the meanings of the words.

But, what was illegal was going in. Bush did that. Now that the damage has been done, the question is more how to move out and not do even more harm.

That's an awful lot of tap dancing to give Obama a pass. Look Joe, just admit that you are easier on Obama for what he does because you agree with his idealogy.

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

I know I'm chiming in late on this issue, but I wanted to do alittle more research as to the mechanics of the War Powers Act and then try to find the "60-day letter" the President apparently delivered to Congress concerning continued involvement in Libya.

For starters as I understand the wording of the War Powers Act, per Section 1543(c), after the President has notified Congress that he has committed armed forces in support of hostilities in a foreign nation and Congress has subsequently granted him permission to do so (either by Congressional resolution or by not objecting to his actions), the President has 30 days to issue either an initial report of action to Congress or he must make a reporting not later than 6 months from the date he notified Congress of his initial force committment. Frankly, I find this reporting criteria confusing, but per my search of correspondence at Whitehouse.gov, the President did make his initial report to Congress on or about March 20 and made a follow-up report in April. (Note: Search criteria used: "letter Libya")

The President then as 60 days to notify Congress if he believes it is warranted to retain armed forces in theater per Sect. 1544(b).

According to the President's Press Secretary, Jay Carney, and as supported by the OP, the President notified Congress within the 60-day window according to the law. From a recent press briefing given on May 25, 2011:



So, for those who believe the President has violated the law, sorry to disappoint...

This takes me back to the article in the OP. From the article:



Until I or someone else can post the letter or a link thereto, I think what we have here is speculation by the reporter because nothing in the quoted comments from the article suggests the President was even considering by-passing Congress on this matter. The very fact that the author indicates that the President notified Congress "this afternoon" (the article is dated May 20) should have clued the skeptics in.

Congress then has 24 days to act on the President's request (per Sect. 1544(b)(2)) to which it can extend armed forces involvement in theater for up to an additional 30 days from the day Congress acts on the President's 60-day notification (Sect. 1545(a)).


Why do liberals, who seem otherwise intelligent, always get stuck on stupid when it comes to the obvious and simple questions?

Objective Voice, you refer to my OP a couple of times (incorrectly on one occasion I might add) yet you failed to answer the question I asked.

I would love to delve into this with you further because I have some great points to make on it but your research is garbage until you address whether Obama himself said that his actions are unconstitutional. You read the OP but you missed that part?

This is what I hate about both parties and the zombies who pledge allegiance to their party rather than the USA. If it was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional now, no matter what party the President belongs to.

If you can claim the OP as support for your position, you damned well better be ready to answer the question the OP posed.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Why do liberals, who seem otherwise intelligent, always get stuck on stupid when it comes to the obvious and simple questions?

Objective Voice, you refer to my OP a couple of times (incorrectly on one occasion I might add) yet you failed to answer the question I asked.

I would love to delve into this with you further because I have some great points to make on it but your research is garbage until you address whether Obama himself said that his actions are unconstitutional. You read the OP but you missed that part?

This is what I hate about both parties and the zombies who pledge allegiance to their party rather than the USA. If it was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional now, no matter what party the President belongs to.

If you can claim the OP as support for your position, you damned well better be ready to answer the question the OP posed.

That's the problem now. It's political party before country and we can see the consequences on their way.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That's an awful lot of tap dancing to give Obama a pass. Look Joe, just admit that you are easier on Obama for what he does because you agree with his idealogy.

j-mac

I always laugh how you and some others consider detailed answers as tap dancing. Funny ****. However, the real dancing is the continued effort on your side to make tree frogs look like apples. Different things are . . . well . . . different.

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

Why do liberals, who seem otherwise intelligent, always get stuck on stupid when it comes to the obvious and simple questions?

Objective Voice, you refer to my OP a couple of times (incorrectly on one occasion I might add) yet you failed to answer the question I asked.

I would love to delve into this with you further because I have some great points to make on it but your research is garbage until you address whether Obama himself said that his actions are unconstitutional. You read the OP but you missed that part?

This is what I hate about both parties and the zombies who pledge allegiance to their party rather than the USA. If it was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional now, no matter what party the President belongs to.

If you can claim the OP as support for your position, you damned well better be ready to answer the question the OP posed.

What blind allegience? I was merely pointing out facts.

The ABCNews article "suggests" (the author's own words) that President Obama would not go to Congress to seak an extention for keeping armed forces in the Libyan military theater, but as the article clearly indicates President Obama did corresponde w/Congress on the afternoon of May 20 within the prerequisite timeframe per the War Powers Act. How is that going around Congress or not seeking their approval within the law? I could see if the House and Senate Majority Leaders, Bohner and/or Reid, had to go to the President first and all but demand that he comply with the law, but they didn't do that because there was no reason for them to. The President corresponded with them first!

Those are the facts.

Now, if you want to discuss what our military's role may be in Libya - limited or protracted - that's another discussion. But the fact remains, the President adhered to the law. Again, not blind allegience. Just the facts.

As for me quoting you, I suppose I should have said, "the article in the OP" vice "the OP" alone on both occasions where I (mis)quoted you, but I think anyone reading my commentary would know that I was referring to the article itself and not you directly considering your comments never mentioned the President's Press Secretary. Still...

Reading comprehension goes a long way...
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Objective Voice, you refer to my OP a couple of times (incorrectly on one occasion I might add) yet you failed to answer the question I asked.

Towhich, I believe you're referring to this:

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.”

So, let's talk about it...

We all know Congress and only Congress has the power to declare war again any nation. We also know that Pres. Obama committed armed forces to the Libyan campaign (civil war...whatever you wish to call it). Was what the President said wrong? No.

He's 100% correct. But...

Under the War Powers Act, he can commit our troops to military action for a limited time w/Congressional approval. So, there you go.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Under the War Powers Act, he can commit our troops to military action for a limited time w/Congressional approval.

yesterday in london:

U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron warned that military operations in Libya will be a long slog that continues until Col. Moammar Gadhafi leaves power, a shift from the president's initial stance that the military intervention in Libya would be limited in nature.

Mr. Obama's remarks—first in a news conference with Mr. Cameron, then in a high-profile speech before both houses of Parliament—made clear that the U.S. and its allies are bracing for a long battle not just to remove Col. Gadhafi from power, but also to guide the burgeoning democracy movement in other Arab nations to a successful conclusion.

In both appearances, Mr. Obama stressed that a long game is under way throughout the Middle East. He said military action in Libya is going to be "a slow, steady process in which we're able to wear down the regime forces and change the political calculations of the Gadhafi regime to the point where they finally realize that they're not going to control this country."

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

today:

Diplomatic sources last night disclosed that recent intelligence suggested the Libyan dictator was “paranoid” and “on the run” from Nato’s escalating attacks on his regime.

In the latest move to step up the military pressure on Col Gaddafi, David Cameron gave the final authorisation for Apache attack helicopters to start flying into Libya.

Britain and France have intensified attacks on Tripoli this week and Col Gaddafi, who has not appeared in public for weeks, was said to be moving between different hospitals.

Nato publicly denies targeting Col Gaddafi, but at least one strike has been launched on a building where he was thought to be present.

Diplomats said the real risk of death was having a “psychological impact” on the colonel, whose officials signalled for the first time this week that he could be prepared to step down.

Libya: Gaddafi 'increasingly worried' he will be killed by Nato - Telegraph

see moves ahead

it appears likely ghadafi will soon be got, one way or the other

the dude is hyper paranoid, as well, and we just bombed the heck outta tripoli early this week

then what?

what's gonna happen if/when ghadafi goes?

someone oughta be prepared, might as well be you

tuesday: Libya rebels to open D.C. office - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

have you met "the rebels," by the way, are you sure they're ready for primetime?

nation building, anyone?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I always laugh how you and some others consider detailed answers as tap dancing. Funny ****. However, the real dancing is the continued effort on your side to make tree frogs look like apples. Different things are . . . well . . . different.

:coffeepap

Nah, I don't think so. But I can understand how you and Catawba might think so. See, I am somewhat of an idealogocal conservative myself, and can fully understand how one would delve into such delusion as to blind themselves to the truth. I once had that problem. I'd like to think that when we aren't sniping at each other, and having a real conversation that we could leave that behind, which is why I am willing to hold the question open, that you may drop the blinders and speak truthfully to the subject.

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

Towhich, I believe you're referring to this:



So, let's talk about it...

We all know Congress and only Congress has the power to declare war again any nation. We also know that Pres. Obama committed armed forces to the Libyan campaign (civil war...whatever you wish to call it). Was what the President said wrong? No.

He's 100% correct. But...

Under the War Powers Act, he can commit our troops to military action for a limited time w/Congressional approval. So, there you go.

True, but that window is closing fast. He is already past the 60 day bench mark, and closing in on the 90 day mark for congressional approval/declaration. However, when we hear of a president making proclaimations about not needing congress to continue, you have to wonder at the hubrus of the man.

Backed up ofcourse, by the recent conversation he had with Ms. Brady about gun laws, telling her that he had to do more "under the radar" suggesting that he is less than truthful with the American people to begin with. But hey, any conservative could have told you this 2 plus years ago.

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

True, but that window is closing fast. He is already past the 60 day bench mark, and closing in on the 90 day mark for congressional approval/declaration.
I refer you to my post #328.

However, when we hear of a president making proclaimations about not needing congress to continue, you have to wonder at the hubrus of the man.

When exactly did he say that? If you're referring to the comments from the article in the OP, again, I refer you to my post #328.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I refer you to my post #328.



When exactly did he say that? If you're referring to the comments from the article in the OP, again, I refer you to my post #328.

In that post I commend you for a thoughtful and clearly well researched opinion. However, I don't think that the WPA is vague enough to include inaction of congress as tacid approval as you contend.

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

In that post I commend you for a thoughtful and clearly well researched opinion. However, I don't think that the WPA is vague enough to include inaction of congress as tacid approval as you contend.

j-mac

Reid said, in an interview with Maddow, that the Senate would be ready for a debate and vote by June 5.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Towhich, I believe you're referring to this:



So, let's talk about it...

We all know Congress and only Congress has the power to declare war again any nation. We also know that Pres. Obama committed armed forces to the Libyan campaign (civil war...whatever you wish to call it). Was what the President said wrong? No.

He's 100% correct. But...

Under the War Powers Act, he can commit our troops to military action for a limited time w/Congressional approval. So, there you go.

Before we get into whether Obama complied with the War Powers Act, let us see if we can agree upon his position on this issue as a presidential candidate.

1. Candidate Obama submitted a written response to the questions so it would be reasonable to expect that he was clear and complete on his positions/opinions. Agree or disagree?

2. Candidate Obama was clearly asked to assume that the theoretical bombing was not a situation that involved stopping an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?

3. Candidate Obama clearly stated that the President does not have the power “under the Constitution” to “attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. Agree or disagree?

4. Candidate Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard University so it would be reasonable to expect that he understands that the War Powers Resolution can’t supersede the Constitution unless it is an actual amendment to said Constitution. Agree or disagree?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Nah, I don't think so. But I can understand how you and Catawba might think so. See, I am somewhat of an idealogocal conservative myself, and can fully understand how one would delve into such delusion as to blind themselves to the truth. I once had that problem. I'd like to think that when we aren't sniping at each other, and having a real conversation that we could leave that behind, which is why I am willing to hold the question open, that you may drop the blinders and speak truthfully to the subject.

j-mac

J, if anyone has that problem, you're still among them. We know this because you keep trying make different things appear alike. Your blinders don't allow you to see clear differences. I agree that you're nto alone, and such blindness isn't limited to any party. But, the fact is there are real differences here and if you don't see it, you have to know you have blind spot.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Secondly, while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went (sic) to congress.

not as illegal?

illegality by degree?

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

not as illegal?

illegality by degree?

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

There are aras of gray, yes. Some of Bush's actions, for example, are more in a gray area than others.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

oh, absolutely, sydney

barack the slasher's actions in libya are simply not quite as illegal as w-stands-for-what's-his-name's in iraq

LOL!

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

at the g8 yesterday in deauville:

Obama Says U.S., France Resolve to Finish the Job in Libya

aren't you glad that nato's doing all this instead of the united states?

and isn't it gratifying to recognize that any real resolve to finish is gonna require our owning whatever it is that breaks?

party on, peaceniks
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom