President Obama Says No Need for Congressional Authorization for Libya

  • News
  • Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date
  • #26
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
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
 
  • #27
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.
 
  • #28
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.
 
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
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.
 
  • #31
18
1
That is sarcasism.......
Please warrant this.
 
  • #32
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
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.
 
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
19,320
5,355
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.
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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 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.
 
  • #36
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
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.
 
  • #37
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 ive been accused of. (And i'm watching my son while typing so my ideas/sentinces might be alittle disjointed.
 
  • #38
amwest
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.
 
  • #39
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet :)
 
  • #40
amwest
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet :)
yeah i know, but it's late and i'm tired, so theres my excuse.
 
  • #41
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
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:
 
  • #42
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
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 [Broken] in military affairs.

We saw that during the http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/WeekOfShame.pdf [Broken]. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291
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.
 
  • #44
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
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.
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
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? :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:)
 
  • #47
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
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.
 
  • #48
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
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.
 
  • #49
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
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.
 
  • #50
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
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.
 

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