Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 59

Thread: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

  1. #41
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    When did we start getting pissed off at presidents for military operations without congressional approval? It's been the norm since 1946, and we've been doing it since the 1860's. This is really nothing new and we've never tried to impeach any president over it before. Also, can we please stop with the impeachment crap in general? I heard it all the time during Bush's presidency, and I've been hearing it ever since Obama took office. You impeach a president for seriously illegal actions, not questionable stuff. Even Clinton's impeachment was a load of bull. Using the CIA to assassinate the guy who stole your eleventh grade girlfriend... that's an impeachable offense. If torture wasn't enough to get Bush out (something that is actually a crime in this country), then everyone else is pretty much forever off the hook.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #42
    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 Paschendale View Post
    When did we start getting pissed off at presidents for military operations without congressional approval? It's been the norm since 1946, and we've been doing it since the 1860's. This is really nothing new and we've never tried to impeach any president over it before. Also, can we please stop with the impeachment crap in general? I heard it all the time during Bush's presidency, and I've been hearing it ever since Obama took office. You impeach a president for seriously illegal actions, not questionable stuff. Even Clinton's impeachment was a load of bull. Using the CIA to assassinate the guy who stole your eleventh grade girlfriend... that's an impeachable offense. If torture wasn't enough to get Bush out (something that is actually a crime in this country), then everyone else is pretty much forever off the hook.
    When did we stop getting pissed off?

    Code pink sure seemed to care about “illegal wars”, even though Bush 2 did get congressional approval meeting the requirements of the dubious war powers act. Obama did not.

  3. #43
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    When did we stop getting pissed off?

    Code pink sure seemed to care about “illegal wars”, even though Bush 2 did get congressional approval meeting the requirements of the dubious war powers act. Obama did not.
    Code Pink, like NOW, is nothing more than a liberal political entity. NOW gets very upset with people that are allegedly abusive towards women...unless it happens to be their democrat president supporting abortion rights. Code Pink...no different. You may see 7-10 of them at occasional rallies to show they are still around...but they only protest inconveeenient wars.

    Now...people like Susan Sarandon...I disagree with her...but respect the hell out of her. She at least has been consistently anti-war, though less enthusiastic some times than others.

    We can debate this...AFTER our military is no longer engaged...but impeachment is simply idiotic...which is why people like Biden, Kucinich, and Nader have used the term so loosely.
    Last edited by VanceMack; 03-25-11 at 01:08 PM.

  4. #44
    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 VanceMack View Post
    Code Pink, like NOW, is nothing more than a liberal political entity. NOW gets very upset with people that are allegedly abusive towards women...unless it happens to be their democrat president supporting abortion rights. Code Pink...no different. You may see 7-10 of them at occasional rallies to show they are still around...but they only protest inconveeenient wars.

    Now...people like Susan Sarandon...I disagree with her...but respect the hell out of her. She at least has been consistently anti-war, though less enthusiastic some times than others.

    We can debate this...AFTER our military is no longer engaged...but impeachment is simply idiotic...which is why people like Biden, Kucinich, and Nader have used the term so loosely.
    we can debate this now.

  5. #45
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    When did we start getting pissed off at presidents for military operations without congressional approval? It's been the norm since 1946, and we've been doing it since the 1860's. This is really nothing new and we've never tried to impeach any president over it before. Also, can we please stop with the impeachment crap in general? I heard it all the time during Bush's presidency, and I've been hearing it ever since Obama took office. You impeach a president for seriously illegal actions, not questionable stuff. Even Clinton's impeachment was a load of bull. Using the CIA to assassinate the guy who stole your eleventh grade girlfriend... that's an impeachable offense. If torture wasn't enough to get Bush out (something that is actually a crime in this country), then everyone else is pretty much forever off the hook.
    I know its likely to make you feel all ooogy inside...but I actually agree with you on something! It was wrong with Clinton...its wrong now. And the primary reason why Congress had no bearing to bring impeachment charges over 'torture' is that democrats were briefed on it from the get-go and agreed to it. That and the justice department deemed it not torture. Again...debateable...but...attack him, kill em all...

