View Full Version : President Obama Says No Need for Congressional Authorization for Libya
CAC1001
May21-11, 10:45 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html
So they argue that the War Powers Act lets them invade Libya initially, but then when the sixty days is up, they decide that the U.S. involvement is so limited that Congressional authorization isn't needed? Is that right or wrong? On a side note, I see conservatives getting bent out-of-shape over this and the Left grumbling a bit, but not screaming at all. I wonder if it was George W. Bush, if the Left would be screaming and the Right would be defending him (would be interesting to see).
Wow, i'm actually sad now. Because our weak congress and media will do nothing with this. just keep letting PResidents erode our laws until we have our own Castro or Chavez simply abolish the consitution and claim dictatorship. I wonder if it will be a libral or a neo-con? who wants to start taking bets?
so how about if we only launch one nuke would that make it ok, i mean it's only one war head, we have lots????
so how about if we only launch one nuke would that make it ok, i mean it's only one war head, we have lots????
When did he launch a nuke??
Majd100
May22-11, 04:22 AM
He means that the attacks on Libya are limited to protect the civilians. USA is just assists the NATO in these attacks without major contribution.
He means that the attacks on Libya are limited to protect the civilians. USA is just assists the NATO in these attacks without major contribution.
We using the US military to to kill people in another recognized country, no matter what BS spin you try putting on it, thats war.....If we only kill a few people with our missles and artillery, thats war, no matter if we're doing to save "the good people" or innocent, we're still attacking a recognized nation and recognized leader, thats WAR!!!!!!!!!
Wow, i'm actually sad now. Because our weak congress and media will do nothing with this. just keep letting PResidents erode our laws until we have our own Castro or Chavez simply abolish the consitution and claim dictatorship. I wonder if it will be a libral or a neo-con? who wants to start taking bets?
Eh? Do you have a good (or at least reasonable) reason to think the situation isn't exactly what they claim it is? Do you actually have a good reason to spin this into heralding the downfall of civilization as we know it?
russ_watters
May22-11, 08:52 AM
On a side note, I see conservatives getting bent out-of-shape over this and the Left grumbling a bit, but not screaming at all. I wonder if it was George W. Bush, if the Left would be screaming and the Right would be defending him (would be interesting to see). Meh - the double standard irritates me, but no more than usual. IMO, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional anyway.
Vanadium 50
May22-11, 10:06 AM
Does this mean that combat pay in Libya stops?
Ryumast3r
May22-11, 01:07 PM
We using the US military to to kill people in another recognized country, no matter what BS spin you try putting on it, thats war.....If we only kill a few people with our missles and artillery, thats war, no matter if we're doing to save "the good people" or innocent, we're still attacking a recognized nation and recognized leader, thats WAR!!!!!!!!!
Many countries are starting to recognize the Libyan "Rebels" as the legitimate country, not the Gaddhafi regime, so, in essence, fighting him is like fighting Somali pirates.
Vanadium 50
May22-11, 02:46 PM
Many countries are starting to recognize the Libyan "Rebels" as the legitimate country, not the Gaddhafi regime
Which ones? I can't find any.
Ryumast3r
May22-11, 06:12 PM
Which ones? I can't find any.
France and Italy to name two right off the top of my head.
Senator McCain has called for the US to recognize them as well, and while only a few countries recognize the rebels right now as the official libya, the support is quickly shifting in their direction in terms of official recognition.
Edit: Saying many was a gaff on my part, I should have said "Countries are starting to recognize them...."
Char. Limit
May23-11, 03:20 PM
Wow, i'm actually sad now. Because our weak congress and media will do nothing with this. just keep letting PResidents erode our laws until we have our own Castro or Chavez simply abolish the consitution and claim dictatorship. I wonder if it will be a libral or a neo-con? who wants to start taking bets?
What would you expect from a president who wants to RULE by fiat through executive orders, czars and selective law enforcement?
Skippy
Wow. All of this rhetoric just from what looks to me like a U.N. supported action? Wow, I'm actually sad now, that people can turn anything into OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html
So they argue that the War Powers Act lets them invade Libya initially, but then when the sixty days is up, they decide that the U.S. involvement is so limited that Congressional authorization isn't needed? Is that right or wrong? On a side note, I see conservatives getting bent out-of-shape over this and the Left grumbling a bit, but not screaming at all. I wonder if it was George W. Bush, if the Left would be screaming and the Right would be defending him (would be interesting to see).
We didn't invade Libya, but I think the military action we have taken requires authorization by Congress regardless of the War Powers Act.
As commander-in-chief of US forces, the President has always been able to use the military to protect Americans and American property wherever they happen to be. This makes using the military to combat pirates perfectly consistent with the Constitution, as does deploying extra troops to protect American embassies during insurrections, etc.
When that military action goes beyond just responding to an immediate threat to Americans and American property, then it takes Congressional authority (Congress doesn't have to literally include the words "declaring war" to authorize a state of war).
I don't know what Americans or American property is being protected in Libya.
I'm not sure how UN resolutions should figure into this, since there was no UN when the Constitution was approved. Exactly how UN resolutions should figure into the division of war powers between Congress and the President is something that's never been resolved, but probably should be via Constitutional Amendment.
Char. Limit
May23-11, 04:50 PM
I don't know what Americans or American property is being protected in Libya.
Just a thought... but could it be these guys?
http://etap.com/industries/industry-images/oil-gas-logos.jpg
Eh? Do you have a good (or at least reasonable) reason to think the situation isn't exactly what they claim it is? Do you actually have a good reason to spin this into heralding the downfall of civilization as we know it?
I may be pesimistic but history has shown time and again that democracies and republics have a bad habit of falling to elected officials or appointed generals, when our own leadership starts or further ignores the laws and limits placed upon them then YES it is resonable to worry.
Would you claim that Cicero was over dramatic and crazy? How about Einstien while he was an anti-war activist pre WW2? Being upset that the checks and balances on our own government are being ignored isn't hystera, it's grounded in historical presidence.
Hope that doesnt earn me another warning for hystria...
the checks and balances on our own government are being ignored....
(irrelevant comments removed) This premise needs to be established before you can reasonably start ranting about the consequences if it were true.
Many countries are starting to recognize the Libyan "Rebels" as the legitimate country, not the Gaddhafi regime, so, in essence, fighting him is like fighting Somali pirates.
Why do we even bother with laws then, if a president can just decide HE doesn't recognize a leader then he can attack him or assassinate him. Sorry but we have laws in place to specificly limit war and murder, we arn't saposed to have an all powerful, president/dictator/king.
Char. Limit
May23-11, 06:21 PM
Why do we even bother with laws then, if a president can just decide HE doesn't recognize a leader then he can attack him or assassinate him. Sorry but we have laws in place to specificly limit war and murder, we arn't saposed to have an all powerful, president/dictator/king.
Actually, read a bit of Plato. Philosopher kings are the best system of government, according to him.
Wow. All of this rhetoric just from what looks to me like a U.N. supported action? Wow, I'm actually sad now, that people can turn anything into OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
Nope not all of us just my buddies in the Marine Corps, Specificly Force Recon who "arn't" on the ground... What bothers us is the fact that our governemt isn't following our own laws. and the groups in charge of checks and balances are abdicating their responcibility.
(irrelevant comments removed) This premise needs to be established before you can reasonably start ranting about the consequences if it were true.
This article is the question of whether or not a law is being ignored. Does the president have the athority to continue past 60 of aggresion in Lybia. and that leads to who's job it is to stop him, under the constitution that would be congress, who are simply ignoring the situation instead of addressing it. Hence my "Rants"...
Actually, read a bit of Plato. Philosopher kings are the best system of government, according to him.
I have trouble reading philosophy it can't hold my attenion long enough, so i'll take your word on Plato. my only two thoughts on this are 1) We don't have a king and arn't saposed to. 2) Real kings/dictators historicly turn out greedy at best and blood thirsty psycho-paths at best. I can't think of and good or great ones, sorry. If you know of any please point them out.
Char. Limit
May23-11, 06:43 PM
I have trouble reading philosophy it can't hold my attenion long enough, so i'll take your word on Plato. my only two thoughts on this are 1) We don't have a king and arn't saposed to. 2) Real kings/dictators historicly turn out greedy at best and blood thirsty psycho-paths at best. I can't think of and good or great ones, sorry. If you know of any please point them out.
I'm a big fan of Frederick the Great of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great). And Plato has some of the most readable philosophy I've ever seen. I highly recommend it. He denounces democracy as "tyranny of the majority", although that's not the phrase he uses (I forget exactly).
But back to the topic at hand, I believe that the Libyan rebels are the rightful people of Libya, and thus should be supported. I also believe that Congress should realize this, but they're against anything that Obama supports.
I'm a big fan of Frederick the Great of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great). And Plato has some of the most readable philosophy I've ever seen. I highly recommend it. He denounces democracy as "tyranny of the majority", although that's not the phrase he uses (I forget exactly).
But back to the topic at hand, I believe that the Libyan rebels are the rightful people of Libya, and thus should be supported. I also believe that Congress should realize this, but they're against anything that Obama supports.
I don't know the exact quote of plato either but, it's the one i think of every time i hear an idoitic politician or media talking head spout off about the greatness of democracy, spreading democracy, or america being a democracy.
Topic at hand, my problem is we have to follow the law and legaly declare the rebal faction the government. Now adays we just ignore the law and do what we please.
and that leads to who's job it is to stop him, under the constitution that would be congress, who are simply ignoring the situation instead of addressing it.
Or, y'know, maybe there's nothing to address? Given the premise* that it's congress's job to check the president's power in this situation, maybe the reason they are doing nothing is because the president is acting in accordance with the rules congress set forth, just like he claims to be doing?
*: For the sake of argument, I see no reason to reject this premise
Ryumast3r
May23-11, 07:34 PM
Why do we even bother with laws then, if a president can just decide HE doesn't recognize a leader then he can attack him or assassinate him. Sorry but we have laws in place to specificly limit war and murder, we arn't saposed to have an all powerful, president/dictator/king.
Oh I'm not saying that we should just ignore laws, I'm just saying that support is increasingly on the side of the libyan rebels, so, if the US were to officially recognize them as opposed to Gaddhafi, it would no longer be war on a recognized state, but would be more of a police-action similar to that of the somali pirate situation.
Or, y'know, maybe there's nothing to address? Given the premise* that it's congress's job to check the president's power in this situation, maybe the reason they are doing nothing is because the president is acting in accordance with the rules congress set forth, just like he claims to be doing?
*: For the sake of argument, I see no reason to reject this premise
You're right, maybe there is nothing to address, but i would rather scrutinize with the finest comb a possible over reach of power, than ignore it even if there is nothing wrong being done.
Oh I'm not saying that we should just ignore laws, I'm just saying that support is increasingly on the side of the libyan rebels, so, if the US were to officially recognize them as opposed to Gaddhafi, it would no longer be war on a recognized state, but would be more of a police-action similar to that of the somali pirate situation.
But my problem is that we are ignoring the laws, as i understand them. I guess it's the founding fathers fault for not being more specific on what war is, but i guess they thought it was pretty clear. OR it was the fault of the drafters of the war powers act for not specifying what war is, what a police-action is, where we get autherization to conduct world wide police actions.
Ryumast3r
May23-11, 10:26 PM
But my problem is that we are ignoring the laws, as i understand them. I guess it's the founding fathers fault for not being more specific on what war is, but i guess they thought it was pretty clear. OR it was the fault of the drafters of the war powers act for not specifying what war is, what a police-action is, where we get autherization to conduct world wide police actions.
