PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Is our involvement in Libya illegal?


Direckshun
05-19-2011, 11:35 AM
A question that was asked of me today, and I wasn't entirely sure of the answer. I don't know if that says something worse about me for not knowing, or this country's foreign policy for regularly putting the question in doubt...

Two ways that I've read that this action could be legal:

1. War Powers Resolution of 1973, POTUS can wage war for 60 days.
2. That the action is time sensitive and discrete, so it's not really subject to WPR.

But the WPR mandates that any action by the POTUS must involve stopping a threat to the US. Which Libya is not.

Friday's the 60 day limit anyway, and Congress won't be passing shit.

Our involvement, by now, is not discrete, and again seems open-ended.

So I'm at a loss of figuring out exactly how the Libyan war is legal. Can anybody educate me?

ROYC75
05-19-2011, 11:37 AM
No, I can't. We shouldn't be there.

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2011, 11:38 AM
Define threat to the US and remember we are talking a lawyers rationalizing through legal logic.

MOhillbilly
05-19-2011, 11:40 AM
yes

vailpass
05-19-2011, 11:42 AM
Illegal. Unless we are securing oil deals with the rebels/soon to be new leaders we need to GTFO.

Direckshun
05-19-2011, 11:44 AM
Have we not engaged in these kinds of efforts overseas before without Congressional approval?

It's strange to me that Congress never voted on this, and doesn't want to.

mikey23545
05-19-2011, 11:46 AM
Have we not engaged in these kinds of efforts overseas before without Congressional approval?

It's strange to me that Congress never voted on this, and doesn't want to.

No one questions a czar.

Simplex3
05-19-2011, 11:50 AM
Have we not engaged in these kinds of efforts overseas before without Congressional approval?

It's strange to me that Congress never voted on this, and doesn't want to.

I think the last time Congress formally declared war was WWII. I'm not sure why we let Congress just abdicate its authority on this. Well, I know why the country does: we're generally ignorant of how our government is supposed to work.

oldandslow
05-19-2011, 12:15 PM
I think the last time Congress formally declared war was WWII. I'm not sure why we let Congress just abdicate its authority on this. Well, I know why the country does: we're generally ignorant of how our government is supposed to work.

+100000000

Unless an immediate threat is at our border and congress is out of session, the President should NOT involve the US in conflict.

Only congress has the power to declare war...I don't know why both dems and repubs refuse to recognize this.

orange
05-19-2011, 01:40 PM
It's legal under powers granted by Congress to the President to help enforce U.N. resolutions. Granted back in the 1940's perhaps, but still the law. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

As for the War Powers Resolution, no president has ever accepted that it is Constitutional. It would be up to Congress to push the issue by cutting funding or so on. And if you think there is any sentiment for that in the case of Libya, you need to come in out of the rain.

There has in fact been a Senate vote about this: 90-10 against asserting War Powers limitations.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7541068&highlight=war+powers#post7541068

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 01:58 PM
It's legal under powers granted by Congress to the President to help enforce U.N. resolutions. Granted back in the 1940's perhaps, but still the law.

As for the War Powers Resolution, no president has ever accepted that it is Constitutional. It would be up to Congress to push the issue by cutting funding or so on. And if you think there is any sentiment for that in the case of Libya, you need to come in out of the rain.

There has in fact been a Senate vote about this: 90-10 against asserting War Powers limitations.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7541068&postcount=7

Actually, no it isn't. This is inaccurate. After my lengthy debate with you on this with you, Tom Woods had additional information about enforcing UN Resolutions that is overlooked due to a poorly understood section in the UN Charter, where there is the requirement that member nations work with their own constitutional processes.


“If the United Nations authorizes military action, the president does not need to consult Congress.”

The UN Charter itself notes that the Security Council’s commitment of member nations’ troops must be authorized by these nations’ “respective constitutional processes.” The Congressional Research Service’s Louis Fisher explains further:

“Assured by Truman that he understood and respected the war prerogatives of Congress, the Senate ratified the UN Charter. Article 43 provided that all UN members shall make available to the Security Council, in accordance with special agreements, armed forces and other assistance. Each nation would ratify those agreements ‘in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ It then became the obligation of Congress to pass legislation to define the constitutional processes of the United States. Section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945 states with singular clarity that the special agreements ‘shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.’ The procedure was specific and clear. Both branches knew what the Constitution required. The President would first have to obtain the approval of Congress.”

The UN Participation Act’s provisions regarding military action and the president have often been misread, thanks to a qualification in Article 6. But that qualification simply means that once the president has obtained congressional approval for a special agreement with the UN Security Council to make American forces available to the UN, he does not need congressional approval a second time to implement that agreement.

Fisher elaborates on the UN Participation Act of 1945 here. (See especially pp. 1249-1250.)

http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/


Then there is the issue false reports on Libya to gain UN support. More about that is coming out which blows the lid off this being a humanitarian action. The internal uprisings are being fomented from the inside by the west, in particular France and I suspect our own CIA, in order to justify regime change in Libya. They have managed to give these elements a central bank and control of the oil. Then there's the fact that the UN is not supposed to get involved in the internal affairs of nations which is being usurped and has in the past.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 02:01 PM
“The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the power to commit troops anywhere he likes for 90 days.”

"Which is why it’s manifestly unconstitutional. I’ve written on this elsewhere." See War Powers Resolution Fraud (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods54.html)

The US Government is at it's most corrupt ever in history. Obama regime is more corrupt than the Bush regime which was more corrupt than the Clinton regime which was more corrupt than Bush Sr's regime. It's not getting better, it's getting worse with even more usurpations of the Contsitution.

orange
05-19-2011, 02:57 PM
For Direckshun's benefit, so he doesn't have to search through that long thread (assuming he's actually interested), here is the link you originally posted ... but then disavowed once I pointed out the parts you didn't read ... which completely blows Mr. Woods claims away.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

And here's a guy with links to the case law:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/intervening-in-libya-%E2%80%93-domestic-law-authority/

p.s I know I've seen that tomwoods.com page before. Haven't we already gone over it in some other thread?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 03:13 PM
For Direckshun's benefit, so he doesn't have to search through that long thread (assuming he's actually interested), here is the link you originally posted ... but then disavowed once I pointed out the parts you didn't read ... which completely blows Mr. Woods claims away.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

And here's a guy with links to the case law:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/intervening-in-libya-%E2%80%93-domestic-law-authority/

p.s I know I've seen that tomwoods.com page before. Haven't we already gone over it in some other thread?

Accusing me of false charges will get you nowhere, particularly since I qualified in my own words earlier how I did not agree with all aspects of that Federalist Society link when I first put it up; that it was just being used for a certain part. Remember? Furthermore, I said there was new information from Woods that shows that Federalist Society to be in error due to the omission of an often overlooked article which I just recently cited. You are either not reading, are not paying attention or you are turning deflection into a high art.

Your accusation of alleging one of the crime leaving something out is getting old orange. Here it's also your own projection, because you just left out that I posted Woods had new data and YOU LEFT OUT my own earlier qualifying statements on the Federalist link when I stated it was only used for a certain part. That part, per Woods, now turns out to be wrong as Woods provides the missing information they left out and which you have chosen to leave out here by ignoring what I actually said. At least I can change my mind when an author FACTUALLY points out another article or clause which changes my earlier post using that Federalist Society link.

Projection and ONE WHOPPIN' swing and a miss.


p.s I know I've seen that tomwoods.com page before. Haven't we already gone over it in some other thread?
I don't recall using the actual Tom Woods site earlier because I mainly found it after or at the tail end of that debate. When I did I was thinking of bumping that thread to fill in the new data. By then the thread had died and you were gone so I just left it. I do recall using some quotes from one article by Woods on Lew's but his site had much more when he challenged NeoCon Mark Levin who was using the same old tired but false arguments as others before him used.

Lawfareblog is wrong. Period.

Just the same old BS.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 03:23 PM
It's legal under powers granted by Congress to the President to help enforce U.N. resolutions. Granted back in the 1940's perhaps, but still the law. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

As for the War Powers Resolution, no president has ever accepted that it is Constitutional. It would be up to Congress to push the issue by cutting funding or so on. And if you think there is any sentiment for that in the case of Libya, you need to come in out of the rain.
I think you need to look in the mirror for that "coming out of the rain" line. You accept the actions of men instead of binding them down with the "chains of the Constitution."

It doesn't matter that any president thinks about the War Powers Resolution is Constutional or not, since that is the branch where the most abuse for war exists. This was recognized by our Framers VERY CLEARLY in the notes of the original Convention. So it's to be expected that branch will interpret it to its favor. Common street sense here. There has been a long line of usurpa tions by presidents on war creating the myth of the powerful presidency when it was INTENDED as the WEAKER branch out of the three. Congress decides and Congress funds; then the president executes once Congress decides—except where there is an imminent threat in order to save lives.That is it! Anything else is a bastardization of the document.

There has in fact been a Senate vote about this: 90-10 against asserting War Powers limitations.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7541068&highlight=war+powers#post7541068

So what. It's not the first time ignoramuses haven't been in the Senate or in the executive branch, for that matter, where more sinister conclusions can be drawn. Just because someone does something a certain way doesn't make it the right way. What do the words of the Constitution state and under what branch is that power? It's pretty simple reading orange, about the level of the 9th grade or lower.

go bowe
05-19-2011, 03:28 PM
aha, i always knew there was something deficient about your reading comprehension...

you read at the 9th grade level or lower...

that explains it...

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 03:28 PM
Define threat to the US and remember we are talking a lawyers rationalizing through legal logic.

Exactly! :thumb: However, I would prefer the word "spin" over logic because there is really NO logic here. This is what lawyers are trained to do....fast talk and spin. I've seen it so many times even on contracts and one side always loses. So at least half of the lawyers are wrong.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 03:34 PM
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


Well lemme see, my high schooler as a sophomore read this accurately. Plus it was in her course I bought on govt as well as in a few govt textbooks.

Then the article lists what Congress can do:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Oh wow, that's soooooo hard... just so erudite, that bottom feeders like to make themselves feel above the common man needing them to "intepret" aka "pull the wool" for their side. LMAO

orange
05-19-2011, 03:40 PM
Furthermore, I said there was new information from Woods that shows that Federalist Society to be in error due to the omission of an often overlooked article which I just recently cited. You are either not reading, are not paying attention or you are turning deflection into a high art.

I see nothing new there. It appears to be the same old well-worn argument that Jeffermadifranklin intended yada yada... As if Tom Woods or whoever he's quoting has a direct line to them (Ouija?).

And continued ignoring of the fact that Congress - in the UN Participation Act - authorized the President to enforce UN resolutions without seeking a Declaration of War. And continued ignoring of the fact that Congress was kept informed prior to and during the Libyan intervention. And continued ignoring of the fact that Congress had explicitly authorized Obama to enforce a No-Fly Zone over Libya. And continued ignoring of the fact that dozens of military interventions have been carried out by Presidents back to the very beginning of the U.S. without Declarations of War and that none of them have ever been ruled illegal by the courts or reversed by Congress. And continued ignoring of the fact that the nation, the law, and the Constitution were not set in stone in 1789.

But even Tom Woods or whoever he's quoting that you think is new doesn't try to make the case that THIS Congress is going to shut down THIS intervention.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 05:05 PM
Nope.

I go by the Constitution which is virtually ignored nowadays.

go bowe
05-19-2011, 05:12 PM
Nope.

I go by the Constitution which is virtually ignored nowadays.no, you go by your reading of it...

as you always say, it's just your opinion...

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 05:18 PM
This NATO intervention is based on lies and is being misreported. The humanitarian claim is a pretext. NATO wanted a war in there before the UN and there were already forces in there.

This documents the aggression by NATO and the UN in Libya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24746

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2011, 11:28 PM
Is a 90 day deployment declaring war? I wouldn't say so.

Btw...when the article said 60 days above....i stopped reading. I equate such a missed obvious fact that the writer has no credentials or shouldn't. Whivh in turn makes his "article" no different than a misinformedmpost on a message board.

So I ask the group: Do we need to import more dumbass posts? :p

Chiefspants
05-19-2011, 11:30 PM
In all honesty, it is not as if it matters.

alnorth
05-19-2011, 11:35 PM
Yes, it is legal.

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, the president has unlimited power to command the army, and a "declaration of war" is virtually meaningless.

The only restriction on the president is the fact that he doesn't control the purse. If congress doesn't like what the president is doing, they can defund whatever military action is occuring.

Is that how I wish the constitution was written? No, I would have placed a lot more restrictions on the commander in chief, but our founding fathers completely and utterly failed us in this regard.

Otter
05-19-2011, 11:38 PM
+100000000

Unless an immediate threat is at our border and congress is out of session, the President should NOT involve the US in conflict.

Only congress has the power to declare war...I don't know why both dems and repubs refuse to recognize this.

real easy answer: we let them

we're all (including myself) tied up in everyday bullshit trying to make sure we have a job, the mortgage and every other bill is paid that we're too busy to do anything buy cast a vote every once in awhile.

pretty effiecint system from a govt standpoint

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2011, 11:41 PM
The Fathers did not fail us. You are comparing the precision of information and other factors of 2011 with the conditions of 1794 and a secind start of Government.


Yes, it is legal.

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, the president has unlimited power to command the army, and a "declaration of war" is virtually meaningless.

The only restriction on the president is the fact that he doesn't control the purse. If congress doesn't like what the president is doing, they can defund whatever military action is occuring.

Is that how I wish the constitution was written? No, I would have placed a lot more restrictions on the commander in chief, but our founding fathers completely and utterly failed us in this regard.

alnorth
05-20-2011, 12:08 AM
declarations of war trigger laws and constitutional provisions such as treason.

Other than those circumstances, they are only announcements to the world. A declaration is merely words on paper, nothing more. If the founding fathers wanted to restrict military force, they easily could have, but they did not.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2011, 12:13 AM
Congress cannot change the Constitution without an amendment. This UN Part Act is not a constitutional amendment, nor was it ratified by the states. Congress cannot delegate this authority in the manner done.....if you want to be technical.I see nothing new there. It appears to be the same old well-worn argument that Jeffermadifranklin intended yada yada... As if Tom Woods or whoever he's quoting has a direct line to them (Ouija?).

And continued ignoring of the fact that Congress - in the UN Participation Act - authorized the President to enforce UN resolutions without seeking a Declaration of War. And continued ignoring of the fact that Congress was kept informed prior to and during the Libyan intervention. And continued ignoring of the fact that Congress had explicitly authorized Obama to enforce a No-Fly Zone over Libya. And continued ignoring of the fact that dozens of military interventions have been carried out by Presidents back to the very beginning of the U.S. without Declarations of War and that none of them have ever been ruled illegal by the courts or reversed by Congress. And continued ignoring of the fact that the nation, the law, and the Constitution were not set in stone in 1789.

But even Tom Woods or whoever he's quoting that you think is new doesn't try to make the case that THIS Congress is going to shut down THIS intervention.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2011, 12:21 AM
declarations of war trigger laws and constitutional provisions such as treason.

Other than those circumstances, they are only announcements to the world. A declaration is merely words on paper, nothing more. If the founding fathers wanted to restrict military force, they easily could have, but they did not.

They did in a fashion unique to the late 1700's. But what makes our Constituion great? What was the ultimate advantage to the contract? The Fathers realized they didn't have all the answers over time. So the created a document that could be amended by the people. Which we haven't done...so in a way we failed the Founding Fathers by not sticking to the contract.

BIG_DADDY
05-20-2011, 12:26 AM
Illegal? LMAO

BucEyedPea
05-20-2011, 01:01 AM
declarations of war trigger laws and constitutional provisions such as treason.

Other than those circumstances, they are only announcements to the world. A declaration is merely words on paper, nothing more. If the founding fathers wanted to restrict military force, they easily could have, but they did not.

How can they be merely words on paper, nothing more when you also said they trigger laws and constitutional provisions? It's even more than just triggering laws, it's because the people's house gets to decide and it's the people that have to risk their lives to fight them. Besides triggering laws they clearly define the enemy (or have in the past) and they provide a clear start and end. These things help win these wars. I'd also say, yes the Founders did want to restrict war if you've read their words. They felt it was kings, who had too much power vested in them, which was the reason for too may petty wars in Europe for stupid reasons. They saw it as sometimes necessary but a very grave affair and should not be entered into easily.

whoman69
05-20-2011, 12:06 PM
Illegal. Unless we are securing oil deals with the rebels/soon to be new leaders we need to GTFO.

So its illegal unless there's an economic incentive for us?

BucEyedPea
05-20-2011, 12:12 PM
So its illegal unless there's an economic incentive for us?

Good catch. As if the Libyans weren't selling their oil to the west. Besides, that's what we're really doing because for some unspoken reason it's time to take Gaddafi out. It's a neo-mercantilist goal anyway—not a security goal. Seize their assets and give it to a favorable crony. Meanwhile, it shakes up world markets and we pay for it at the pump.