• 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

Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.

LOL!

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

The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so.

are you following syria?

of course, hillary says assad is a reformer

Clinton calls Syrian tyrant a reformer

what's going on in yemen and bahrain?

why is libya vital to american security when syria across the jordan and yemen on the gulf aren't?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

so congressional approval is not necessary because the violence we wage is "limited?"

yes, sir, mr commander in chief

days not weeks, anyone?

nation building?

remember the powell doctrine
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Not exactly. However, it is generally believed that the best way to determine who is in charge of another nation is through democratic means. And Gadaffi has usurp the democratic nature of Libya. And the Libyan people have risen up against him to challenge this. Which is why Libya is in a civil war to begin with.

A modern democracy is not compatible with Islam and their way of thinking, so I have zero expectations that any revolution will result in even a Western neutral democracy.

Also, certain cultures are not compatible with democratic forms of government. When they appear to have them, it is merely a sham. They only operate with a strong man in charge.

No. Gadaffi is not accountable to Obama. Rather, Gadaffi is accountable to the people of Libya. This is in line with the idea of a social contract between the governor and the governed. When the governor no longer has the consent of the governed, they have the duty to defy the tyrant in power.

This ideal has most eloquently been expressed by our own Founding Fathers.

The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so. If we have our own political system based on a democracy with the consent of the governed then we should support those who work for the same for themselves.

Just as the French provided aid to the rebels in the Colonies that allowed us to become our sovereign nation of the United States, so to should the U.S. provide aid to the rebels in Libya to help the people of Libya develop a democratic political system.

I'm guessing, you don't like people directing your life and telling you to do something else, "because it's for your own good", when you very clearly have a different idea about what is for your own good.

Exercising your rights responsibly and not interfering with someone else's free exercise of their rights, then you should be left the **** alone.

In essence, that is the heart of our republic. Freedom. Not absolute freedom, but freedom minimally restricted by laws to protect the rights of all, not just the strong.

If that is our belief for us, why shouldn't we apply it to our relations with other nations as well?

And last...I really don't give a **** how many of his own people Gadaffi kills as long as he doesn't kill Americans .

He's not.

Yes, he is
Libya is in Northern Africa.

Technically, yes....but, the key word here is... Muslim

When push comes to shove, the majority of the time Muslims will side with a fellow Muslims
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I want to place an addendum to this sentiment. Congress should demand the President do it the RIGHT WAY or immediately defund all combat operations involving Lybia. American's will support military action, but when you act like "Our Lord and King" with **** like this, we're gonna rise up.

that's the point. Congress has the power of the purse - if they really believed this crap they could stop anything they wanted.


with the exception of the Marine Corps. Because there is nothing that could stop the Marine Corps :D
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

There is no illegal wiretapping in that. Warrantless wiretapping ended a long time ago.

Yeah, you keep buying that one....lol


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


For those with short memories:

Excerpted from “Senate Passes Resolution Calling for No-Fly Zone Over Libya” By Dan Friedman, National Journal, Updated: March 1, 2011 | 9:35 p.m., March 1, 2011 | 9:19 p.m., with my emphasis
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy. …

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

Yeah, you keep buying that one....lol


j-mac

I do when the FBI director and the acting attorney general tendered their resignations because of the program, and then agreed to stay when it was stopped.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I do when the FBI director and the acting attorney general tendered their resignations because of the program, and then agreed to stay when it was stopped.

Like I said, you must be a real fan of Kabooki theater (sp)

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

Like I said, you must be a real fan of Kabooki theater (sp)

j-mac

You must be a real fan of Jesse Ventura.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

1) Where is that inferred?
2) What does the United Nations have to do with the Libyan Civil War?

The United Nations isn't mentioned in any of your quotes when Obama was a candidate nor in the news paper article concerning this story.

This issue is enough of a valid criticism of President Obama's position without needing to go on a hyperbolic tangent against the UN. If you have quotes from Obama stating that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the power to approve or prohibit American military operations then please provide them. Otherwise, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, please stick to the issues at hand.

First off, I started this thread, and as such, my original post defined the "issues at hand" in this thread so don’t respond to the original post and tell me to stick to the "issues at hand" because it makes you look silly.

Let’s start with the fact that as a sitting US Senator and Presidential candidate, Obama clearly stated that the President of the US does not have the Constitutional authority to use force without authorization from Congress unless there is a situation that involves stopping an imminent threat or the US is attacked.

EXHIBIT ‘A’:

Senator and Presidential candidate Obama’s written response to the Boston Globe:
Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: 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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

If you read the above quote and come to any conclusion other than the fact that Candidate Obama was expressing his opinion that the President is required by the Constitution to obtain Congressional approval for strategic bombings where no imminent threat exists and no attack on the US have occurred, we are done talking because these are WRITTEN responses to the Boston Globe and Obama was a Constitutional Professor at Harvard, so it isn’t like he got cut off in his answer or forgot to include something relevant.