I think the founding fathers cannot be faulted for being as general as possible, since there is no way to accurately predict how something I say will sound 200-300 years in the future, and the nature of war changes, as does politics.
The War Powers Act though, definitely should have been a little more specific.
That is sarcasism.......
Please warrant this.
You're right, maybe there is nothing to address, but i would rather scrutinize with the finest comb a possible over reach of power, than ignore it even if there is nothing wrong being done.
There are two significant drawbacks to such an attitude, though.
* Every minute of effort you spend scrutinizing the less plausible alleged abuses is one less minute you can spend on the ones actually likely to be serious.
* Every time you try to sensationalize a topic to draw attention to it and it turns out there was nothing there, you lose credibility. Eventually nobody will listen when you try to sensationalize something truly deserving to be brought to people's attention.
The latter point is relevant -- I know that I been pushed to the point where the more strongly someone tries to hype something up, the more convinced I am that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
russ_watters
May24-11, 06:43 PM
Being a cynic, I'm starting to think maybe Congress is ignoring this issue because the "war" is at a stalemate and they don't want to take the risk of being on the wrong side of any action. There aren't any Americans dying and it isn't costing us much money, so there is no significant downside to staying, but if we leave, odds are the rebels will be crushed and no one wants to be associated with that failure.
There are two significant drawbacks to such an attitude, though.
* Every minute of effort you spend scrutinizing the less plausible alleged abuses is one less minute you can spend on the ones actually likely to be serious.
* Every time you try to sensationalize a topic to draw attention to it and it turns out there was nothing there, you lose credibility. Eventually nobody will listen when you try to sensationalize something truly deserving to be brought to people's attention.
The latter point is relevant -- I know that I been pushed to the point where the more strongly someone tries to hype something up, the more convinced I am that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Simply trying to discredit me by countering my claims as sensationalism is just as bad. Especially when the subject at hand is a nationaly talked about point. As to knowing what i'm talking about, well i am not a lawyer, so as i've stated before i'm voicing my thoughts on what i think is right or in this case wrong. I have served for 6 years in the Marine Corps and have lost several friends, so in that regard i do know what i'm talking about and history has shown us that these little middle eastern spats tend to turn into something bigger. Also if you prefer facts counter my arguements with them, i'm always open to looking at things from different points of view, so try attacking my point of view instead of me.
Being a cynic, I'm starting to think maybe Congress is ignoring this issue because the "war" is at a stalemate and they don't want to take the risk of being on the wrong side of any action. There aren't any Americans dying and it isn't costing us much money, so there is no significant downside to staying, but if we leave, odds are the rebels will be crushed and no one wants to be associated with that failure.
careful russ, with comments like that you'll accused of being a sensationalist and recieve a warning from the modirators....But i do agree with you. The sensationalist in me would go so far as to say congress as a group seems more interested in preserving their image than in preserving the law.
Char. Limit
May24-11, 11:02 PM
careful russ, with comments like that you'll accused of being a sensationalist and recieve a warning from the modirators....But i do agree with you. The sensationalist in me would go so far as to say congress as a group seems more interested in preserving their image than in preserving the law.
Uhh... his name is green. He IS a mentor. And it's not sensationalist to say that Congress is mainly concerned with their collective image. That's just fact.
Uhh... his name is green. He IS a mentor. And it's not sensationalist to say that Congress is mainly concerned with their collective image. That's just fact.
yeah, but earlier when i made the claim i got a message for violating the forum rules for being a sensationalist, by claiming that congress might not be doing their job and the president might be breaking the law (war powers act) by not requesting authorization. While i may be very sarcastic at times i don't see my points as baseless of sensationalist, which ive been accused of. (And i'm watching my son while typing so my ideas/sentinces might be alittle disjointed.
careful russ, with comments like that you'll accused of being a sensationalist and recieve a warning from the modirators....But i do agree with you. The sensationalist in me would go so far as to say congress as a group seems more interested in preserving their image than in preserving the law.
For those who don't realize it this is more Scarcasm! At least the carefull russ part.
Pengwuino
May24-11, 11:35 PM
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet :)
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet :)
yeah i know, but it's late and i'm tired, so theres my excuse.
Simply trying to discredit me by countering my claims as sensationalism is just as bad.
Eh? Since when is calling someone on their poor argument a bad thing?
If I was actually asserting that everything is fine, and my method of "proving" that was to discredit you, then that would be a very bad argument. But I'm not doing that -- allow me to explicitly state that I do not have any opinion on whether things are fine or things are bad. (nor am I asserting one way or the another)
As to knowing what i'm talking about, well i am not a lawyer, so as i've stated before i'm voicing my thoughts on what i think is right or in this case wrong. I have served for 6 years in the Marine Corps and have lost several friends, so in that regard i do know what i'm talking about
I don't see the connection. How does 6 years on the front lines make you an expert in political science? At best, I can see nothing your experience contributes to the issue, except a more personal interest in everything being on the up and up. (At worst, I can imagine it making you strongly biased one way or the other on the issue)
Also if you prefer facts counter my arguements with them,
You cannot make a bad argument good by claiming "I'm right until you prove me wrong".
try attacking my point of view instead of me.
I'm completely boggled by this. I'm attacking the point of view you're presenting as being sensationalism as opposed to having any real substantive content on the issue. How did you manage to misinterpret that as a personal attack? :confused:
Being a cynic, I'm starting to think maybe Congress is ignoring this issue because the "war" is at a stalemate and they don't want to take the risk of being on the wrong side of any action. There aren't any Americans dying and it isn't costing us much money, so there is no significant downside to staying, but if we leave, odds are the rebels will be crushed and no one wants to be associated with that failure.
I think this is a major reason.
War is getting cheaper. It becomes a political decision based on how many votes your position gains you or costs you; not a decsion about whether the objective is worth the lives it costs.
The problem comes when the costs are drastically miscalculated by a Congress with little experience (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-20/politics/congress.veterans_1_veterans-care-afghanistan-and-iraq-wars-congress?_s=PM:POLITICS) in military affairs.
We saw that during the Senate debate over whether to give Bush authority to invade Iraq (http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/WeekOfShame.pdf). The Senate broke into three groups: those that supported the measure and knew why they supported it, those that opposed the measure and knew why they opposed, and a third group that looked at their polls and decided to vote for the measure while describing their vote as meaning something else (something in some alternate reality, in some cases).
While I never had much faith in the things Bush said about why we should invade, the way the issue was debated was the more important and longer lasting problem.
AlephZero
May25-11, 11:30 AM
Does the administration actually need any authorization for grandstanding?
The US (relative to NATO, and/or the UN) seems to be following the strategy of the Duke of Plaza-Toro here:
In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind
(He found it less exciting)...
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-duke-of-plaza-toro/
But I expect they will be at the head of the line to claiim brownie points, peace prizes, etc, assuming the "correct" side eventually wins.
Does the administration actually need any authorization for grandstanding?
The US (relative to NATO, and/or the UN) seems to be following the strategy of the Duke of Plaza-Toro here:
In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind
(He found it less exciting)...
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-duke-of-plaza-toro/
But I expect they will be at the head of the line to claiim brownie points, peace prizes, etc, assuming the "correct" side eventually wins.
That reminds me of the difference between "involved" and "committed". With respect to a ham and eggs breakfast: the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.
Wow, i'm actually sad now. Because our weak congress and media will do nothing with this. just keep letting PResidents erode our laws until we have our own Castro or Chavez simply abolish the consitution and claim dictatorship. I wonder if it will be a libral or a neo-con? who wants to start taking bets?
Here's my original post, stating that i believe congress and the media won't do anything about it isn't sensationalist because they are the ones with the authority(congress) and responsibility(media) of addressing whether or not it is legal.
From there i'm simply pointing out historical events where similar events have led to the fall of other republics or domocracies.
The last two sentences are just cynical sarcasm.
But not blind sensationalism.
Eh? Since when is calling someone on their poor argument a bad thing?
If I was actually asserting that everything is fine, and my method of "proving" that was to discredit you, then that would be a very bad argument. But I'm not doing that -- allow me to explicitly state that I do not have any opinion on whether things are fine or things are bad. (nor am I asserting one way or the another)
I don't see the connection. How does 6 years on the front lines make you an expert in political science? At best, I can see nothing your experience contributes to the issue, except a more personal interest in everything being on the up and up. (At worst, I can imagine it making you strongly biased one way or the other on the issue)
You cannot make a bad argument good by claiming "I'm right until you prove me wrong".
I'm completely boggled by this. I'm attacking the point of view you're presenting as being sensationalism as opposed to having any real substantive content on the issue. How did you manage to misinterpret that as a personal attack? :confused:
If you had called me on a poor argument that would have been diferent than trying to dismiss me as a sensationalist, you didn't attack my posted statements, you attacked me.(from an argument standpoint) If you had a problem with my statement then simply try discrediting me by asking for facts, instead of changing the course of the discussion from the topic to personal reference.
You say that thats not what you were doing, or intending to do it but by calling me a name, "sensationalist" you are attacking me and not my points or thoughts.
By saying i was in the Marines for six years was more to show that i have the experience of the reprecussions, and i do have a bias.
And i'm not trying to claim i'm right until prooven wrong, debate can be about learning. If people here bring new information or light to a subject then everyone has the opertunity learn. That is the reason i asked to be disputed with facts, i could and may be wrong, but i need evadence.(To bad this hasn't been an opertunity for learning better spelling skills:eek:)
loseyourname
May26-11, 12:04 PM
These things have always seemed a little murky to me. We're obviously a party to both NATO and the UN and international treaties are binding even above the Constitution. To just withdraw from a joint action is somewhat of a dereliction of duty, especially when it isn't costing us much in money or lives. The whole "combat pay" thing is pretty murky, too. It's not like you only get that for deploying to explicit combat zones in which the US is fighting a declared war. Civil Affairs units deploy to Djibouti pretty regularly to hand out textbooks and what not and get combat pay. National Guard Artillery batteries deploy to the Sinai to man the gun lines there and get combat pay. We still send Guard units to Kosovo and they earn combat pay.
And Congress pretty much implicitly authorizes these actions when they approve the supplemental appropriations requests for military operations.
Ivan Seeking
May26-11, 12:24 PM
These things have always seemed a little murky to me. We're obviously a party to both NATO and the UN and international treaties are binding even above the Constitution.
Nothing is binding above the Constitution.
These things have always seemed a little murky to me. We're obviously a party to both NATO and the UN and international treaties are binding even above the Constitution.
As Ivan said, as far as the U.S. Govt is concerned, international treaties are not binding above the Constitution.
However, an international treaty ratified by Congress has, well, been ratified by Congress.
loseyourname
May26-11, 04:56 PM
Okay, I was apparently confused about that. I looked it up again and treaties can give the federal government authority to legislate in matters that would otherwise be the exclusive domain of the states according to the Constitution, but treaties cannot otherwise directly contradict the Constitution.
drankin
May26-11, 05:32 PM
Okay, I was apparently confused about that. I looked it up again and treaties can give the federal government authority to legislate in matters that would otherwise be the exclusive domain of the states according to the Constitution, but treaties cannot otherwise directly contradict the Constitution.
I'd argue that Congress can create legislation that contradicts the Constitution. But because of the way our system is setup, it can be contested and taken to SCOTUS to determine actual Constitutionality.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.