President Obama Says No Need for Congressional Authorization for Libya

  • News
  • Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date
  • #1
CAC1001

Main Question or Discussion Point

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).
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
amwest
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?
 
  • #3
amwest
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????
 
  • #4
18
1
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??
 
  • #5
amwest
That is sarcasism.......
 
  • #6
Majd100
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.
 
  • #7
amwest
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!!!!!!!!!
 
  • #8
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
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?
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
19,297
5,326
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.
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
23,836
6,274
Does this mean that combat pay in Libya stops?
 
  • #11
Ryumast3r
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.
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
23,836
6,274
Many countries are starting to recognize the Libyan "Rebels" as the legitimate country, not the Gaddhafi regime
Which ones? I can't find any.
 
  • #13
Ryumast3r
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...."
 
  • #14
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
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.
 
  • #15
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
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.
 
  • #16
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
I don't know what Americans or American property is being protected in Libya.
Just a thought... but could it be these guys?

[PLAIN]http://etap.com/industries/industry-images/oil-gas-logos.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
amwest
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...
 
  • #18
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
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.
 
  • #19
amwest
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.
 
  • #20
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
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.
 
  • #21
amwest
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.
 
  • #22
amwest
(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"...
 
  • #23
amwest
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.
 
  • #24
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great" [Broken]. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
amwest
I'm a big fan of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great" [Broken]. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: President Obama Says No Need for Congressional Authorization for Libya

Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
19K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Top