• 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

The only thing wrong with your post, is that Obama hasn't violated the war powers act.

The War Powers Act specifies that he must get congressional approval within 60 days of his launching military action, or bring the operation to a close within an additional 30 days. His 60-day window has now expired without even a serious attempt to get congressional approval, so he's already skirting the boundaries of what's legal as it is. If we are still involved in Libya in any way a month from now, the administration will be in violation of the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ok. Question: are U.S. combat units--of any branch, or arm--currently operating in Libya?

now you're just being nice.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The War Powers Act specifies that he must get congressional approval within 60 days of his launching military action, or bring the operation to a close within an additional 30 days. His 60-day window has now expired without even a serious attempt to get congressional approval, so he's already skirting the boundaries of what's legal as it is. If we are still involved in Libya in any way a month from now, the administration will be in violation of the law.

What American units are operating in the LTO, at this time?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

now you're just being nice.

That's because I'm a nice ****ing guy! :rofl
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The War Powers Act specifies that he must get congressional approval within 60 days of his launching military action, or bring the operation to a close within an additional 30 days. His 60-day window has now expired without even a serious attempt to get congressional approval, so he's already skirting the boundaries of what's legal as it is. If we are still involved in Libya in any way a month from now, the administration will be in violation of the law.
Thank you for saving me the effort of having to type exactly that, except that The Obama, not having the authorization in hand now, is already in violation of the law.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ok. Question: are U.S. combat units--of any branch, or arm--currently operating in Libya?

The American leaders of the intervention are Sam Locklear (Navy), Carter Ham (Army), and James Stavridis (Navy).
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The American leaders of the intervention are Sam Locklear (Navy), Carter Ham (Army), and James Stavridis (Navy).

That's not what I asked.

Let's try again: which American combat units are currently operating within the Libyan theater of operations?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ok. Question: are U.S. combat units--of any branch, or arm--currently operating in Libya?

stop being silly, come on...
he attacked another countries army, with American troops, with Amercian dollars..

doesnt matter how you dress that, working with the UN, not putting boots on the ground, whatever.... it needs to have approval after 60 days.
You dont play with American lives with a "technicality"

American soldiers, peoples sons a daughters could die carrying out these acts, THATS why we have this 'law'..

so stop it, stop mincing words, so to speak
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That's not what I asked.

Let's try again: which American combat units are currently operating within the Libyan theater of operations?

Are you claiming that makes a difference?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

stop being silly, come on...
he attacked another countries army, with American troops, with Amercian dollars..

doesnt matter how you dress that, working with the UN, not putting boots on the ground, whatever.... it needs to have approval after 60 days.
You dont play with American lives with a "technicality"

American soldiers, peoples sons a daughters could die carrying out these acts, THATS why we have this 'law'..

so stop it, stop mincing words, so to speak

I never said he didn't. However, as Khandahar pointed out, the president must--by law--seek Congressional approval to continue an operation beyond 60 days. The operation that Obama ordered ended in less than 30 days and as far as I know American units haven't participated in combat operations, since.

Khadahar posted the names of the commanders of USAFCOM, which is headquartered in Stuttgart as evidence of...something, which turned into a massive fail.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I never said he didn't. However, as Khandahar pointed out, the president must--by law--seek Congressional approval to continue an operation beyond 60 days. The operation that Obama ordered ended in less than 30 days and as far as I know American units haven't participated in combat operations, since.

Khadahar posted the names of the commanders of USAFCOM, which is headquartered in Stuttgart as evidence of...something, which turned into a massive fail.

so by your "assertion", were done in Libya, no further action required...
FAIL

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

no, I'm saying Obama is working with the UN and as such is different. Bush was both outside the UN and without a declaration of war, giving little to no legitimacy to his actions.

and no, I don't believe Obama has broken his oath even though I would have prefered he went to congress.

What are you talking about Boo? Bush got authorization from Congress and the UN has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Presidential use of force.

As for Obama not breaking his oath, did you read what he wrote to the Boston Globe before he became President?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Are you claiming that makes a difference?

That's exactly what I'm claiming. Did the War Powers Act apply when we sent the 82nd Airborne Division to Haiti last year?

The War Powers Act referrs to the president's authority to wage war. If American units aren't currently waging war in Libya, then Obama isn't in violation of the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

so by your "assertion", were done in Libya, no further action required...
FAIL

yes?

No! That's not what I said. What I'm saying, is that if there are no American combat units currently operating in the LTO, Obama isn't in violation of the war powers act.

Anyone wanna start a pool about how many times I have to make that same statement and still, no one will be able to tell us which American combat units have been engaged in Libya for more than 90 days?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

If Obama is allowed to get away with this, let's make no mistake about it: It will mean that the War Powers Act is dead, because every future president will simply cite Obama's Libyan adventure as a precedent. It will mean that the president will have the power to wage war anywhere in the world, for any reason, on any scale, for any length of time, without any checks or balances on his power. This is NOT a path that the United States of America should go down.

Much respect Kandahar. Consistency is worthy of respect.

If Bush had tried to go into Iraq or Afghanistan without congressional approval I would have adamantly opposed it. I wouldn’t have opposed him bombing the nuke facilities in Iran because I feel they are a threat to the US and that wouldn’t have gone on beyond the 60 day limit provided with the WPA but other than that, I agree completely with what Obama wrote to the Boston Globe.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

No! That's not what I said. What I'm saying, is that if there are no American combat units currently operating in the LTO, Obama isn't in violation of the war powers act.

Anyone wanna start a pool about how many times I have to make that same statement and still, no one will be able to tell us which American combat units have been engaged in Libya for more than 90 days?
There doesnt need to be any single unit there for more than 90 days, there needs to be just one there now in order to require The Obama to get an OK from Congres or to force Him to withdraw.

Your point is that there are none there now? If there are none there, then the point is moot.
The Administrarion's reaction to all of this illustrates that the point is not moot, and so there must be some unit somewhere in the area doing something that falls under the WPA.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

There doesnt need to be any single unit there for more than 90 days, there needs to be just one there now in order to require The Obama to get an OK from Congres or to force Him to withdraw.

Ok, Panzer IV, which combat unit is currently operating in the LTO?

Your point is that there are none there now? If there are none there, then the point is moot.
The Administrarion's reaction to all of this illustrates that the point is not moot, and so there must be some unit somewhere in the area doing something that falls under the WPA.

I don't think Obama is smart enough to figure that out.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ok, Panzer IV, which combat unit is currently operating in the LTO?
Beats me - but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
The fact that the Administration finds the need to respond speaks far more to the issue that no one being able to answer your question to your satisfaction.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Your article is dated 19 March.

And what does that mean to you?

To others it means the United States, led by US President Obama,went to war with Libya. That is the point.

The 60 days have passed and BHO has not sought Congressional approval, as the War Powers Act clearly states he must.

Do you expect Libyans to not respond?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Beats me - but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Right, which is why I keep asking which ones are there. As far as I know, there aren't any.



The fact that the Administration finds the need to respond speaks far more to the issue that no one being able to answer your question to your satisfaction.

I think it speaks more to Obama's stupidity.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

And what does that mean to you?

To others it means the United States, led by US President Obama,went to war with Libya. That is the point.

The 60 days have passed and BHO has not sought Congressional approval, as the War Powers Act clearly states he must.

Do you expect Libyans to not respond?

Except, that I don't think there are any American combat units--air, or land--engaged with the enemy in Libya. Do you know of any?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I never said he didn't. However, as Khandahar pointed out, the president must--by law--seek Congressional approval to continue an operation beyond 60 days. The operation that Obama ordered ended in less than 30 days and as far as I know American units haven't participated in combat operations, since.

Khadahar posted the names of the commanders of USAFCOM, which is headquartered in Stuttgart as evidence of...something, which turned into a massive fail.

I'm trying to follow your thought,
SO

we didnt break the 60 day rule, therfore he doesnt have to go to congress.
BUT

his reasoning was to stop innocents from being killed,
SO
either you think he can stop start stop start, resetting the 60 day rule each time, (ludacrous)
OR

he FAILED, because last I checked innocent are still getting killed

are you ok?
really?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom