Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

After looking through this, this act is pretty much useless, it doesn't really prevent anything. The president can do whatever he wants with the military as long as he gives a report within 6 months. To be quite frank, it is a worthless waste of ink.

I'm well aware of the history of the Act Joph. The point is that Obama is the first president to engaged in a massive and ongoing campaign of attacks on foreign soil who has not bothered to get any sort of congressional authorization before hand. Most of the rest involve putting soldiers into areas where they might be attacked, but on non-military missions and the question of where the boundaries lie comes up.

Reagan putting marines in the embassy in Lebanon, for example. Technically, we were not at war in the country, there was no military endeavor in place, and an embassy is sovereign soil. Skirting the rules, but not breaking them. Similar arguments have been used to justify the use of military advisers and trainers. The argument being that they aren't being given offensive military orders and aren't there to engage in hostilities.


Surely you can agree that Obama's actions in Libya go well beyond those past events? This isn't a single air strike on a terrorist camp, or putting military forces in international or US controlled areas in order to "show our colors" so to speak. This isn't even putting forces in a quasi war zone with the intent to create safe havens for refugees.

We're talking about an active and ongoing air campaign to destroy a nations military forces. We're actively seeking out and engaging that nations air and ground defenses. This is a war by any definition, no matter what they're trying to call it.



OMFG! So you're saying that the law says whatever the president wants it to say, but only when it's a Democratic president sitting in the White House? Are you seriously suggesting that if Bush had done something like this that you wouldn't be one of the many voices on this forum howling for impeachment?

Of course you would. And you damn well know it!



No, he didn't. Those are not the only requirements, as I have stated several times now. You're using the excuse that past presidents haven't followed the regulations perfectly to justify Obama completely ignoring them.


For the most part, past actions have at least tried to come up with some reason why what they are doing wasn't putting our forces into hostilities, or that it was a small enough but important enough action to take immediately that the president had to act. This was neither. Obama had enough time to get the US to pass a resolution, but couldn't be bothered to ask Congress to authorize said action under the War Powers Act? Heck. He could have even asked Congress to pass a resolution and then decided that the need was too great to wait and he'd have some kind of cover. But he didn't do that and still hasn't done that. He's making the same ridiculous case many of you are that he doesn't need to ask permission, but merely to notify after the fact. And while that may fly for a single air strike, or rescue operation, or other similar actions, this is way way way way beyond those in terms of scope. He's committing us to a military campaign.


It's a clear violation. Just because there have been past violations doesn't make this not a violation too.

Obviously not, Mr. "Republican presidents manage to consistently do this right".


No, you ******. I'm saying that the introductory parts of a bill are not the actual legislative mechanics. You keep quoting those parts rather than paying any attention to the actual mechanics that must be complied with. If I pass a law and preface it with "We don't want anyone to eat apples" and then the actual mechanics are "When eating an apple, you must give me a call and let me know", that doesn't make eating apples illegal. It makes eating apples without giving me a call illegal.


Yeah, you keep "stating it" because you don't understand it.

Yes. Hello!? That means that congress says that they authorize the actions requested by the UN under the War Powers Act. Without that authorization, the UN's resolution doesn't do so. What part of that don't you get? I've only explained this three times now!






Ok. You're still not getting it. Nowhere in the UN charter does it say that in 2011, the UN authorizes member states to partake in military actions against Libya. This section of the War Powers Act was intended to grandfather existing military operations being undertaken by the US military as part of any existing treaty agreements with foreign nations that already existed at the time the War Powers Act was passed.

It did not give a blanket authorization to any future agreements which might be passed in the UN. I suspect you just plain aren't understanding this. I'll point out again that one of the reasons this Act was passed was because of police actions like Korea and Viet Nam. In both cases, the president at the time used the existence of international agreements to justify "police actions" in those countries and thus skirt the requirement that congress authorize war.

The War Powers Act was created precisely to avoid this. But that's exactly what Obama has just done. You can't possibly fail to see this, can you?



And btw. It doesn't matter what the UN charter says. It's US law which matters. And the US law says that only military actions already approved prior to the passage of the War Powers Act do not need to comply with that act. I'll point out again that the UN resolution which authorized the military operations in Libya was passed well after that time. The argument you're making is absurd. Just stop and think about it for a bit and you'll see why.

How does asking you to expound on a statement that you said in a paragraph of biased beliefs translates into me as knowing less than you? Just another curious question.

Given the biased beliefs of the rest of your post, I was curious on your interpretation of that statement, hence the reason why I asked for you to expound. That's the reason why I didn't quote the parts which I obviously disagree with, but that particular claim. It sounded like the only possible legitimate claim, which seemed very odd to me.

I'm just going to concede in saying that you're not comprehending my statement. Maybe a failure on my explanation. In any case, cool story indeed.

Except it doesn't matter if congress accepts it or not. The War measures act is a useless piece of legislation. In the end it allows the President to use the military as he sees fit for up to 60 days, as long as he notifies congress and provides a report at least 1 time in a 6 month period. Furthermore Congress can not deny the use of troops in UN sanctioned missions that fall under Chapter 7 articles, as they were all written prior to the War Measures Act. Regardless of the fact the UN resolution was ratified after. The Measures act clearly stipulates UN Charter not UN resolutions. As such anything pertaining to the Charter (minus a few amendments that occurred post-measures act) Is not in violation of the War Measures act. Just because congress agreed to it doesn't mean that they had a choice in the matter.

It is clearly written in plain English that the UN Charter falls under Statutory Authorization. The Charter not each specific resolution. Other treaties (specifically NATO also fall into this category). What it does not permit is for the President to send US forces solely into battle under a UN resolution 1 or more Countries must also be involved. Since there a half dozen nations involved this is a purely legitimate action.

Not that any of that matters since the President can use the military as he sees fit for up to 60 days, as long as he notifies congress and provides a report 1 time within 6 months.

So quit ******** about and wait for 60 days, then if you are still there, ***** about it. The law is right there, its pretty effing clear, and the UN Charter that it is supported by (specifically Chapter 7 Articles) are pretty effing clear too.

Isn't Law fun, you say potato and I say potato.



He could have for 60 days. But I agree with you the left would have ******* and moaned about it (oh wait they did anyway regardless) kind of like how the right is now your partisan politics is funny. But notice how there hasn't been a motion to overturn the Presidents decision....***** and moan is all they can do, because Obama is 100% within his authority.





Edited, Apr 13th 2011 12:33am by rdmcandie

Well to be fair I supported the initial Afghan War, and supported my countries contribution to committing troops. Initially. Nearing a decade later I really don't know why we are there still. Fighting an enemy that gets stronger, simply by being there fighting them. How can you win that which is not winnable. The Iraq War I did not agree with, and still don't it was a dirty war, and I dislike Britain and America even going. Mostly based on the fact that Iraq had complied with the UN resolution (1441) allowed inspectors and provided a list of all their weaponry well before the deadline date (January 15th 2003). I support the Libyan campaign in the same light that I supported the Kosovo War. Khadaffi needs to be stopped, the same as Mislosivech was in 99. He and his upper staff should be marched infront of a UN tribunal and charged with crime against humanity. Combating a rebellion is one thing, killing innocent people because they don't like you on the way is not.