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Let's set a few things straight concerning Pres. Obama's committal of U.S. Armed Forces to this humanitarian crisis in Libya.

    First off, NO ONE HAS DECLARED WAR ON A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y! Not before our military forces were committed and certainly not since.

    Second, I think it's become clear that per Art I, Sect. of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. And since they haven't, I think it's wrong for anyone to make the claim that Pres. Obama is somehow on a war footing. Now, we can argue that a civil war has broke out in Libya, as well as in several other North African/Middle-Eastern countries, but neither the Congress of the United States of America nor the President has called for an act of war against any other nation.

    Third, the War Powers Act states , in part, as follows:

    SEC. 2. (a) - It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

    SEC 2. (b) - (Reaffirms Congressional authority to declare war under the Constitution)

    SEC. 2. (c) - The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (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.
    Now, taking the above alone, it would seem very clear cut that the President has overstepped his bounds. After all, he has "introduced U.S. Armed Forces" into a "situation where imminent involvement in hostitlities is clearly indicated by the circumstances" in the airspace above foreign soil and in foreign water. But you have to also look at the reporting aspects of the law:

    SEC. 3 - The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
    Key words here, "in every possible instance"...but then there's this:

    Sec. 4. (a): (Note: Quoted section reducted in an effort to focus solely on the situation currently before us.)

    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;

    (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces...

    SEC. 5. (a) - Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
    I know...kinda splits hairs, doesn't it, but the law does provide for some latitude for the President. In short, the President has to communicate to Congress, or if so adjoured for 3 calendar days or more, to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore, his intention to use military force abroad, but he must do so "with best speed" were possible or practical. To wit:

    From the DailyKos (Brief snippet only provided; the entire letter can be read at the DailyKos website linked herein):

    Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

    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.
    Base on this loose interpretation of Sections 2-5 of the War Powers Act, I think it's fair to say that the President has not violated the law...stretched it, certainly, but he hasn't violated it.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-25-11 at 02:30 PM.

  7. #47
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    we can debate this now.
    Feel free. I dont get into ideological debates when the CiC has ordered troops into harms way. I think we have pretty conclusive evidence that as a nation divided during times of war we give aid and comfort to the enemy. But again...feel free...

  8. #48
    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 VanceMack View Post
    Feel free. I dont get into ideological debates when the CiC has ordered troops into harms way. I think we have pretty conclusive evidence that as a nation divided during times of war we give aid and comfort to the enemy. But again...feel free...
    yet that doesn't stop the chicken hawks from doing it over and over again. they know that a large portion of the public will be opposed, so why take actions that will give aid and comfort to the enemy?

  9. #49
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    yet that doesn't stop the chicken hawks from doing it over and over again. they know that a large portion of the public will be opposed, so why take actions that will give aid and comfort to the enemy?
    Cant speak to them. Wont speak to the issue. Ive been involved with the military my whole life. I have a son on active duty now. When you are in the military you support the orders of the president. Period and without regard to the little letter after the Presidents name. The more this country is divided on the Presidents actions the more it convinces people like Qadaffi that all he has to do is ride out the initial few waves and the US will lose the stomach to engage.

  10. #50
    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 VanceMack View Post
    Cant speak to them. Wont speak to the issue. Ive been involved with the military my whole life. I have a son on active duty now. When you are in the military you support the orders of the president. Period and without regard to the little letter after the Presidents name. The more this country is divided on the Presidents actions the more it convinces people like Qadaffi that all he has to do is ride out the initial few waves and the US will lose the stomach to engage.
    Soldiers swear an oath to the constitution. We are a nation ruled by laws, not men.

    History shows that we don’t have the stomach for prolonged conflict unless our own people are at risk, so I suggest you stop supporting men, and start supporting the rule of law regarding presidential war making powers.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •