PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Ball starting to drop on the Libya excursion.


Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:47 PM
Would be really strange if Congress simply didn't act on the issue.

Nobody in Congress seems to be willing to go on record for or against. Congress may just run out the clock.

Bizarre... Damn near irresponsible.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/boehner-warns-obama-to-act-by-sunday-or-risk-violating-war-powers-act.html

Boehner Warns Obama to Act By Sunday or Risk Violating War Powers Act
June 14, 2011 4:12 PM

In a letter that will be released in about 15 minutes, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) tells President Barack Obama that he and his administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless by Sunday he receives authorization from Congress for military operations in Libya -- or ends them.

Says Boehner's office: "With only five days until the 90-day mark for U.S. military operations in Libya, the Speaker is seeking a clear explanation of the legal standing under the War Powers Resolution by which the administration believes it has the authority to continue operations after Sunday, June 19, 2011."

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:48 PM
Although, it should be noted, that orange has made the argument that Obama could continue this excursion legally under our UN resolution. I'll see if I can locate his post.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:49 PM
Go Chiefs.

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

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?

Saul Good
06-14-2011, 02:52 PM
Is this another case of nothing getting done unless the Republicans spearhead it? Democrats are the party of limited government and policing the world, after all.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:53 PM
Is this another case of nothing getting done unless the Republicans spearhead it? Democrats are the party of limited government and policing the world, after all.

I was talking about the nanny state in the thread you're referencing.

I'm not sure what's causing this particular stall. Hardly anything has been written about it.

orange
06-14-2011, 04:09 PM
Is this another case of nothing getting done unless the Republicans spearhead it? Democrats are the party of limited government and policing the world, after all.

No, it obviously isn't - to anyone paying attention, anyway. Boehner is acting on a resolution he offered on June 2 to head off a resolution offered by Kucinich (D - Ohio).

It's all in that thread - you could "pick it up" and read it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=245515

Oh, and the money quote:

I fail to see how demanding to follow the Constitution by asking for an authorization from Congress is doing nothing.

It wouldn't be "doing nothing" - if they were doing that. But they're not doing that - they're doing nothing.
... ignoring ... no action ... no plans ... unlikely to touch ... no interest ...
Please show me this mythic "demand to follow the Constitution" in the OP.

My comment, on the other hand, shows that at least someone is doing something - Kucinich. We shall see what the rest of the House does.

orange
06-14-2011, 04:17 PM
I'm not sure what's causing this particular stall. Hardly anything has been written about it.

Support for Boehner's resolution was never really in doubt, as it was developed in large part to provide a less drastic alternative to Kucinich's increasingly popular language. Several members noted that they would vote for both resolutions, and saw them as compatible.

But in putting forward the Boehner resolution, Republicans were forced to acknowledge that they largely support ongoing military action in Libya, despite their complaints about Obama's failure to consult Congress. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) seemed to best describe these competing issues during the debate.

"We must not let our frustration with the president's contempt for Congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that would harm our standing, our credibility and our interests in the region," she said.

Boehner took to the floor early in the debate to argue that the U.S. does in fact have security interests in Libya that are being addressed by a military presence.

"In my view, the gentleman's resolution goes too far," Boehner said of Kucinich's proposal. "We may have differences regarding how we got here, but we cannot turn backs on our troops and our NATO partners who have stuck by us over the last 10 years."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/03-6

House Republican leaders believe that if the resolution being offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio -- requiring the president to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from participation in the NATO mission in Libya within 15 days – had come up yesterday it would have passed.

Instead the Kucinich bill comes up tomorrow. With the Boehner bill an alternative.

According to a House Republican aide, in the House GOP conference this afternoon, Speaker Boehner said: “The Kucinich measure will express our constituents’ angst, but it will also have long-term consequences I believe are unacceptable. If Kucinich passes, it will have an impact on Afghanistan. From a NATO perspective, we're trying to hold the alliance together and advance a common agenda in Afghanistan. We will have turned our backs against our NATO partners who have stuck by us for the last 10 years.”

Boehner then quoted from a Heritage Foundation paper on the possibility of congressional action on Libya: “’Any action by Congress must have due regard for U.S. responsibilities to its allies. It would be completely irresponsible of the U.S. to presumptively withdraw support from allies that are in harm’s way. Many NATO nations stood, fought, and died with American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing should be done to suggest that America would precipitously abandon its allies.’”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/speaker-boehner-throws-down-the-war-powers-act-gauntlet-on-libya.html

orange
06-15-2011, 06:44 PM
White House to Congress: We Don't Need Your Authorization On Libya

First Posted: 06/15/11 07:08 PM ET Updated: 06/15/11 07:13 PM ET
Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn't need lawmakers' approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we're not at war.

Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn't need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed.

"We are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution," an administration official said on a conference call with reporters. "That doesn't mean that we don't want the full, ongoing consultation with Congress or authorization as we move forward, but that doesn't go to our legal position under the statute itself, and we're confident of that."

The call came hours before the White House submitted a detailed, 32-page report to Congress that maps out the administration's legal justification for Obama continuing to call the shots on Libya without congressional approval.

See below for a copy of the report and Obama's accompanying letter to Congress. Lawmakers will be poring over it for details primarily on two things: 1) the costs of U.S. military operations, which the report puts at $715.9 million, from mid-March through June 3, and 2) the goals of U.S. involvement. The report gives a general sense of military goals as being "to protect civilians and enforce the terms of the resolution," while political goals are to work with the international community "to bring stability to Libya and allow the Libyan people to reclaim their future."

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said a quick read of the report raises a number of questions about "the creative arguments" being made by the White House.

"The Commander-in-Chief has a responsibility to articulate how U.S. military action is vital to our national security and consistent with American policy goals," Buck said. "With Libya, the president has fallen short on this obligation. We will review the information that was provided today, but hope and expect that this will serve as the beginning, not the end, of the president’s explanation for continued American operations in Libya.”

Lawmakers in both parties have grown frustrated with Obama for not consulting Congress on the U.S. role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya, which began in March when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi began threatening violence against potentially thousands of his citizens as they protested his regime. The White House has maintained all along that a massacre was averted because the U.S. took quick action and joined with NATO to stop Gaddafi's forces.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of Obama's most vocal critics on Libya, led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in filing a lawsuit against Obama earlier Wednesday over the constitutionality of launching military operations without congressional approval. He later issued a statement in response to the White House report.

“The White House claim that the war is not war is not a legal argument. It is a political argument," Kucinich said in a statement. "The legal argument will hopefully be addressed by the courts. Today, I, along with 9 of my colleagues, filed suit in federal court challenging the rationale that has brought our nation to an Orwellian war that is not war."

Boehner also warned Obama Tuesday that he may be in violation of the War Powers Act by Sunday if he doesn't seek congressional authorization by then. Sunday marks 90 days of U.S. operations in Libya; per the War Powers resolution, a president is required to obtain congressional approval for continued action by this date.

But the White House is sending a clear signal that they don't believe they need that authorization. During the conference call, the administration official ticked off numerous reasons why U.S. involvement in Libya doesn't constitute a violation of the War Powers resolution.

"We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute," said the official. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting. There's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don't have troops on the ground. We don't risk casualties to those troops. None of the factors … has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power."

Instead, the U.S. is only providing intelligence and refueling capabilities, said the official. And while that role brings "a set of unique capabilities" to the international effort, it is a far cry from the responsibility that NATO has for enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians militarily.

"The bottom line is that lives have been saved," said a second administration official. "The president was very clear at the front end of this effort that the U.S. contribution would be limited in scope and duration; that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. And that, of course, is a commitment that the president has kept and will continue to keep."

You can read the White House report here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81815761/US-Activities-In-Libya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-power-act-congress-libya_n_877736.html

HonestChieffan
06-15-2011, 06:51 PM
This is one case where Obots cant point to Bush. He got permission.......

Amazing is the change in Obama's positions over time. He is like a shape shifter

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried-and-failed policy, opposed by generals and experts, opposed by Democrats and Republicans, opposed by Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America’s effort on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jan. 19, 2007

And some in Washington are even more determined:

(Fox News) — A group of lawmakers plans to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration, questioning the constitutional and legal justifications for military action in Libya, Fox News has confirmed.

The bipartisan group is being led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C., and includes GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.

Kucinich and Jones will lead a news conference at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to outline the claims. But according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News, the group is seeking “injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from a stated policy of defendant Barack Obama, president of the United States, whereby a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without the declaration of war from Congress required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”

The suit says the lawmakers are also seeking a judge to rule that the president may not commit the U.S. to war under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or under the authority of the United Nations, or in violation of the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force.

It also calls for a ruling that the president may not use “funds, previously appropriated by Congress, for unconstitutional and unauthorized wars in Libya or other countries.”

The White House has argued for months that NATO is not leading the way in Libya and so the president doesn’t need permission from Congress to keep American forces fighting in the battle to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi’s regime.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2011, 07:38 PM
This is one case where Obots cant point to Bush. He got permission.......
On Afghanistan. Not quite the whole truth on Iraq. As I recall, Bush didn't feel he needed Congress either eventhough they, at least, crafted something. Then his Congress flat-out violated the Constitution by transferring their own congressional powers to the president allowing him to decide when to use force. Not okay!!!

The Rs, once again, fail to see through the subterfuge.

Chocolate Hog
06-15-2011, 07:45 PM
Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:03 PM
Right or wrong, Obama needs to take this to the Congress. He can play this game where we pretend we aren't dropping real bombs on real targets and real people, etc., etc. but it's BS.

WTF do we really even gain by this action in Libya anyway? Nevertheless, he needs to go to Congress and get approval.

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:04 PM
Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

Actually he isn't. Bush went to Congress and got approval for Iraq. The hidden history Democrats love to keep tucked away in the closet.

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:05 PM
On Afghanistan. Not quite the whole truth on Iraq. As I recall, Bush didn't feel he needed Congress either eventhough they, at least, crafted something. Then his Congress flat-out violated the Constitution by transferring their own congressional powers to the president allowing him to decide when to use force. Not okay!!!

The Rs, once again, fail to see through the subterfuge.

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. I believe the USSC even upheld that to say it was tantamount to a declaration of war.

orange
06-15-2011, 08:05 PM
Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

Prove we're in a war in Libya. Have any Americans died? Have we bombed anyone lately?

I'll bet we're doing more in Yemen.

p.s. U.S deaths in Iraq - 4462

Chocolate Hog
06-15-2011, 08:06 PM
Prove we're in a war in Libya. Have any Americans died? Have we bombed anyone lately?

I'll bet we're doing more in Yemen.

p.s. U.S deaths in Iraq - 4462

Semantics.

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:07 PM
Prove we're in a war in Libya. Have any Americans died? Have we bombed anyone lately?

I'll bet we're doing more in Yemen.

p.s. U.S deaths in Iraq - 4462

Is my sarcasm meter off???

So you are saying that because we have had no deaths in regards to Libya we aren't really dropping bombs and blowing things up over there?

orange
06-15-2011, 08:07 PM
I believe the USSC even upheld that to say it was tantamount to a declaration of war.

:BS:

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:07 PM
:BS:

I do not believe so. You can search if you want but I stand by that for the moment.

orange
06-15-2011, 08:08 PM
So you are saying that because we have had no deaths in regards to Libya we aren't really dropping bombs and blowing things up over there?

We haven't even been doing much of that. A couple of drone strikes for the last month and a half.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2011, 08:09 PM
Well we have a way to measure now. As long as we hang under the 4462 dead level, it is a cool non-war.

orange
06-15-2011, 08:11 PM
I do not believe so. You can search if you want but I stand by that for the moment.

Doe v. Bush

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion and this challenge failed. Judge Lynch summarized the claims for illegality as: "They argue that the President is about to act in violation of the October resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion—that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."

Judge Lynch summarized the position of the United States Government as: "The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference. Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat."

The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judge Lynch wrote "this issue is not fit now for judicial review" and that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.

mlyonsd
06-15-2011, 08:12 PM
I wonder if congress's complacency has something to do with a total lack of leadership by obama.

Jaric
06-15-2011, 08:19 PM
Prove we're in a war in Libya. Have any Americans died? Have we bombed anyone lately?

I'll bet we're doing more in Yemen.

p.s. U.S deaths in Iraq - 4462

Pretend Mexico did to us what we did to Libya.

What do you think our response would be? I dare say we would probably consider it an act of war don't you think?

orange
06-15-2011, 08:21 PM
Doe v. Bush

A case Kucinich and Paul should look into - unless, of course, their real intention is just to jump up and down and call attention to themselves.

Here's another:

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Federal judge dismisses Iraq war legality lawsuit
Andrew Morgan at 10:47 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court of New Jersey [official website] dismissed [opinion, PDF] a lawsuit Tuesday brought by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at the Rutgers School of Law [academic website] alleging that former president George W. Bush [official profile] violated Congress's constitutional power [Article I § 8 text] to declare war by initiating a preemptive war against the nation of Iraq. Granting the government's motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Jose Linares found that the issue should be resolved by the government's political branches:

Rather than leaving to Congress the issue of whether to declare war and thereby invoke various corresponding obligations, Plaintiff's would have this Court second-guess Congress's decision to authorize something short of "war." This is plainly not the judiciary's role. ... Congress is fully-equipped to analyze the treaties, policy considerations, and accompanying obligations that would follow from a declaration of war and to choose a separate path accordingly. The fact that the United States is engaged in military action absent a declaration of war does not automatically invite the judiciary's analysis as to whether that action is "constitutionally sanctioned."

Linares also found that the plaintiffs, New Jersey Peace Action [advocacy website] and three private citizens, did not have standing under Article III [text] of the Constitution to challenge the validity of the invasion of Iraq.

The suit was filed [JURIST report] last May, seeking a declaratory judgment of the war's illegality. In July, the National War Powers Consortium [official website], a group headed by former secretaries of state James Baker and Warren Christopher [group profiles], released a report calling for a new law [JURIST report] requiring the president to consult with Congress before going to war. In April 2008, the Law Lords, Britain's highest court, denied a similar request [JURIST report] by two mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq for a public inquiry into the legality of UK's decision to go to war in Iraq.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/federal-judge-dismisses-iraq-war.php

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:24 PM
Pretend Mexico did to us what we did to Libya.

What do you think our response would be? I dare say we would probably consider it an act of war don't you think?

We've spent $716 million so far in Libya for nothing to be going on...

orange
06-15-2011, 08:25 PM
Pretend Mexico did to us what we did to Libya.

What do you think our response would be? I dare say we would probably consider it an act of war don't you think?

Libya's free to think what they want. They can also try to run the blockade - well, except that they don't have any ships left.

Personally, I thought it was an act of war when they brought down our jetliner, but that's just me.

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:25 PM
A case Kucinich and Paul should look into - unless, of course, their real intention is just to jump up and down and call attention to themselves.

Here's another:

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Federal judge dismisses Iraq war legality lawsuit
Andrew Morgan at 10:47 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court of New Jersey [official website] dismissed [opinion, PDF] a lawsuit Tuesday brought by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at the Rutgers School of Law [academic website] alleging that former president George W. Bush [official profile] violated Congress's constitutional power [Article I § 8 text] to declare war by initiating a preemptive war against the nation of Iraq. Granting the government's motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Jose Linares found that the issue should be resolved by the government's political branches:

Rather than leaving to Congress the issue of whether to declare war and thereby invoke various corresponding obligations, Plaintiff's would have this Court second-guess Congress's decision to authorize something short of "war." This is plainly not the judiciary's role. ... Congress is fully-equipped to analyze the treaties, policy considerations, and accompanying obligations that would follow from a declaration of war and to choose a separate path accordingly. The fact that the United States is engaged in military action absent a declaration of war does not automatically invite the judiciary's analysis as to whether that action is "constitutionally sanctioned."

Linares also found that the plaintiffs, New Jersey Peace Action [advocacy website] and three private citizens, did not have standing under Article III [text] of the Constitution to challenge the validity of the invasion of Iraq.

The suit was filed [JURIST report] last May, seeking a declaratory judgment of the war's illegality. In July, the National War Powers Consortium [official website], a group headed by former secretaries of state James Baker and Warren Christopher [group profiles], released a report calling for a new law [JURIST report] requiring the president to consult with Congress before going to war. In April 2008, the Law Lords, Britain's highest court, denied a similar request [JURIST report] by two mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq for a public inquiry into the legality of UK's decision to go to war in Iraq.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/federal-judge-dismisses-iraq-war.php

Whatever, you lost a lot of credibility with me when you claimed there is no war going on in Libya.

Jaric
06-15-2011, 08:27 PM
Libya's free to think what they want. They can also try to run the blockade - well, except that they don't have any ships left.

Personally, I thought it was an act of war when they brought down our jetliner, but that's just me.

This sounds a whole lot like a... what's that word... war?

orange
06-15-2011, 08:28 PM
This sounds a whole lot like a... what's that word... war?

... And WHO sank the ships?

orange
06-15-2011, 08:29 PM
Whatever, you lost a lot of credibility with me when you claimed there is no war going on in Libya.

You post total bullshit nonsense you pull out of your ass, then "stand by it" when called on it, and you have the audacity to type the word "credibility?" LMAO

Jaric
06-15-2011, 08:30 PM
... And WHO sank the ships?

So what are we doing with that 700+ million we've spent already over there? Playing poker?

HonestChieffan
06-15-2011, 08:32 PM
So what are we doing with that 700+ million we've spent already over there? Playing poker?

non fighting non wars aint cheap.

orange
06-15-2011, 08:33 PM
So what are we doing with that 700+ million we've spent already over there? Playing poker?

