Merely we've signed agreements, of our own free will, to act with them on UN missions.
The reason why the U.S. is inclined to aid the rebels is to assert a moral duty to do so.
Didya wanna prove that the Wiretaps were illegal
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.
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.
He's not.
Libya is in Northern Africa.
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.
There is no illegal wiretapping in that. Warrantless wiretapping ended a long time ago.
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. …
“There is a bipartisan consensus building to provide assistance to liberated areas of Libya and to work with our allies to enforce a no-fly zone.” — statement, Senator Mark Kirk, R-Illinois
For those with short memories:
Congressionally authorized. Check.
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.
Like I said, you must be a real fan of Kabooki theater (sp)
j-mac
You must be a real fan of Jesse Ventura.
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.
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.
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”
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."
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.
Funny how that wasn't good enough for you Chappy, when Bush was in.....tsk, tsk, tsk....
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.
“There is a bipartisan consensus building to provide assistance to liberated areas of Libya and to work with our allies to enforce a no-fly zone.” — statement, Senator Mark Kirk, R-Illinois
For those with short memories:
Congressionally authorized. Check.
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;
Example? 123…
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.
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.
Where do you get your information?
The news. Where do you hide from information?
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?