News President Obama Says No Need for Congressional Authorization for Libya

[Newai]

That is sarcasism...

Please warrant this.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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.

 

[amwest]

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.

 

[amwest]

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 receive 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]

careful russ, with comments like that you'll accused of being a sensationalist and receive 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.

 

[amwest]

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 I've been accused of. (And I'm watching my son while typing so my ideas/sentinces might be alittle disjointed.

 

[amwest]

careful russ, with comments like that you'll accused of being a sensationalist and receive 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]

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet :)

 

[amwest]

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet :)

yeah i know, but it's late and I'm tired, so there's my excuse.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[BobG]

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 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 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]

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.

 

[lisab]

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[amwest]

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?

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 that's 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)

 

[loseyourname]

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]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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]

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.