Most of it ($600 million plus, I think; HCF posted the numbers a couple days ago) were spent in the first couple weeks.

We've basically been doing resupply, radio intelligence and so forth since then.

We never declared war prior to Lend Lease, either - with even less legal justification. And like I said, I bet we spend more in Yemen.

[edit]I suppose this is worth it, right? We have the money I guess....



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11d5624c-920f-11e0-b8c1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OnT9bMM6


(FT) — US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times.

Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people.

But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.

The document, entitled the “United States Contribution to Operation Unified Protector’’, adds that US costs are running at a rate of about $2m a day or $60m a month. The memo has been circulating on Capitol Hill since last week. The DoD declined to comment on the increased costs of the operation.

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:34 PM
You post total bullshit nonsense you pull out of your ass, then "stand by it" when called on it, and you have the audacity to type the word "credibility?" LMAO

Even if I were to concede your credibility has been shot with your Libya response.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. I believe the USSC even upheld that to say it was tantamount to a declaration of war.

They transferred their authority to Bush on Iraq to use "military force."

Also we started an aggressive war—not exactly just a use of "military force." That requires a Declare of War. Same with Obama on Libya.

"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time," insisted the late Rep. Henry Hyde in 2002, as the regime of Bush the Lesser prepared to invade and occupy Iraq. "Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the president, 'Use your judgment.'" Having Congress declare war, Hyde concluded, would be "inappropriate, anachronistic – it isn’t done anymore."


http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w201.html

petegz28
06-15-2011, 08:56 PM
They transferred their authority to Bush on Iraq to use "military force."

They authorized the use of force. WTF do you want? He asked for it, they approved it.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2011, 08:58 PM
Most of it ($600 million plus, I think; HCF posted the numbers a couple days ago) were spent in the first couple weeks.

We've basically been doing resupply, radio intelligence and so forth since then.

We never declared war prior to Lend Lease, either - with even less legal justification. And like I said, I bet we spend more in Yemen.

[edit]


FYI...the cost is growing....

"The report also put US costs at $715 million for military and humanitarian operations in Libya since unrest began in the north African country earlier this year and the projected price tag through September is about $1.1 billion."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzZ7C2f6ctDf1MTg4nEReFX2kzyg?docId=CNG.c06b7baf338858d0588bb3731051b716.411

Some expensive resupply and radio listening there....

orange
06-15-2011, 09:05 PM
FYI...the cost is growing....

"The report also put US costs at $715 million for military and humanitarian operations in Libya since unrest began in the north African country earlier this year and the projected price tag through September is about $1.1 billion."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzZ7C2f6ctDf1MTg4nEReFX2kzyg?docId=CNG.c06b7baf338858d0588bb3731051b716.411

Some expensive resupply and radio listening there....

Actually, it's $0.8 billion.

The total projected cost for DoD operations through September 30, 2011, which is the end of the second 90-day authorization by NATO, is about $1.1 billion. This estimate assumes the current tempo of support operations continues through September 30. Close to $300 million of this total will be offset by lower peacetime operating costs in the Air Force, in part as a result of the Libyan operations. Hence the current estimate of incremental costs through September 30 is about $0.8 billion.

I bet my source is every bit as good as AFP's - I just read better than Stephen Collinson.

You know, these numbers actually agree with your earlier numbers up above (#34) - about $60 million/month now.

Chocolate Hog
06-15-2011, 09:41 PM
Actually, it's $0.8 billion.

The total projected cost for DoD operations through September 30, 2011, which is the end of the second 90-day authorization by NATO, is about $1.1 billion. This estimate assumes the current tempo of support operations continues through September 30. Close to $300 million of this total will be offset by lower peacetime operating costs in the Air Force, in part as a result of the Libyan operations. Hence the current estimate of incremental costs through September 30 is about $0.8 billion.

I bet my source is every bit as good as AFP's - I just read better than Stephen Collinson.

You know, these numbers actually agree with your earlier numbers up above (#34) - about $60 million/month now.


Semantics. Bombing a country isn't an act of war? Why are we in Afghanistan again?

HonestChieffan
06-15-2011, 09:49 PM
I suppose if a few F16s crash in Libya, we can claim a savings in peacetime operations from not needing to store, maintain and operate those planes. Fun with words and numbers does not alter the cost, the fact it is growing, and its authorization is in dispute.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2011, 05:21 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2Yj1K3BGUhI/TfmvAZhk_aI/AAAAAAABEPY/d7Z_pAAgy8s/s400/Gaddafi%2BDucking.jpg

patteeu
06-16-2011, 05:52 AM
White House to Congress: We Don't Need Your Authorization On Libya

First Posted: 06/15/11 07:08 PM ET Updated: 06/15/11 07:13 PM ET
Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn't need lawmakers' approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we're not at war.

Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn't need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed.

"We are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution," an administration official said on a conference call with reporters. "That doesn't mean that we don't want the full, ongoing consultation with Congress or authorization as we move forward, but that doesn't go to our legal position under the statute itself, and we're confident of that."

The call came hours before the White House submitted a detailed, 32-page report to Congress that maps out the administration's legal justification for Obama continuing to call the shots on Libya without congressional approval.

See below for a copy of the report and Obama's accompanying letter to Congress. Lawmakers will be poring over it for details primarily on two things: 1) the costs of U.S. military operations, which the report puts at $715.9 million, from mid-March through June 3, and 2) the goals of U.S. involvement. The report gives a general sense of military goals as being "to protect civilians and enforce the terms of the resolution," while political goals are to work with the international community "to bring stability to Libya and allow the Libyan people to reclaim their future."

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said a quick read of the report raises a number of questions about "the creative arguments" being made by the White House.

"The Commander-in-Chief has a responsibility to articulate how U.S. military action is vital to our national security and consistent with American policy goals," Buck said. "With Libya, the president has fallen short on this obligation. We will review the information that was provided today, but hope and expect that this will serve as the beginning, not the end, of the president’s explanation for continued American operations in Libya.”

Lawmakers in both parties have grown frustrated with Obama for not consulting Congress on the U.S. role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya, which began in March when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi began threatening violence against potentially thousands of his citizens as they protested his regime. The White House has maintained all along that a massacre was averted because the U.S. took quick action and joined with NATO to stop Gaddafi's forces.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of Obama's most vocal critics on Libya, led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in filing a lawsuit against Obama earlier Wednesday over the constitutionality of launching military operations without congressional approval. He later issued a statement in response to the White House report.

“The White House claim that the war is not war is not a legal argument. It is a political argument," Kucinich said in a statement. "The legal argument will hopefully be addressed by the courts. Today, I, along with 9 of my colleagues, filed suit in federal court challenging the rationale that has brought our nation to an Orwellian war that is not war."

Boehner also warned Obama Tuesday that he may be in violation of the War Powers Act by Sunday if he doesn't seek congressional authorization by then. Sunday marks 90 days of U.S. operations in Libya; per the War Powers resolution, a president is required to obtain congressional approval for continued action by this date.

But the White House is sending a clear signal that they don't believe they need that authorization. During the conference call, the administration official ticked off numerous reasons why U.S. involvement in Libya doesn't constitute a violation of the War Powers resolution.

"We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute," said the official. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting. There's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don't have troops on the ground. We don't risk casualties to those troops. None of the factors … has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power."

Instead, the U.S. is only providing intelligence and refueling capabilities, said the official. And while that role brings "a set of unique capabilities" to the international effort, it is a far cry from the responsibility that NATO has for enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians militarily.

"The bottom line is that lives have been saved," said a second administration official. "The president was very clear at the front end of this effort that the U.S. contribution would be limited in scope and duration; that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. And that, of course, is a commitment that the president has kept and will continue to keep."

You can read the White House report here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81815761/US-Activities-In-Libya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-power-act-congress-libya_n_877736.html

I guess this means that if we start launching ICBMs at someone, we aren't really at war for purposes of the war powers act. Good to know.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 08:01 AM
They authorized the use of force. WTF do you want? He asked for it, they approved it.

To my knowledge, Bush did not ask for it. Presidents rarely do that anymore.

And Congress transferred who gets to decide to use force in the Iraq resolution to the president. How it was crafted is what was not Constitutional. That and we started a war with a country, as opposed to a short defensive action, and that resolution doesn't even mention the word war, never mind no declare of being in a state of war with them. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous on this.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 08:19 AM
Iraq: Claim vs. Reality

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 8, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on.

This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

Section 3 of Resolution
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 08:20 AM
You post total bullshit nonsense you pull out of your ass, then "stand by it" when called on it, and you have the audacity to type the word "credibility?" LMAO

Your understanding of the war power is more seriously flawed though.

"The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature." ~ James Madison 1798

Jaric
06-16-2011, 08:28 AM
There you go again with that pesky Constitution.

:p

patteeu
06-16-2011, 08:42 AM
To my knowledge, Bush did not ask for it. Presidents rarely do that anymore.

And Congress transferred who gets to decide to use force in the Iraq resolution to the president. How it was crafted is what was not Constitutional. That and we started a war with a country, as opposed to a short defensive action, and that resolution doesn't even mention the word war, never mind no declare of being in a state of war with them. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous on this.

:shake:

Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to micromanage our wars. They authorize it and the President decides when and where to attack.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 09:02 AM
I can't see you the last bunch of posts by a certain poster, but I can feel a dizzying spin.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 09:16 AM
:shake:

Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to micromanage our wars. They authorize it and the President decides when and where to attack.

I don't see anything regarding micromanaging the war, only that they need to make the formal declaration of war.

Which I don't believe ever occured.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 09:17 AM
I can't see you the last bunch of posts by a certain poster, but I can feel a dizzying spin.

You cut me deep just now BEP.

:p

patteeu
06-16-2011, 09:26 AM
I don't see anything regarding micromanaging the war, only that they need to make the formal declaration of war.

Which I don't believe ever occured.

The constitution doesn't specify any magic word requirements or a template for the form on which war is declared. The authorization to use force satisfies the obligation of the president to defer to congress on declarations of war.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 09:34 AM
The constitution doesn't specify any magic word requirements or a template for the form on which war is declared. The authorization to use force satisfies the obligation of the president to defer to congress on declarations of war.

The actual language is as follows:

8.11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

Seems to me like they are actually supposed to declare war since that's what the constitution says.

:shrug:

patteeu
06-16-2011, 09:39 AM
The actual language is as follows:



Seems to me like they are actually supposed to declare war since that's what the constitution says.

:shrug:

That's what they did. If you or BEP or Saddam were confused about what was happening, I'm low on sympathy because it seemed pretty obvious to me. Were you waiting for some snooty 18th century English language with words like "thee" and "thou" in it or something?

Jaric
06-16-2011, 09:45 AM
That's what they did. If you or BEP or Saddam were confused about what was happening, I'm low on sympathy because it seemed pretty obvious to me. Were you waiting for some snooty 18th century English language with words like "thee" and "thou" in it or something?
We made a formal declaration of war to invade Iraq?

You might want to update wikipedia then. It claims we've only formally declared war 5 times in this countries history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

ROYC75
06-16-2011, 09:53 AM
Did anybody tell Speaker Boehner that going against the POTUS was racist ?

patteeu
06-16-2011, 10:02 AM
We made a formal declaration of war to invade Iraq?

You might want to update wikipedia then. It claims we've only formally declared war 5 times in this countries history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Yeah, with all the jobless Paulistas roaming the internet, I'm afraid my efforts to correct the wiki record would be in vane.

Let's stipulate that wiki is right and that there was no "formal declaration of war" for Iraq. What is the definition of "formal" and where in the Constitution does it insist on a "formal" declaration as opposed to a more colloquial or casual declaration?

Jaric
06-16-2011, 10:10 AM
Yeah, with all the jobless Paulistas roaming the internet, I'm afraid my efforts to correct the wiki record would be in vane.

Let's stipulate that wiki is right and that there was no "formal declaration of war" for Iraq. What is the definition of "formal" and where in the Constitution does it insist on a "formal" declaration as opposed to a more colloquial or casual declaration?

Before I answer your question, I'd like to ask you a question.

Why the resistance to actually declaring war? Is it really that hard to have congress declare war the next time we want to bomb some 3rd world country?

patteeu
06-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Before I answer your question, I'd like to ask you a question.

Why the resistance to actually declaring war? Is it really that hard to have congress declare war the next time we want to bomb some 3rd world country?

I think it would be good for Congress to avoid this kind of argument by referencing it's constitutional authority for all the actions it takes including the act of declaring war. Something like "Per our Article 1 Section 8 power to declare war, we authorize the use of force blah blah blah".

Jaric
06-16-2011, 10:31 AM
I think it would be good for Congress to avoid this kind of argument by referencing it's constitutional authority for all the actions it takes including the act of declaring war. Something like "Per our Article 1 Section 8 power to declare war, we authorize the use of force blah blah blah".

:thumb:

That would actually work for me. Hell, now that I think about it, that should be an amendment. That if you want to pass some legislation you need to show where in the constitution it says you have the power to do whatever it is you want to do. (Article V - Amendment process)

Chocolate Hog
06-16-2011, 10:32 AM
Pat got owned.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 10:33 AM
You cut me deep just now BEP.

:p

Oh, no, I wasn't referring to you. I can see you. ;)

Jaric
06-16-2011, 10:39 AM
Oh, no, I wasn't referring to you. I can see you. ;)

Who let you in past security???

o:-)

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 10:42 AM
Military force requires the tools of war but may not be a war. This is true.
However, a war is a war and that's what Iraq was and we started it, primarily to enforce UN Resolutions.
On the other hand, Afghanistan, was an authorization to use military force, in order to disrupt terrorist camps and get OBL. That was okay, until it turned into a long-term occupation and war instead.

Yes, it's true that there can merely be an authorization to use military force or legislative acts as happened under Jefferson who consulted with Congress regularly, instead of a "Declare". Authorization to use force isn't necessarily a full scale war as Iraq was though. The Iraq resolution, however, still transferred the decision over to Bush which is a separate Constitutional issue and one where the Congress was at fault. Even if they did not, Bush, felt he didn't need it either.

So pat uses a half-truth and the wrong category of thing and inserts it, illogically, into a different category of thing in order to spin the two matters as if they are identical when they are not.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 10:44 AM
Who let you in past security???

o:-)

Heh! Heh! I have a Skype scanner for posts.


JK I meant your posts.

Chief Faithful
06-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Based on what I've read on the Obama defense it is not "hostilities" if the other guy cannot hit you back. If the US does not put itself in the line of fire then it does not violate the War Powers Act. This is like the definition of "is" defense all over again.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2011, 11:56 AM
all depends on what your definition of is is

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 12:22 PM
Based on what I've read on the Obama defense it is not "hostilities" if the other guy cannot hit you back. If the US does not put itself in the line of fire then it does not violate the War Powers Act. This is like the definition of "is" defense all over again.

Sounds like he's defending the US being a bully because they have to lie down and take it.

Gosh! This guy is a left progressive —NOT!

Besides, that we are in the line of fire no matter the lies.

patteeu
06-16-2011, 01:16 PM
Pat got owned.

Link?

patteeu
06-16-2011, 01:18 PM
:thumb:

That would actually work for me. Hell, now that I think about it, that should be an amendment. That if you want to pass some legislation you need to show where in the constitution it says you have the power to do whatever it is you want to do. (Article V - Amendment process)

Agreed. So getting back to my question, where in the constitution does it prescribe a specific format for a declaration of war?

Jaric
06-16-2011, 01:28 PM
Agreed. So getting back to my question, where in the constitution does it prescribe a specific format for a declaration of war?

Section 1 part 8.11 (the language I posted earlier)

As I don't see anything in that about "military actions" or whatever we call wars we don't declare nowadays, I can only assume that is just nonsense someone invented to avoid actually having to do what the constitution says we're supposed to do (which is to declare war)

I honestly don't see the issue. If you want to drop bombs on some foreign country, have congress declare war on them. I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where bombing another country would not be considered an act of war. However, if you have one, please by all means help me out here. I'm going to guess you probably can't, so I don't understand the unwillingness to call something what it is. Would you be able to argue with a straight face that the war in Iraq (or afghanistan for that matter) is not actually a war?

However, as we've previously agreed upon, if Congress would simply be kind enough to cite what part of the constitution allows them to do whatever it is they're doing, I wouldn't say a peep about this.

You might think this is a huge semantics argument, which I can understand, but when it comes to the supreme law of the land, I think we'd all be better off to not leave any doubts that it is in fact being followed. These "military actions" are too vague and it sets a dangerous precedent. The founders obviously didn't want the Executive branch starting a bunch of wars on their own, hence why they gave the power to declare war to the legislative branch.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 01:30 PM
Link?

http://Patteeu.justgotowned.com/

orange
06-16-2011, 01:30 PM
Agreed. So getting back to my question, where in the constitution does it prescribe a specific format for a declaration of war?

Here, patteeu try this:

Judge Jose Linares found that the issue should be resolved by the government's political branches:

Rather than leaving to Congress the issue of whether to declare war and thereby invoke various corresponding obligations, Plaintiff's would have this Court second-guess Congress's decision to authorize something short of "war." This is plainly not the judiciary's role. ... Congress is fully-equipped to analyze the treaties, policy considerations, and accompanying obligations that would follow from a declaration of war and to choose a separate path accordingly. The fact that the United States is engaged in military action absent a declaration of war does not automatically invite the judiciary's analysis as to whether that action is "constitutionally sanctioned."

Good luck!

patteeu
06-16-2011, 01:54 PM
Section 1 part 8.11 (the language I posted earlier)

As I don't see anything in that about "military actions" or whatever we call wars we don't declare nowadays, I can only assume that is just nonsense someone invented to avoid actually having to do what the constitution says we're supposed to do (which is to declare war)

I honestly don't see the issue. If you want to drop bombs on some foreign country, have congress declare war on them. I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where bombing another country would not be considered an act of war. However, if you have one, please by all means help me out here. I'm going to guess you probably can't, so I don't understand the unwillingness to call something what it is. Would you be able to argue with a straight face that the war in Iraq (or afghanistan for that matter) is not actually a war?

However, as we've previously agreed upon, if Congress would simply be kind enough to cite what part of the constitution allows them to do whatever it is they're doing, I wouldn't say a peep about this.

You might think this is a huge semantics argument, which I can understand, but when it comes to the supreme law of the land, I think we'd all be better off to not leave any doubts that it is in fact being followed. These "military actions" are too vague and it sets a dangerous precedent. The founders obviously didn't want the Executive branch starting a bunch of wars on their own, hence why they gave the power to declare war to the legislative branch.

You seem to be able to look past the actual words used to describe our conflict in Iraq and determine that a "war" is taking place there so it's amazing to me that you apparently need Congress to actually use some kind of magic words in order to recognize that they are declaring war.

Your answer is clearly wrong though. There is nothing in the language you quoted that specifies how Congress must declare war. It merely authorizes them to do so and leaves the method up to them.

Your hyper-literalism here would lead me to believe that you consider the Air Force and the Coast Guard to be unconstitutional since Article 1 authorizes Congress to raise and maintain only an Army and a Navy.

I'm all for interpreting the document as it was originally intended and for giving the literal meaning of the words used great weight, but the document is necessarily ambiguous in many ways. For example, Congress is authorized to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court", but the document doesn't specify how many tribunals there should be or what their specific purpose must be. In fact, it doesn't even require them to be called "tribunals" so our US District Courts and our Circuit Courts of Appeals are all constitutional.

petegz28
06-16-2011, 02:13 PM
http://Patteeu.justgotowned.com/

:LOL:

sorry but that is funny

Chocolate Hog
06-16-2011, 02:25 PM
Link?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=246133&page=5

Jaric
06-16-2011, 02:42 PM
You seem to be able to look past the actual words used to describe our conflict in Iraq and determine that a "war" is taking place there so it's amazing to me that you apparently need Congress to actually use some kind of magic words in order to recognize that they are declaring war.Ah, so you agree that it is a war. Why not call it that? That's what I'm asking Pat, why the distinction between "war" and "military action?"

Chiefshrink
06-16-2011, 02:51 PM
Bizarre... Damn near irresponsible.



You sound shocked:shrug:

notorious
06-16-2011, 04:20 PM
Let's drop some bombs on China or Russia and see if they call it "War".

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 04:25 PM
Here, patteeu try this:

Judge Jose Linares found that the issue should be resolved by the government's political branches:

Rather than leaving to Congress the issue of whether to declare war and thereby invoke various corresponding obligations, Plaintiff's would have this Court second-guess Congress's decision to authorize something short of "war." This is plainly not the judiciary's role. ... Congress is fully-equipped to analyze the treaties, policy considerations, and accompanying obligations that would follow from a declaration of war and to choose a separate path accordingly. The fact that the United States is engaged in military action absent a declaration of war does not automatically invite the judiciary's analysis as to whether that action is "constitutionally sanctioned."

Good luck!

Please link your appeal to authority.
You are, again, failing to distinguish between a short military action that is defensive and starting an aggressive war for progressive purposes.

The courts won't touch it because it would be game over—if they go by the words of the document. Same is happening in England.

Here's the part you left out:


The suit was filed [JURIST report] last May, seeking a declaratory judgment of the war's illegality. In July, the National War Powers Consortium [official website], a group headed by former secretaries of state James Baker and Warren Christopher [group profiles], released a report calling for a new law [JURIST report] requiring the president to consult with Congress before going to war. In April 2008, the Law Lords, Britain's highest court, denied a similar request [JURIST report] by two mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq for a public inquiry into the legality of UK's decision to go to war in Iraq.


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/federal-judge-dismisses-iraq-war.php

orange
06-16-2011, 04:32 PM
Please link your appeal to authority.

Here's the part you left out:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/federal-judge-dismisses-iraq-war.php

No, I left nothing out. Nothing at all. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7700170&postcount=25


You are, again, failing to distinguish between a short military action that is defensive and starting an aggressive war for progressive purposes.


Duh?! What the hell are you talking about? That case - and the decision - and the quote - is entirely about IRAQ. "short military action that is defensive" - on what planet?

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 04:35 PM
No, I left nothing out. Nothing at all. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7700170&postcount=25
In this thread you did regarding this. Others have sought to clarify the point with additional legislation. Duh!



Duh?! What the hell are you talking about? That case is about IRAQ. "short military action that is defensive" - on what planet?

Please refer back to our original debate on the war power and the presidential branch. You keep ignoring what this means, are playing dumb and cannot process factual data.

orange
06-16-2011, 04:40 PM
In this thread you did regarding this. Others have sought to clarify the point with additional legislation. Duh!


That IS THIS THREAD. The post that I linked to just above (#81) - goes back to page 2 of THIS VERY THREAD. Where I posted the whole damned thing, including link, and YOU DIDN'T READ IT.

Duh!?


Next time, this:
http://media.faluninfo.net/media/gallery/ForceFeeding_big_medium.jpg

mnchiefsguy
06-16-2011, 04:41 PM
You seem to be able to look past the actual words used to describe our conflict in Iraq and determine that a "war" is taking place there so it's amazing to me that you apparently need Congress to actually use some kind of magic words in order to recognize that they are declaring war.

Your answer is clearly wrong though. There is nothing in the language you quoted that specifies how Congress must declare war. It merely authorizes them to do so and leaves the method up to them.

Your hyper-literalism here would lead me to believe that you consider the Air Force and the Coast Guard to be unconstitutional since Article 1 authorizes Congress to raise and maintain only an Army and a Navy.

I'm all for interpreting the document as it was originally intended and for giving the literal meaning of the words used great weight, but the document is necessarily ambiguous in many ways. For example, Congress is authorized to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court", but the document doesn't specify how many tribunals there should be or what their specific purpose must be. In fact, it doesn't even require them to be called "tribunals" so our US District Courts and our Circuit Courts of Appeals are all constitutional.

I think the main point Jaric is saying is that a declaration of war should have the words declaration, or "we declare", and the word "war" in it, to make things clear and plain...the use of the word "war" instead of "police action" or "military measures", etc. However, when you actually use the word "war" people, and other nations take much more notice than a "police action", etc. Not sure why that is, but the word "war" seems to carry much greater weight to it, and Congress being Congress, they don't want to have to explain or take responsibility of a war...they want a fallback position, so they can say they intended it to be a temporary military action, etc. Both Congress and the President keep these waters murky for political reasons.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 05:08 PM
I think the main point Jaric is saying is that a declaration of war should have the words declaration, or "we declare", and the word "war" in it, to make things clear and plain...the use of the word "war" instead of "police action" or "military measures", etc. However, when you actually use the word "war" people, and other nations take much more notice than a "police action", etc. Not sure why that is, but the word "war" seems to carry much greater weight to it, and Congress being Congress, they don't want to have to explain or take responsibility of a war...they want a fallback position, so they can say they intended it to be a temporary military action, etc. Both Congress and the President keep these waters murky for political reasons.

Thank you. I was hoping Pat would admit that but that is precisely why congress has only declared war 5 times in our history, but we have shit ton of "military actions" and "undeclared wars."

Which is bullshit. That was never what was intended, and it damn sure was never intended to have one man (the president) have the power to make that decision alone.

orange
06-16-2011, 05:22 PM
Thank you. I was hoping Pat would admit that but that is precisely why congress has only declared war 5 times in our history, but we have shit ton of "military actions" and "undeclared wars."

Which is bullshit. That was never what was intended, and it damn sure was never intended to have one man (the president) have the power to make that decision alone.

Except for one small detail. The Founders were in on it from the very beginning. Founder George Washington engaged in at least two "military actions" without a declaration. (Whiskey Rebellion, Fallen Timbers).

Founder John Adams fought a "military action" against France without a declaration. (XYZ Quasi-War).

Even anti-Hamiltonian Founder Thomas Jefferson fought at least one "military action" without a declaration. (Barbary War).

The claim that "That was never what was intended" is pretty bizarre in that light.

Now, one may believe "But it SHOULD be that way. No military actions without a Declaration." To which there is an answer, one you've already obliquely alluded to, but one that your "principled" objectors like R&R Paul and Dennis Kucinich never pursue:

(Article V - Amendment process)

I wonder why? Maybe they know something about the electorate that they won't acknowledge - that such an Amendment wouldn't have a prayer. No more than their Presidential Campaign/Fundraising Schemes have of getting them elected.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:03 PM
But on this one you are wrong. I showed you why in an earlier thread. Don't you remember? Why are you using the same material after seeing the facts.

Except for one small detail. The Founders were in on it from the very beginning. Founder George Washington engaged in at least two "military actions" without a declaration. (Whiskey Rebellion, Fallen Timbers).

Founder John Adams fought a "military action" against France without a declaration. (XYZ Quasi-War).

Even anti-Hamiltonian Founder Thomas Jefferson fought at least one "military action" without a declaration. (Barbary War).

The claim that "That was never what was intended" is pretty bizarre in that light.

Now, one may believe "But it SHOULD be that way. No military actions without a Declaration." To which there is an answer, one you've already obliquely alluded to, but one that your "principled" objectors like R&R Paul and Dennis Kucinich never pursue:



I wonder why? Maybe they know something about the electorate that they won't acknowledge - that such an Amendment wouldn't have a prayer. No more than their Presidential Campaign/Fundraising Schemes have of getting them elected.

"The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress," he said, "therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." ~ Washington
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7513940&postcount=70

That was also an extension of American Revolution as those hostile Indians were British allies. Britain who was an instigator and even supplied provisions to them from a post. It was not an offensive action but defensive. This is NOT the case with Libya nor with Iraq.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7514371&postcount=76


Full debate is in this thread where you got owned.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 06:06 PM
Except for one small detail. The Founders were in on it from the very beginning. Founder George Washington engaged in at least two "military actions" without a declaration. (Whiskey Rebellion, Fallen Timbers).The whiskey rebellion? Is Pennsylvania a foreign nation? Would you have us declare war on ourselves?

Fallen timbers is actually somewhat complicated, but I don't believe it fits into what you're trying to say it does either. The land in question was ours.

From wiki:
The Treaty of Paris (1783) terminated the American Revolutionary War and gave the U.S. control of the Northwest Territories. Despite the treaty the British kept forts and policies there that supported the Indians living in the Northwest Territories. President George Washington directed the U.S. Army to halt the hostilities between the Indians and settlers and enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War)

Now, I want to remain consistent here, but as I read into this, I have to assume no formal declaration of war was made because we were fighting on what is technically our lands. As the combatants were not of a foreign nation, it was more than likely considered a civil uprising as opposed to a war between nations.

I will concede, that there is a valid argument you are correct and that would be an undeclared war. It's just an odd situation because we're fighting with people who live on our lands but who aren't exactly citizens. On first inspection though, I'm not willing to automatically assume that Washington overstepped the constitutional limits placed on the executive branch.

Founder John Adams fought a "military action" against France without a declaration. (XYZ Quasi-War).From the Constitution.Article 1, section 8.10: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.
And now some background from wiki:
The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought mostly at sea between the United States and French Republic from 1798 to 1800. In the United States, the conflict was sometimes also referred to as the Franco-American War, the Undeclared War with France, the Undeclared Naval War, the Pirate Wars, or the Half-War.

Increased depredations by privateers from Revolutionary France required the rebirth of the United States Navy to protect the expanding American merchant shipping. Congress authorized the president to acquire, arm, and man not more than 12 vessels, of up to 22 guns each. Several vessels were immediately purchased and converted into ships of war.[citation needed]

July 7, 1798, the date that Congress rescinded treaties with France, is considered the beginning of the Quasi-War. This was followed two days later with the passage of the Congressional authorization to attack French warships.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War)

Now, this is clearly within the power of congress to define and punish piracy as outlined in 8.10.

Sorry Orange, this was completely constitutional.

Even anti-Hamiltonian Founder Thomas Jefferson fought at least one "military action" without a declaration. (Barbary War).See above. Under 8.10 congress is authorized to punish piracy which is precisely what they did.

As he received authorization from congress to prosecute this, it falls out of scope of what we are talking about. The constitution separated defending against Piracy (the Barbary War/Quasi war) from Declarations of war against other nations.

The claim that "That was never what was intended" is pretty bizarre in that light.
Not so much. Even if one considers the Indian war to fit into this category, there is certainly some grey area on if this is a war against nations or a simple civil uprising.

You have to remember that the Founders had just left Britain where under a monarchy, one man has the power to declare war. That's precisely why that power was given to congress in our country. So that one man could not declare war at his own whims.

Now, one may believe "But it SHOULD be that way. No military actions without a Declaration." To which there is an answer, one you've already obliquely alluded to, but one that your "principled" objectors like R&R Paul and Dennis Kucinich never pursue:

I wonder why? Maybe they know something about the electorate that they won't acknowledge - that such an Amendment wouldn't have a prayer. No more than their Presidential Campaign/Fundraising Schemes have of getting them elected.

Sadly, in this case I must agree with you. A boy can dream though.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:09 PM
Jefferson and The Barbary states:

"Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate," Fisher writes, "imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.'"

More detail in link. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods


Link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:10 PM
The True History of the 18th and 19th Century:

The nineteenth century, on closer inspection, turns out not to provide the precedents for presidential warmaking that its proponents would prefer to see. We don't see anything approaching the open-ended and truly staggering authority that neoconservatives would grant the president until the closing years of that century, and even then only in miniature. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods

From same link as my last post.

Oh and clicking your heels won't make it so Mr. Levin.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:14 PM
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QkZT96zJrUQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

orange
06-16-2011, 06:15 PM
How many times do I have to laugh at Tom Woods?

U.S. military actions - ~200
U.S. Declarations of War - 5

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:18 PM
Orange your argument resembles the Neo Con Mark Levin's argument which is the same as the constitutionality allleged by all the the Democrats' domestic interventions —that it does not require the President to consult Congress concerning foreign interventions.
It's FALSE!


<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1ZFoFZsCAw8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:22 PM
How many times do I have to laugh at Tom Woods?
I understand your nervous laughter. Some people laugh when they lose.

That's all you got, though? I see you can't refute that there are limited defensive actions and offensive actions constituting a war; that there were authorizations for some of the earlier 19th century actions you are using omitting the facts surrounding them.

You cite propaganda that was started by the govt.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:23 PM
No. Levin and orange, there is no ambiguity here and it denies the purpose the Framers had for this clause which was discussed at the Convention.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZsO5aPrD_6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:36 PM
Here ya' go:


From The National Law Journal ( .pdf) as written by Louis Fischer


http://www.loufisher.org/wp.html


President Obama claimed that he initiated military operations against Libya on the basis of authority he received from the U.N. Security Council. :harumph: He did not seek authority from Congress. This article explains why the U.N. Charter did not, and could not, transfer constitutional authority vested in Congress by Article I and place it with an international body like the U.N. or a regional body like NATO. The framers of the U.N. Charter and the drafters of the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 all understood that the President would have to seek prior authority from Congress for any U.N. military operation.


Louis Fisher is Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project. Previously he worked for four decades at the Library of Congress as Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers (Congressional Research Service, from 1970 to 2006) and Specialist in Constitutional Law (the Law Library, from 2006 to 2010. During his service with CRS he was research director of the House Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, writing major sections of the final report.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 06:38 PM
You've done it now Orange, you've got her all wound up.

:Poke:

(Jaric kids)

Jaric
06-16-2011, 06:43 PM
So on a related note (and actually back to the original topic) can anyone tell me if Obama has any sort of constitutional justification for having the UN supersede our own government? The closest I can find in section 2 is the part about being able to make treatise and even that require 2/3 of the senate concur.

Not to mention that would require a significant amount of verbal gymnastics that would put the nonsense surrounding the overuse of the commerce clause to shame.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:47 PM
So on a related note (and actually back to the original topic) can anyone tell me if Obama has any sort of constitutional justification for having the UN supersede our own government? The closest I can find in section 2 is the part about being able to make treatise and even that require 2/3 of the senate concur.

Not to mention that would require a significant amount of verbal gymnastics that would put the nonsense surrounding the overuse of the commerce clause to shame.

No there isn't. At one time I thought the UN Participation Act allowed it, not that I agreed with it though, from earlier reading at The Federalist Society which leans conservative. However, after my last debate with Orange, I saw that Woods found language, never mentioned before to my knowledge, that the UN Charter requires the use of each member country's Constitutional or Parliamentary procedures. Fischer cites this too. So I have changed my mind even on that.

There is NO authority either at the UN or NATO.

orange
06-16-2011, 06:49 PM
So on a related note (and actually back to the original topic) can anyone tell me if Obama has any sort of constitutional justification for having the UN supersede our own government? The closest I can find in section 2 is the part about being able to make treatise and even that require 2/3 of the senate concur.

Not to mention that would require a significant amount of verbal gymnastics that would put the nonsense surrounding the overuse of the commerce clause to shame.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81815761/US-Activities-In-Libya

You can also look up "United Nations Participation Act" - either on the web, or right here.


p.s.

And there it is, the Ron Paul platform in a nutshell.

"Everyone else is wrong, I'm right! Only I know the Constitution!"

...

No there isn't. At one time I thought the UN Participation Act allowed it, not that I agreed with it though, from earlier reading at The Federalist Society which leans conservative. However, after my last debate with Orange, I saw that Woods found language, never mentioned before to my knowledge, that the UN Charter requires the use of each member country's Constitutional or Parliamentary procedures. Fischer cites this too. So I have changed my mind even on that.

There is NO authority either at the UN or NATO.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 06:54 PM
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81815761/US-Activities-In-Libya

You can also look up "United Nations Participation Act" - either on the web, or right here.

Actually, I was wrong on using that in our last debate. Woods, as well as Fischer, point out little cited language in the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act that contradicts that. Member nations are supposed to use their govt's parliamentary and/or Constitutional procedures.

When I get new information, I can change my mind.


Those who drafted the U.N. Charter did not want a repeat of the Versailles Treaty. The charter provides that whenever member states agree to participate in a U.N. military operation, nations must act in accordance with their "constitutional processes."

During Senate debate on the charter, Truman from Potsdam wired this note to Sen. Kenneth McKellar on July 27, 1945, pledging: "When any such agreement or agreements are negotiated it will be my purpose to ask the Congress for appropriate legislation to approve them."

To implement the charter, it was necessary for Congress to pass legislation that satisfied U.S. constitutional processes. The language in § 6 of the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 did precisely that. Agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution."

Statutory language could not be written more clearly. The legislative history of this provision, including hearings, committee reports and floor
debate, all point to the same result: The president must seek congressional approval in advance.

Per Fischer.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 06:56 PM
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81815761/US-Activities-In-Libya

You can also look up "United Nations Participation Act" - either on the web, or right here.


p.s.



...

Actually Orange, if you would be kind enough to just point me in the right direction of the article in the constitution that justifies this, that's really what I'm looking for.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 06:58 PM
Actually, I was wrong on using that in our last debate. Woods, as well as Fischer, point out little cited language in the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act that contradicts that. Member nations are supposed to use their govt's parliamentary and/or Constitutional procedures.

When I get new information, I can change my mind.



Per Fischer.
Ah, so there isn't even a UN justification for this. I assumed there was no constitutional justification.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 07:01 PM
Ah, so there isn't even a UN justification for this. I assumed there was no constitutional justification.

I am just saying there is neither since the left is using the authority of the UN on this one. Lol!
Covering all the bases here. None of their arguments are valid. It's just because it is their guy.:huh:

Jaric
06-16-2011, 07:04 PM
I am just saying there is neither since the left is using the authority of the UN on this one. Lol!
Covering all the bases here. None of their arguments are valid. It's just because it is their guy.:huh:

That's my assumption as well, however, I am more than willing to give Orange the chance to prove me wrong that there is somehow constitutional justification for this.

And since the UN charter pretty clearly defers to each members constitutional processes, that pretty much makes this a purely constitutional argument.

orange
06-16-2011, 07:04 PM
Actually Orange, if you would be kind enough to just point me in the right direction of the article in the constitution that justifies this, that's really what I'm looking for.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ah, so there isn't even a UN justification for this. I assumed there was no constitutional justification.

You're just wrong. The fact that I'm not going to type out 400 words for you - again - doesn't change anything. Neither does the fact that you won't read the actual document that I just linked - AGAIN - whose first three pages lay it out in detail.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 07:08 PM
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now you're talking Orange! I knew you could do it. However, since the UN charter apparently defers to each members constitutional processes when the decision is made to go to war, that puts us right back to "why isn't Obama asking for permission from Congress like a good little president."

Or do Democrats not have to ask permission from Congress when they want to drop freedom bombs on brown people?

orange
06-16-2011, 07:17 PM
That's my assumption as well, however, I am more than willing to give Orange the chance to prove me wrong that there is somehow constitutional justification for this.

And since the UN charter pretty clearly defers to each members constitutional processes, that pretty much makes this a purely constitutional argument.

No, it doesn't. It simply doesn't.

Now you're talking Orange! I knew you could do it. However, since the UN charter apparently defers to each members constitutional processes when the decision is made to go to war, that puts us right back to "why isn't Obama asking for permission from Congress like a good little president."

Constitutional processes that Paulistas believe they know and no one else does, like "military actions must spring from a Declaration of War."

Last hoop:

International Peacekeeping and the Power to "Declare War"

When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." [23] During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes [24].

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp as quoted on ChiefsPlanet at least twice.

And, of course:

"But Tom Woods says...." (on LewRockwell.com)

And there it is, the Ron Paul platform in a nutshell.

"Everyone else is wrong, I'm right! Only I know the Constitution!"

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 07:23 PM
Nope.

Constitution invest Congress with the decision to make war.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2011, 07:25 PM
That's my assumption as well, however, I am more than willing to give Orange the chance to prove me wrong that there is somehow constitutional justification for this.
How long has he been in here tryin'? Too long. He's not doin' it because it cannot be done.

BUT if you want to play with him then fine! "I'm gonna wash that man right outta my hair and sent him on his way."

And since the UN charter pretty clearly defers to each members constitutional processes, that pretty much makes this a purely constitutional argument.

Exactly!

petegz28
06-16-2011, 09:17 PM
What it comes down too, Constitutional or not, the ****ing President needs to go to Congress. It's the right thing to do. When the fires of Libya first flared the top General stated getting involved could cause serious backlash. Well, here we are now, dropping bombs but the President has yet to come to Congress or the People and state just why the **** we are dropping bombs in Libya!

I for one clearly don't understand the need for us to be involved. That aside, whether I agree with it or not, I think the President needs to be a ****ing man and stand up and face Congress and the People.

On the brighter side, he is making it easier and easier to ensure he is a 1 term guy. Between the economy, health care and now this it isn't going to take much to eat him alive come election time.

And I don't care what anyone says or how they wish to spin it, war is war. Vietnam was a ****ing war. Korea was a ****ing war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia all ****ing wars.

Tell a Vietnam or Korean Vet they weren't really fighting a war. Tell them the bullets and bombs weren't real and the deaths well, they really don't count because it wasn't really a war.

It is insane for anyone to everysay that as we drop bombs on a consistent basis that we are not engaging in war. Anyone who does so has their head up their ass.

Direckshun
06-17-2011, 12:26 AM
Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

I wouldn't say they're the same, and I think you have to draw some pretty hazy lines to make that the case.

WikiLeaks has made obvious though, that whether or not this war remains legal, it's essentially over oil.

Syriana, yet again, and always, in the Middle East.

patteeu
06-17-2011, 07:15 AM
Ah, so you agree that it is a war. Why not call it that? That's what I'm asking Pat, why the distinction between "war" and "military action?"

Not only that it's a war, but that its a war that's been authorized by Congress as the Constitution requires.

patteeu
06-17-2011, 07:20 AM
I think the main point Jaric is saying is that a declaration of war should have the words declaration, or "we declare", and the word "war" in it, to make things clear and plain...the use of the word "war" instead of "police action" or "military measures", etc. However, when you actually use the word "war" people, and other nations take much more notice than a "police action", etc. Not sure why that is, but the word "war" seems to carry much greater weight to it, and Congress being Congress, they don't want to have to explain or take responsibility of a war...they want a fallback position, so they can say they intended it to be a temporary military action, etc. Both Congress and the President keep these waters murky for political reasons.

I don't disagree with any of this, but the sticking point between Jaric and myself appears to be whether or not the Constitution actually requires Congress to use specific words like "declaration", "declare", or "war", and when I read the Constitution, I can't find any such requirement.

Jaric
06-17-2011, 07:24 AM
Not only that it's a war, but that its a war that's been authorized by Congress as the Constitution requires.

Ok, then why the distinction?

patteeu
06-17-2011, 07:29 AM
Thank you. I was hoping Pat would admit that but that is precisely why congress has only declared war 5 times in our history, but we have shit ton of "military actions" and "undeclared wars."

Which is bullshit. That was never what was intended, and it damn sure was never intended to have one man (the president) have the power to make that decision alone.

Alone? The POTUS requested permission from Congress and Congress acted.

HonestChieffan
06-17-2011, 07:54 AM
Seems we do what the UN tells us under Obama. That is no surprise at all considering his stand on so many UN issues.


(CNSNews.com) – In a 30-page report justifying continued military involvement in the NATO-led strikes in Libya, the Obama administration claims that U.S. military involvement is “legitimated” by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.

“U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo,” the report said.

Obama also claimed that the U.S. military’s involvement falls under his constitutional authority as commander in chief and his power to conduct foreign relations.

“Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad,” the report said.

Jaric
06-17-2011, 08:04 AM
Alone? The POTUS requested permission from Congress and Congress acted.

Sorry Pat, I realize after rereading, my post you qouted was not clear, but in that instance I was refering to our newest adventure into Libya. I know that Congress approved the wars in Iraq. Well, the "military actions" at least. I still don't understand why we didn't formally declare war on Iraq, but that's a different argument, one we've been discussing as well, so it's my fault for not clarifying.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2011, 09:30 AM
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Alone? The POTUS requested permission from Congress and Congress acted.

Here's what you're not getting or simply refuse to acknowledge. Bush eventually went to Congress but he did not feel it was necessary to go to Congress on Iraq. In fact it took him awhile. I don't think he was going to at first, if he could avoid it. I think it became simply a public relations move by him to seek it, more as a support kind of thing to avoid flak later. I read Cheney and other Bush advisors felt it was not necessary to get Congressional authorization too. Rumsfeld went and some senators felt they weren't getting enough. So there was a delay by Bush.

This is supposed to be debated by Congress, not rubber-stamped. If it was debated some of the arguments for it may not have held up. Still, that resolution required certain criteria be met which Bush did not meet and it was based on fraud. The latter invalidates it as well as the fact that authorization transfers congressional authority to decide to the executive.

Here's why there is evidence Bush didn't think Congressional authorization was necessary:

Date: 2002
(FindLaw) -- Republicans are debating among themselves whether President Bush should go to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Members of Congress, however, have raised the more fundamental question of whether the President can launch a war against Iraq without Congressional approval. According to reports out of Crawford, Texas, President Bush thinks he can. He believes the authorization Congress provided his father in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm is still good.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/


Your defense of Bush seeking out Congress is shallow and omits much. He would have avoided it if he felt he could have.
He's still cut from the same cloth as his father who didn't think it was necessary earlier. ( see my earlier quote)
He is a fraud of a Constitutionalist or as a Conservative. As for your hero, Dick Cheney, he has lead "secretive and bitter behind-closed-doors battle to restore presidential power." PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/etc/script.html) These powers are often not Constitutional because the Presidency was written as being the weakest branch of govt.


Here's another:
The president does not need authorization from Congress before launching a military offensive — so said Vice President Dick Cheney and other advisers to President George W. Bush in the summer of 2002 as that administration prepared to use force to topple Saddam Hussein.

When Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president would consult with members of Congress before any attack on Iraq, a reporter asked “does ‘consult’ mean ask permission?” Fleischer replied with a non-answer, saying, “the president will consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play.” [ Notice the verbal sleight of hand in this last part.]

At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and others, Bush did, in the end, seek a vote by Congress to authorize his attack on Iraq and he got that authorization in October 2002.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/t/obama-libya-authorization-conflict

BucEyedPea
06-17-2011, 09:34 AM
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” ~ Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/t/obama-libya-authorization-conflict/


and...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/25/video-obama-bush-07-you-do-not-have-congressional-/


<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f9dduPshTu4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chief Faithful
06-17-2011, 11:24 AM
Now you're talking Orange! I knew you could do it. However, since the UN charter apparently defers to each members constitutional processes when the decision is made to go to war, that puts us right back to "why isn't Obama asking for permission from Congress like a good little president."

Or do Democrats not have to ask permission from Congress when they want to drop freedom bombs on brown people?

I think Obama has been fairly clear, dropping bombs on brown people is not a hostel act as long as they can't fight back.

patteeu
06-17-2011, 12:52 PM
From the Constitution.


Article 1, section 8.10: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.


How come congressional action supported by this provision doesn't have to use specific words like "define"and "punish"? According to your school of constitutional interpretation, shouldn't an act of Congress based on this clause look something like:

"We do hereby define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas in the following way ..."?

If they don't use these magic words, how do we know it's legit?

Barak Obuttocks
06-17-2011, 12:54 PM
Looky here. NATO said it was ok, so it's...

ok.

patteeu
06-17-2011, 12:56 PM
Ok, then why the distinction?

What distinction?

patteeu
06-17-2011, 01:00 PM
Here's what you're not getting or simply refuse to acknowledge. Bush eventually went to Congress but he did not feel it was necessary to go to Congress on Iraq. In fact it took him awhile. I don't think he was going to at first, if he could avoid it. I think it became simply a public relations move by him to seek it, more as a support kind of thing to avoid flak later. I read Cheney and other Bush advisors felt it was not necessary to get Congressional authorization too. Rumsfeld went and some senators felt they weren't getting enough. So there was a delay by Bush.

This is supposed to be debated by Congress, not rubber-stamped. If it was debated some of the arguments for it may not have held up. Still, that resolution required certain criteria be met which Bush did not meet and it was based on fraud. The latter invalidates it as well as the fact that authorization transfers congressional authority to decide to the executive.

Here's why there is evidence Bush didn't think Congressional authorization was necessary:

Date: 2002


Your defense of Bush seeking out Congress is shallow and omits much. He would have avoided it if he felt he could have.
He's still cut from the same cloth as his father who didn't think it was necessary earlier. ( see my earlier quote)
He is a fraud of a Constitutionalist or as a Conservative. As for your hero, Dick Cheney, he has lead "secretive and bitter behind-closed-doors battle to restore presidential power." PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/etc/script.html) These powers are often not Constitutional because the Presidency was written as being the weakest branch of govt.


Here's another:

Yet Bush still sought and obtained permission from Congress before firing a shot. The internal debate might be interesting, but it doesn't change the bottom line.

Yet means despite that.

Jaric
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
What distinction?

Between a declaration of war and a "military action." We've created a distinction because sometimes we formally declare war and other times we only auth military actions.

I'm asking why the distinction since many of the "military actions" would seem to be under any other normal definition, a war.

Jaric
06-17-2011, 01:09 PM
How come congressional action supported by this provision doesn't have to use specific words like "define"and "punish"? According to your school of constitutional interpretation, shouldn't an act of Congress based on this clause look something like:

"We do hereby define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas in the following way ..."?

If they don't use these magic words, how do we know it's legit?

Now you're just being obtuse.

8.11 gives congress the power to declare war. 8.10 gives them the power to define and punish acts of piracy.

These are specific powers granted to congress via the constitution. My radical suggestion is that when congress wants to bomb someone, we declare war on them. Because that is the power given to them. They should also define and punish acts of piracy. Again, because that is the power given to them.

Again though Pat, this brings us back to the very simple question of "why don't we declare war like we are supposed to when we want to bomb somebody."

patteeu
06-17-2011, 02:07 PM
Between a declaration of war and a "military action." We've created a distinction because sometimes we formally declare war and other times we only auth military actions.

I'm asking why the distinction since many of the "military actions" would seem to be under any other normal definition, a war.

I think a big part of it is what mnchiefsguy said in post 84:

I think the main point Jaric is saying is that a declaration of war should have the words declaration, or "we declare", and the word "war" in it, to make things clear and plain...the use of the word "war" instead of "police action" or "military measures", etc. However, when you actually use the word "war" people, and other nations take much more notice than a "police action", etc. Not sure why that is, but the word "war" seems to carry much greater weight to it, and Congress being Congress, they don't want to have to explain or take responsibility of a war...they want a fallback position, so they can say they intended it to be a temporary military action, etc. Both Congress and the President keep these waters murky for political reasons.

Jaric
06-17-2011, 03:30 PM
I think a big part of it is what mnchiefsguy said in post 84:

:thumb:

I will now agree with that post a second time.

orange
07-08-2011, 06:32 PM
House nixes Rep. Kucinich proposal to tie Libya funding to declaration of war
By John T. Bennett - 07/08/11 11:42 AM ET

The House on Friday again defeated an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to cut off funding for the military intervention in Libya.

Kucinich and other members offered multiple amendments during three days of debate on the 2012 Defense Appropriations Act that would have restricted or totally cut off funds for the controversial military operation.

The amendment the anti-war liberal offered on Friday morning would have prohibited funds in the bill be used for the Libya mission unless Congress formerly declares war against the country. The amendment was voted down 169-251.

Kucinich said the Obama administration is on pace to spend $1 billion on the operation by September “without this Congress having any say whatsoever.”

House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) said the provision would have kept U.S. military forces from assisting NATO forces with support tasks such as search-and-rescue missions, aerial refueling, intelligence gathering and analysis, and operational planning.

All of Kucinich’s tries were defeated, though they drew ample GOP support. However, Young did give Kucinich a nod for staying at it, saying: “The gentleman entering the amendment is if nothing persistent.”

During the Defense bill debate, members did vote 225-201 in favor of an amendment from Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) that would have prohibited funds from being used to furnish military equipment, military training or advice, or other support for military activities in Libya. That amendment was supported by 177 Republicans but only 48 Democrats.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/170397-house-nixes-rep-kucinich-proposal-to-tie-libya-funding-to-declaration-of-war

Jaric
07-08-2011, 07:51 PM
Anyone who is surprised by that has not been paying attention.

Smoke and mirrors.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2011, 08:18 PM
He is Obama. Obama need not be bothered by Rules. Chicago baby, Chicago.