Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
LOL!
you don't know what you're talking about
You are joking right? You aren’t seriously claiming that Congress was referring to the United Nations when it said “specific statutory authorization” are you?
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
So what you are saying is that Obama thought it would be unconstitutional for Bush to invoke the War Powers Act to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities but NOW thinks it is constitutional for him to bomb the crap out of Libya for many months without congressional approval right?
UN resolutons, not being US law, are not statutory authorizations.
absolutely
bush's iraq war was NOT, unlike obama's actions in libya, a UNITED NATIONS MISSION
LOL!
House GOP kills vote on Libya
i know, i know
but libya is a UNITED NATIONS MISSION
haven't you read?
just kidding
you're right, of course: Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya - President Obama - Fox Nation
On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday sent a letter to Congress expressing support for a bipartisan resolution favoring military operations in Libya.
A spokesman for Boehner said his office has yet to see the resolution and therefore could not comment on whether the House leadership would be willing to bring it up for a vote.
"We received the president's letter but have yet to see the draft resolution it mentions. No decisions will be made until such a review takes place and we discuss the matter with our members," said spokesman Kevin Smith.
You guys had no problem whatsoever with Bush going into Iraq
Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.
In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.
The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.
“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.
Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.
The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.
Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.
Mr. Obama’s only allies were top Democratic leaders, who said neither resolution was helpful as the president tries to aid U.S. allies’ efforts.
Yet you can't bring yourself to support U.S. military involvement in a supporting role in Libya, and such involvement is more justified than our involvement in Iraq?
First, let me note that I fully support Obama's actions and feel he did not go far enough. I don't care much about UN blahblah or even congressional blahblah. Some of congress knew damn well knew what was happening and could have taken actions, but instead congress enjoys plausible deniability (calculated plausable deniability, mind us). Nonetheless, that Gaddafi remains is an international shame. The goals were clearly stated, including - Gaddafi's removal - so... what's happening here?
Gaddafi bombed his own people with his air force and employed international mercenaries (because the army, at first, balked) to execute martial law, killing thousands.
Saddam gassed 200k Kurds, drained land killing 50k Marsh Arabs and sold food-from-oil to the tune of 400k starved children (who would have had food, had he not sold it).
You so sure Gaddafi had it coming more?
I disagree. Why did Qaddaffi have it coming. The rebels started the revolution and the killing. That is what militants do. Qaddaffi attempts to maintain his country's stability, including free education, healthcare, housing, and food with moneys generated by Libyan oil and gas reserves. The USA helps by killing lots of civilians and stating that killing these civilians stops the killing of civilians. A very deceptive brand of kool-aid, but there are lots of believers to that nonsense. We are helping to get control of the Libyan oil for Europe and the UK and that is the root of this war. If you think there is any other cause, your mind has been neatly manipulated. End of story. Qaddaffi has been good for Libyans and Africans. Who are his responsibilities?
I bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:
In short, the UNPA gives the president the authority to negotiate peace agreements w/the U.N. Security Counsel in an effort to help establish peace in the face of hostilities abroad provided that a U.N. Resolution has been established concerning such hostilities. However, the President cannot go beyond the limits and scope of the U.N. resolution as mandated.
Bottom Line: The UNPA is that "statutory" authorization per section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Act.
Without knowing the exact circumstances that prompted GW Bush to take the pre-emptive offensive measures he took against Iran, I can't say for sure if his actions were right or wrong. However, what I will say is if Iran did not pose an imminant threat to U.S. national security interests (i.e., attacking their neighbor causing instability in the region that required U.N./NATO involvement towhich the U.S. became a part of per a U.N. resolution), then I'd be inclined to say yes, GW Bush may have gone a step too far in that regard.
Again, see above as well as this linked thread that discusses the matter in full detail (far better than I could, I must confess).
Haha. He owned everything for 42 years. Who else could get credit for anything? Truth is, Libya developed despite Gaddafi much like the USSR developed despite Stalin. Instead of praising the development that occured despite tyranny, we should ask what might have been.
Quite frankly, it is very possible there wouldn't be a state known as "Libya" with out Khaddafy. He held that country together through personal force of will. That isn't to say this is a good thing, but it is reality. What will happen after his fall is less certain. There is not the historical national identity in Libya that there is in Egypt or Tunisia. This makes the prognosis for the country much less clear once Khaddafy does in fact fall from power...
This seems pretty clear to me. Haven't prior presidents skirted the issue by limited involvement to a shorter time or by complying even though they believe it is unconstitutional?For reference from wiki:
...this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
I think he should be laid off too. :lol:. . .I think we should lay off Biden.
Waterboarding is a *good* thing. Starting a war not agreed to by the Congress, is a little less so.Like waterboarding?
Actually it is. If the Congress approves the use of force and funds the effort that is equal to a declaration.And congress did not declare war under Bush. Passing the buck to let him decide is not equal to a declaration of war.
A declaration of war is much more specific, mythical could bes aside.
DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
2. This power is vested in congress by the constitution, art. 1, s. 8. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.
declaration of war legal definition of declaration of war. declaration of war synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
This is legal, binding, and states congress' position. Saying you do what you want is not specific, is not laid out by the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?