Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

Ya what was the reason he gave them? Was it links to Al Qaeda that was proven false...Was it for the WMD's also proven false...

Also why does Obama need a timeline? He has 60 days to use the troops how he sees fit, by American Law. He doesn't need to ask congress ****, because they already gave him authority to do so.

At least Obama didn't table phoney evidence to support his decision, he let the media supply the evidence, civilians being gunned down by an army is more than enough reason to warrant action, or did we already forget Kosovo, Bosnia, and other wonderful government oppressions.

Oh course, W also had Rumsfeld and Cheney demanding evidence from their subordinates to justify action, but...


Point is, if we're still there after 60 days without anything going to Congress, then you can moan about it more. I don't agree with taking action in Libya, but the only reason you're against it is because of the current president. I don't think you'd even deny it.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 1:58pm by LockeColeMA

Which he is allowed to do under his authority as President for 60 days, so what is your point?

Obama actually consulted with members of Congress from both sides and then, on the following Monday, provided written justification for his use of power under the War Powers Act. You can say you don't agree with his reasons but that's neither here nor there unless Congress decides to act on it.

There's a long, proud history of asking forgiveness rather than permission. From the column Varus quoted:

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 1:45pm by Jophiel

I just asked him to expound..If he can't, he should just say so.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 10:35pm by Almalieque

I don't think I should have to. Pretty much everyone in Western Society has heard these claims. But if you want to have some proof of why people believe that Here is a bible passage you may or may not know.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
...
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Essentially, The Word Was God, and the Word became flesh and lived among us, The one who came from the father.

Another Important one that also displays reasoning to believe this:

-Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.
(Heb 1:8).
God said to his son God your throne is forever (why would god call his son god?)

Emmanuel, God with Us
Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
Emmanuel interpreted is actually God with Us.

And so on and so forth over the course of the Old testament, and New Testament. Even the following are used interchangably between God and Jesus.

The Light, The Alpha and Omega, Logos (the Word), Lord.

The old Apostles Creed which is spoken to God, uses the phrases the Lord, Lord Father, Lord God, with the holy spirit refrenced as just a spirit. While the newer Nicene Creed spoken to Jesus is Lord Jesus, God from God, True God of God, Lord, with the holy spirit referenced as giver of life.)

(note newer and older are kind of relative, as the Apostles Creed was penned largely by Matthew in 28:19 although changed over time during the first and second century when it was finally put into writing. The Nicene Creed came shortly after the council of Nicea in which the Catholic Church was born, and thus the love affair with Jesus being the God of God, and immortalizing him began.

Its all there if you read the bible to be quite honest, most people skip that stuff, I luckily happened to read the greatest novel ever written. (It is really a great book, lots of murder, and infighting and all that good stuff) Jesus may or may not have been just a man, he may or may not have been god in the flesh, but there is writtng that both supports and refutes either claim within the bible itself. There are some who practice both ways.

Was that expanded enough for you or would you like more passages to look up, and other names that are interchangeable throughout out the texts. (Just for clarification to support my overall point that Christianity is just an evolved for of the old pagan religions primarily Egyptian. Horus was also referred to as the God of God, the Sun of God, the Light, the light of the word, the lamb of god, emmanuel, The Alpha and Omega, True God of God, etc etc. as was Judaism and as such is Muslim an evolved form of all three.)

Not trying to go with logical fallacy or a counter point or anything. I just find it interesting the US hasn't formally declared war since 1941.

That's the "Purpose & Policy" section. In other words, "the rest of this bill will describe how we'd like this stuff to happen". The actual requirements come after which are the bits you lament everyone being interested in.


