President Obama Says No Need for Congressional Authorization for Libya

[CAC1001]

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 let's 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).

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[Newai]

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??

 

[amwest]

That is sarcasism...

 

[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.

 

[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, that's war...If we only kill a few people with our missles and artillery, that's war, no matter if we're doing to save "the good people" or innocent, we're still attacking a recognized nation and recognized leader, that's WAR!

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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]

Does this mean that combat pay in Libya stops?

 

[Ryumast3r]

We using the US military to to kill people in another recognized country, no matter what BS spin you try putting on it, that's war...If we only kill a few people with our missles and artillery, that's war, no matter if we're doing to save "the good people" or innocent, we're still attacking a recognized nation and recognized leader, that's 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BobG]

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 let's 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]

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

 

[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 einstein 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 doesn't earn me another warning for hystria...

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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"...

 

[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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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" . 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.

 

[amwest]

I'm a big fan of 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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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.

 

[amwest]

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.

 

[amwest]

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]

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.