Now to the current Libya conflict. Political hacks might try to find a way to claim Libya was an imminent threat to the US but Obama himself hasn’t even tried to make that argument. In fact, he did the exact opposite. He tried to justify his use of force by claiming that if it is in the United States’ interests, he can and will unilaterally authorize the use of force as he did in Libya.

In attempting to explain and justify this war with Libya and in utter and complete contrast to his written comments to the Boston Globe, Obama repeatedly references the United Nations Security Council’s Authorization for the use of force and never once mentions his Constitutional authority to wage war without Congress’s consent. Even the most jello brained koolaid drinking liberals can see that this is an obvious flip-flop from what he promised as Presidential Candidate Obama.

Don’t take my word for it though. View his words and his Press Secretary’s words for yourself. I have even provided you with relevant timeframes and typed the quotes from those timeframes.

EXHIBIT ‘B’:
March 18, 2011, Obama speech on Libya
3:45 to 4:15 – "The United Nations Security Council has authorized the use of force"

5:15 to 5:30 - "If Gaddafi does not comply, the UN resolution will be enforced through military action"

7:30 to 7:45 – “as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law

8:45 to 9:00 “the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security

EXHIBIT ‘C’

March 28, 2011, Obama speech on Libya
1:25 to 1:50 – "When our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what’s happened in Libya."

5:00 to 5:20 - "At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that AUTHORIZED a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air and further AUTHORIZED all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people."

6:25 to 7:35 - "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so 9 days ago, after consulting the bi-partisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973."

13:00 to 15:00 - "Some question why America should intervene at all, even in limited ways, in this distant land……It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever oppression occurs. Given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action, but that cannot be an argument for NEVER acting on behalf of what’s right. …….[In Libya, we had] an international mandate for action. ….As President, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

15:30 to 15:45 - "The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security."

16:45 to 17:00 - "The task that I assigned our forces, to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a no-fly zone, carries with it a UN Mandate and international support."

19:05 to 19:45 - "Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power and America’s broader leadership in the world under my Presidency………I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."

20:00 to 21:00 - "There will be times though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are….[common humanity, responding to natural disasters, preventing genocide, keeping the peace] These may not be America’s problems alone but they are important to us, they’re problems worth solving, and in these circumstances we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. In such cases, we should not be afraid to act."

EXHIBIT ‘D’
May 20, 2011 – White House Press Briefing
16:00 to 17:50 - Q: Libya. War Powers Act. Is there movement on that from your perspective? Will there be consultation with Congress? We are at a deadline on that.

A: As you know, my President has been in consultation with Congress on Libya from the beginning and the President’s actions have been and are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and we have said from the beginning that we would welcome an expression of support from the Congress, in this case similar to the one that has been put forward by Senators McCain & Kerry and again, we have consulted with Congress, will continue to consult with Congress and would welcome their support.

Q: Is there a feeling though that he needs to ask for authorization for a continued operation?

A: I would just say that the President has acted in a way that has been consistent with the War Powers Resolution and would welcome an expression of support by Congress.

Q: Do you have a legal justification that you can share with us that sort of, that like you guys have thought on this just to make sure that you are…(interrupted)

A: Ed, you know. I’m not aware. Look, there is, there has been a long debate in this country about, which we do not need to replicate here, because the amount, stuff written about the War Powers Resolution over the years could fill this room and none of it would be conclusive. We believe the President has acted consistent in a way that’s consistent with the War Powers Resolution and has consulted, he believes that consultation with Congress in matters like these is vital and that’s why he has consulted so, uh, regularly with Congress and will continue to do so and he would welcome support from Congress, of the kind put forward in that resolution that I mentioned.

42:30 to End - Q: Let me follow up on a question about the War Powers Act. I don’t understand how the US is behaving in a way that is consistent with the War Powers Act.

A: I spoke at length about this when you were out of the room. The President …..

Q: I was sitting here but you didn’t say anything. It’s been 60 days and 60 days expires today for Congressional authorization, notification, 60 days expires today so how is this consistent?

A: The President believes that he is acting and has acted consistent with the War Powers Resolution and we can have a debate, which could spend the afternoon, and there’s volumes and volumes written about the application and issues involving the War Powers Resolution. I’m not going to do that from here. The President looks forward to, would welcome support from Congress on this issue and that’s all I’m going to say.

In summary, the above quotes and videos make it very clear to anyone with an IQ above 25 that Obama (and many others in the Democratic Party) held a completely different view on the Presidential power to use military force without Congressional authorization when Bush was in office.

It also makes clear that Obama NOW thinks that UN authorization is more important than Congressional authorization because he throws out his UN Mandate at every opportunity (at least a half dozen times in every speech on Libya) and only says that he would welcome an expression of support from Congress when challenged on the Constitutionality of his actions and the expired 60 day requirement for Congressional approval.

So in spite of your assertion that this has nothing to do with the President setting a precedent by ignoring the War Powers Act while claiming he got authorization from the United Nations for his war, this is exactly what he is doing. He can claim that he is in compliance with the War Powers Act until he is blue in the face but he can’t hide from his own words about the Constitutionality of the actions he has taken as President.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Funny how that wasn't good enough for you Chappy, when Bush was in.....tsk, tsk, tsk....

Example? 123…
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I actually agree with you concerning congress. While I don't see this as equal to what Bush did, I do wish more republicans saw the problem when Bush was invading two countries. War should have to be declared before we engage in it, and that should be true regardless of who is president.

Bush had the consent of congress prior to committin troops. What Obama did was worse.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati


For those with short memories:



Congressionally authorized. Check.

How laughable. What an insult to our intelligence.

Perhaps you are such a tool of the left that you unconditionally believe the tripe they try to pass off as fact without bothering to educate yourself? Only a jackass political homer hack who roots for his/her team till the end, come hell or high waters, as if it were a baseball, football etc. game would read this Senate resolution and interpret it as Congressional authorization for the use of military force. Even then, most sports fan homers have more common sense than this.

I would ask if you have even read the resolution but the mere fact that you claim this is a Congressional authorization for war based upon the article you posted makes clear that you have no respect for the rule of law and are a political “homer” who is incapable of independent thought or you are a political hack who is more interested in getting a “team win” than being real and honest about what is really going on.


For those of you who aren’t political homers/hacks, The first obvious failure with this lame attempt to pretend that Obama sought and received Congressional authorization for this war with Libya is that “Congress” consists of more than just the Senate. Congressional authorization/consultation for war requires passage by both houses of Congress.


Rather than a link to a political hack article, I will provide you a link to the resolution that was referenced. As you will see once you read this resolution, congress was simply condemning violent attacks on protesters. Even the left wing political hack news pundits like the article’s author admit that it was a non-binding resolution and carried no force of law. Only political hacks/homers like Chappy consider this a relevant Senate resolution when considering the War Powers Act or the Constitution of the US so it is a feeble attempt at tricking those of us who care about the law into wrongly thinking that the law has been followed.

I have nothing but virulent disdain for people like Chappy because they make America weak and try to poison people’s minds with untruths like this.

Here is the Senate Resolution. You be the judge.:

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;


Don't take my word for it, read the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Example? 123…

So you have no desire to be honest or consistent? Rather than respond intelligently you fall back on lazy, homer, troll like tactics and even need to type in “123” because your response was too short?

Get off my thread or bring something worth debating!!!!
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Everyone in this thread is ignoring the NATO treaty. Look up what the treaty says. It's possible that the NATO treaty makes congressional approval irrelevant
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

While I agree that we shold not go to war without a decalration of war, we have agreed to be part of the UN and act within their scope. This action in Libya is not equal to Bush invading two countries on his own, without the UN or a decalration of war. You lose credibility when you try to force unequal things into being equal.

Now, should we be involved in regrime change anywhere? No. Do I support us not going to war unless we have a decalration of war, yes. Outside the UN, that is how we shold do it, with a declaration of war.

The United States is not the UN's bitch. The United States has no benefit from taking the side of al qeada against Ghadaffy in Libya. That's it. Period.

Any American wishing to choose and fight for either side can buy an airplane ticket and go to Libya as private citizens. End of story.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The United States is not the UN's bitch. The United States has no benefit from taking the side of al qeada against Ghadaffy in Libya. That's it. Period.

Where do you get your information?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so.

No such obligation exists. There are, always, revolutions and rebellions against despots the world over. The United States never has been, and never will be, morally obligated to choose sides and participate. Almost everytime the US has chosen to get involved it's meant death and dismemberment for US citizens and precious little to show in return. The Mayor points to Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq as perfect examples of why the United States should let other people fight their own battles.

Given that the so-called "rebels" in Libya have al qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood as sponsors and participants and the United States has no side it wants to take in that squabble. Let the terrorists murder each other, and be done with them.

If we have our own political system based on a democracy with the consent of the governed then we should support those who work for the same for themselves.

We can cheer. Spending money and blood is a different matter. Especially when neither side is especially friendly to the US in the first place.

Just as the French provided aid to the rebels in the Colonies that allowed us to become our sovereign nation of the United States, so to should the U.S. provide aid to the rebels in Libya to help the people of Libya develop a democratic political system.

The French were supporting the US for one purpose, to divest their enemy, England, from it's most valuable colony. The French had no interest in the United States per se, and the US was having an undeclared war against the French within twenty years.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The news. Where do you hide from information?

Which news station?

Clarification: Rush =/= news. I listen to the news pretty much 24/7
 
Back
Top Bottom