If this is true, there's a clear Congressional course of action. To be honest, Congress doesn't pursue it because they don't want a real Supreme Court challenge made against a legislative barrier against Constitutional powers. They'd rather the Act served as a "good enough" hedge against presidential military action than seriously test it and see it sink completely. They tested those waters with Clinton ("they" being Congress, not just Republicans) and got nowhere. As long as Obama makes the right movements within the sixty day period, no one will make a serious peep about it despite the usual grumbling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=763831&mesg_id=764064

He has authority because the UN supersedes anything as its charter was ratified prior to this Act an the US is an undersigned on said Charter, and is a major player on the security council. Ergo he has authority to send troops where ever he sees fit as long as the actions involve one or more nation involved within the UN, or any other treaty (such as NATO) Since he sent them in under a UN resolution he is completely in the right to do so for 60 days (wit a 30 day draw down)

Further supported by section 4 which says:



Of which he has complied by stating his reasoning for choosing to exercise his authority to do so.

Further supported in Section 5 which states:



He does not need to submit a report, as the clock starts ticking regardless if he files a report or not. Furthermore if this was such a big deal to the GOP why have they not exercised their constitutional authority to override the decision based on 5.(c). They can't because he has specific authority that supercedes this Act because it is a Multi-National UN action, he has provided reasoning for not declaring War.

The only thing he has not done, is submit a report to the House, or Senate, but he is only required to do so once every 6 months.



Read up on your own laws I shouldn't have to do it for you.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 8:08pm by rdmcandie

For actions approved prior to the adoption of the war powers resolution. The UNs vote to authorize humanitarian aid and support to Libyan rebels most definitely came after the enactment of the War Powers Act.

rdm actually quoted the relevant section, yet it also got ignored:



The UN simply passing a resolution isn't sufficient authorization for the President of the US to introduce US forces into hostilities. It's pretty darn clear cut. The section you both quoted after that was intended to grandfather existing military activities, not to provide the UN or NATO with the power to authorize the US President to send US forces into combat.



He was supposed to get specific authorization prior to taking action though. You're correct though that it looks as though congress is pretty much letting him get away with it. It still sets a horrible precedent though. He basically just drove a nail right through the head of the War Powers Act. Not exactly what I think most people expected of him.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 5:30pm by gbaji

I'm just tired of playing Team America: World Police.

I'll answer this again, since you both appear to have completely failed to grasp what I'm saying here:



Yes. He more or less does (although your wording is strange). If the UN or NATO decide to take some military action, the president must get authorization from Congress in addition to whatever international treaties or resolutions were also passed.

For example. In 1991, the UN authorized the use of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. In addition to that, the President also got the US Congress to approve said use of force in this resolution


Notice at the end of this resolution we once again see those familiar paragraphs:



Freaking amazing! Why, if there was no requirements for authorization needed other than a UN vote, did we bother to go through the steps of writing this "additional authorization"?

Because the war powers act specifically states that no treaty shall be inferred to be authorization "unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution."

In case you are both still curious "by legislation" means that congress has to pass a law stating that an international agreement we've entered into counts as a war powers resolution. That's why congress passed a separate joint resolution in 1991. It's why we passed one when we went into Afghanistan, and again in late 2002 in preparation to an attack on Iraq.


Isn't it strange that the Republican presidents manage to consistently do this right, but it's the Democrats who manage to find reasons to avoid complying? Yet, it's the GOP who get called war mongers and their wars labeled "illegal". It's like we're living in upside down world here.

Obama's use of military force in Libya is a clear violation of the War Powers Act. For what that's worth of course, given that as you've noted, if Congress doesn't do anything about it, then nothing happens. But let's not pretend that he didn't violate both the letter *and* the spirit of the Act itself. Lest we forget, the purpose of the Act is:




The UN is not the Congress. The Act was (among other things) directly intended to prevent the President from using the UN to circumvent Congressional approval for war (those pesky "police actions" we had in Korea and Viet Nam being key reasons for the Act in the first place). Yet, that is exactly what Obama did in this case. He's violated the law. Pure and simple. Now perhaps he'll get away with it (although I'm quite sure no Republican president would), but that doesn't change the absolute fact that he did violate the law in this case.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 6:27pm by gbaji

lulz. Coming for forgiveness rather than permission is the standard operating procedure for the War Powers Act. You should educate yourself a little so you'd stop acting like such an outraged virgin who just got her butt patted.

The "purpose" of the act can be whatever it wants. Obama complied with the actual regulations laid down in the act re: consultation and reporting.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 8:44pm by Jophiel