• 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!

Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"

American said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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/Politics/Obama_Letter_Libya_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.
Click to expand...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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:
spud_meister said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ARealConservative said:
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.
Click to expand...
You forgot to take his koolaid away before trying to teach him; big mistake.
 
ARealConservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, he can deploy troops abroad for 60 days until he has to get the declaration or the authorization.
 
We are acting within the U.N. treaty. Period. End of line.
 
Chappy said:
We are acting within the U.N. treaty. Period. End of line.
Click to expand...

oh, i'm sure that is the excuse given, but it would not of satisified the original intent of the war powers act.

Has Obama actually gave the specific statuatory authorization as he is required to do?

war powers title 50 said:
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Click to expand...
 
I think it's long past time that Congress should tackle this issue.

Does the President have the right to commit US Forces w/o the consent of Congress when the United States is not in imminent danger? Just another way our legislators are abdicating their responsibilities to the American people.
 
U.S. Constitution said:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Click to expand...
Any discussion about the Constitutionality of military action must consider whether we are obligated under international treaties to take such military action. I was under the impression that a U.N. Security Council Resolution called for action in Libya. Am I wrong?
 
ARealConservative said:
oh, i'm sure that is the excuse given, but it would not of satisified the original intent of the war powers act.

Has Obama actually gave the specific statuatory authorization as he is required to do?
Click to expand...

He has. Need me to dig it up for you?
 
MaggieD said:
I think it's long past time that Congress should tackle this issue.

Does the President have the right to commit US Forces w/o the consent of Congress when the United States is not in imminent danger? Just another way our legislators are abdicating their responsibilities to the American people.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something for the SCOTUS to decide, not Congress.
 
Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich...two people who in all their years of being on the scene have (combined) less relevance than Sarah Palin...

At the same time highly comical, and yet pathetic.
 
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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ARealConservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

we can debate this now.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
ARealConservative said:
we can debate this now.
Click to expand...

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...
 
VanceMack said:
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...
Click to expand...

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?
 
ARealConservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom