Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

  1. #21
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  2. #22
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.
    He has what, 60 days, under it?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  3. #23
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.
    Your right but only when a country poses a direct threat to the U.S., and Libya is not by any means a threat. Obama over stepped his authority and he could very well be impeached for this, but we will see the power at be haven't decide what they are going to do.

  4. #24
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    He has what, 60 days, under it?
    Yep, and 30 days to pull out.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  5. #25
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense. Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.” — Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

    The usual suspects, ultra liberals and card-carrying libertarians are standing up and decrying the President's order for our military to participate in the U.N. authorized intervention in Libya, putting to the lie that liberals only oppose Republican presidents' wars and that all conservatives move in lockstep to war.
    Let's get something straight, woman; the UN doesn't run this country. Do you understand that? The US Constitution establishs law in this country. Now Kucinich is a bumbling clown, nevertheless. I don't support our involvement in this action, because I think Europe should handle it. I'm tired of their worthless asses hanging on our coattails, then bitching about what we do. Let them send their aircraft carriers and soldiers over. Let the French die for a change.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #26
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Let them send their aircraft carriers and soldiers over.
    They have, what the hell are you bitching about?
    Last edited by spud_meister; 03-22-11 at 07:14 AM.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  7. #27
    Steve
    tryreading's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    02-26-13 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,809

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Let's get something straight, woman; the UN doesn't run this country. Do you understand that? The US Constitution establishs law in this country. Now Kucinich is a bumbling clown, nevertheless. I don't support our involvement in this action, because I think Europe should handle it. I'm tired of their worthless asses hanging on our coattails, then bitching about what we do. Let them send their aircraft carriers and soldiers over. Let the French die for a change.
    Agree with this. If you look at a world map and study the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, you'll see why France et al should be handling the Ghaddify/pissant thing over there. They have business and other local interests that make Libya very important to them. If something important happens at the edges of the Gulf of Mexico, we will handle that by ourselves, dealing with whatever minor pissant that may be at fault.

    But the UN, we either go to war for them (Iraq), or we don't. We need a standard national policy on that. I say their opinions should rarely affect anything we do militarily, as far as actually starting a war.
    Do not write in this space!

  8. #28
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,099

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    The White House seems to have gone through the motions, the below letter was to officially notify congress of the action from what I understand. Not sure it was done in a timely manner, but IMO the issue still boils down to protecting our nation against further acts of aggression from any source. The White House was given this power after 911 and if we don't like it we should change the law/resolution.

    The letter to congress:http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...a_Congress.pdf
    At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.

    As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone.

    These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya.

    United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

    Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

    Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security.

    His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.

    Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

    The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.

    Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

    For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

    I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-107publ40.htm

    Public Law 107-40
    107th Congress

    Joint Resolution

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
    responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
    States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
    committed against the United States and its citizens; and
    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
    United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
    United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
    policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
    and
    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
    to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
    and
    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
    action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
    the United States: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
    States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
    of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
    Military Force''.

    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
    authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
    nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
    committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
    2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
    future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
    nations, organizations or persons.


    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
    (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
    section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
    declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
    statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
    the War Powers Resolution.


    [[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

    (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
    resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
    Resolution.

    Approved September 18, 2001.
    The War Power Act sections mentioned in the above law.War Powers Resolution of 1973
    SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
    (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution
    SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
    SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
    (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances
    Sorry if I have involved 911. I mean no disrespect. The previous WH admin seemed to use these laws to protect themselves from inquiry all the while citing executive privilege and national security along the way and I wouldn't be surprised if the current WH staff did the same thing when cornered.

    Maybe a lawyer is needed here, I wonder if Karl Rove is available.
    Last edited by Utility Man; 03-22-11 at 10:08 PM.

  9. #29
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    They have, what the hell are you bitching about?
    The fact that we sent ours....into this cluster****.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #30
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    The President has the right to use the military without congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution., what Obama's doing is perfectly legal and within his powers.
    The war powers act has to meet one of the following three requirements (sec 1541):

    (1) a declaration of war,
    (2) specific statutory authorization, or
    (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    I don't see how #3 could be argued to of been met, and obviously 1 or 2 don't apply.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •