Ten Congressmen Sue President Obama Over Libya Mission, War Powers Act

[Decyferon]

but cruise missling isnt war like hostilities you see.. its just...well, we dont know what it is, but its legal.

 

the whole 'its not war' thing is like if someone shot another person in the face and killed them for no reason, and the person who did the shooting said...'well, you see, its not cut and dry, its not black and white. i didnt shoot and kill that person. it wasnt murder, it was 'strategic target reduction.' see the difference? those murder laws dont apply to me in the least.'

 

again those are 2 different things, you shooting someone is you commiting a crime, this is a decision that has been made across countries and parties as the best action to take, whether right or wrong, it is completely different to you or I shooting someone in the face.

 

You are also making it out that NATO is bombing civilians when that isn't the case they are taking out military positions, ok there may be some other casulties but it they aren't targetting them, unlike the Libyan government.

[angelofdeath]

eh, i think the example still holds.

even if we agree libyan dude committed some crimes, it doesnt justify bombing and killing innocents.

lets suppose a housing community is housing the murderer and accomplices who shot someone in the face. do we blow up the community, kill civilians, blow up infrastructure, etc? or do you go in and grab the guy/guys who committed the crime?

 

but this aside, who exactly gave anyone the authority to decide who is right or wrong and gave them the authority to engage in this policeman like behavior? i mean, if a canadian cop came down here trying to arrest someone for a crime committed in america, we'd laugh.

 

the US government has been predator drone bombing pakistan for a long time now. on the same day jared loughner shot some government officials in arizona, some CIA spooks in nevada predator drone bombed 6 people in waziristan. with obama at the helm of these attacks, they have killed 1400 people. of the dead, a CONSERVATIVE estimate is that 1 in every 10 killed combatants... the other nine.. were/are civilians.

 

all these operations have massive 'collateral damage.'

[HOPE NOT]

Angel, tom woods is a libertarian just like you, so of course you will think it backs up your side. All of you are just isolationists who do not deal reality.

 

Your whole argument is not based on reality and based on the fairytale libertarian world. This world is comprised of "the world would be so much better if only everyone would listen to us" when reality is that if we listened to people like you, the world would be filled with governments that would let the poor starve and people die, because they were not able to make it and some people will just have to suffer. This is not the American way.

 

NONE of this should be the American way...Sadly, I doubt you could present any evidence to convince me that the following are untrue:

 

1. People of Color with low socio-economic status in America receive sub-standard levels of: education, medical care, legal representation.

 

2. The Elderly in America are largely disenfranchised: allowed to starve & die.

 

BACK TO THE TOPIC OF LIBYA, NATO, Obama & the War Powers Act...

 

You are also making it out that NATO is bombing civilians when that isn't the case they are taking out military positions, ok there may be some other casulties but it they aren't targetting them, unlike the Libyan government.

 

Sorry...but did you say you've been watching FOX News???

 

Found some opposing views to your opinions in "The Dissident Voice"...not necessarily MY perspective, (yet?) just sayin'...

 

1.http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/libya-under-nato-attack/

 

2. http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/libya-fact-sheet/

 

I don't believe in the concept of Qaadhafi as a "benevolent dictator"...but do believe we are dis/mis/informed in the western world...

 

I don't see how our (US, NATO, UE) military actions are anything but UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

 

*May have pulled off my 1st post with 2 quotes & 2 articles, although couldn't figure out how to include a snippet from above articles with web addresses...workin' on it..*

[Decyferon]

haha no I havent ever watched Fox news dont think we even get comedy like that over here.

 

Im not saying civilians havent been killed all I am saying is that it is military placements targetted, I don't even support the action in Libya I am just putting oopposing points otherwise we would havea one sided thread. Also, I said NATO arent targetting civilians, some many get caught up and killed I wont argue against that, if you can show me where NATO have deliberately targetted civilians then that may be different.

 

Everyone knows my view on the constitution, I don't believe in it as a relevant document that a modern country can be run by because it doesn't take into account complex modern society and world affairs. It has good guidelines im not denying that but it isn't the be all and end all.

[CILONE/SK]

but cruise missling isnt war like hostilities you see.. its just...well, we dont know what it is, but its legal.

 

the whole 'its not war' thing is like if someone shot another person in the face and killed them for no reason, and the person who did the shooting said...'well, you see, its not cut and dry, its not black and white. i didnt shoot and kill that person. it wasnt murder, it was 'strategic target reduction.' see the difference? those murder laws dont apply to me in the least.'

 

Angel, it will never make sense to you. This post just illustrates how you make extreme examples and twist words to support your wrong point of views that are not based on facts. The only think you will understand is isolating America to the point of its failure.

 

War like hostilities from a treaty of many countries and the US declaring War on a country are totally two different things. Supporting our treaties is allowed and not consistent with being called a war. Now if NATO or the UN declared a war against country, that is a whole separate thing, but that is not what has happened.

 

Establishing a no-fly zone with cooperation from numerous other countries, does not make the US at war. It seems your blindness to facts is causing you a reading comprehension problem.

 

You really are not unbiased enough to understand anything other then your narrow point of view. You should step back and re-evaluate you fringe viewpoint to see if you are making realistic sense.

BTW, your example above makes no sense to anyone.

 

I am positive that if you had anything that shows the US is at war, you would have pulled it out by now, but you don't and you should drop it.

 

As for Hope Not, he wins the "coming out of left field" award

[angelofdeath]

if i had anything to 'show the US was at war?"

 

what in the hell do you need? military operations, bombings, missiles flying, dead bodies, collateral damage... etc. turn on the news. its all right there. what defines a 'war?' i mean, you are just ridiculous in all this... going to these great lengths to defend your home boy in office.

 

why are you taking a stand against only my 'libertarian' position on all this, but you cant even touch Hope Not's arguments? do you think dennis kucinich is just an idiot as well?

 

you are plainly trying to call war, something other than war.

no different than calling torture 'enhanced interrogation' or murder 'reducing targets'

 

but heaven forbid anyone dares to say anything outside the ideological spectrum from hillary and joe biden to mccain and boehner. i mean, if anyone has a view that is outside of this little 3x5" card, why, they are just some wacked out extremist. heaven forbid, silence them! they just dont understand the world! whats mainstream? 14 trillion dollar debt and 70 trillion worth of total unfunded liabilities. thats fine and dandy. having troops around the world, to the cost of trillion dollars a year. thats fine and dandy. president knows no restraint to his own power? fine and dandy. along comes someone who simply says there is a problem with all this...and its ...'off with their head! idiot! isolationist! libertarian! you dont understand the world!'

 

 

because the president has no authority whatsoever to use the military without congressional authorization except in the case of immediate invasion, no matter if he is part of some global organization, he cannot use the US troops without congressional approval for anything. period. i documented all this quite well, and you refute it with your idiotic rebuttals about 'twisting words,' 'burying your head in the sand,' 'not knowing anything about the real world,' and 'you are just an isolationist' (which is the exact opposite of my views). your rebuttal is just...'well, you are wrong, i cannot prove it, i have no supporting evidence to back up my claim, you are just wrong and the president can do what he wants, its constitutional, because, well... because obama's lawyers say so. but im still technically against it. i oppose all acts of aggression. this is wrong and immoral, but the president needs to be supported. he can do it all he wants. he is Der Fuhrer.'

 

your entire argument is based on the fact that nato is intervening in a country it shouldnt be, it is arbitrarily engaged in aggression, and since it refuses to say this is a 'war' it just isnt. as if you bought a dog, but refused to say its a dog, referring to it only as an animal.

 

thanks for showing your true colors. nothing but a statist, pro imperialist, empire hungry, war monger who sits on the left side of the aisle.

[lord_casek]

AOD: don't forget the boots on the ground video of balaclava wearing CIA agents.

[CILONE/SK]

if i had anything to 'show the US was at war?"

 

what in the hell do you need? military operations, bombings, missiles flying, dead bodies, collateral damage... etc. turn on the news. its all right there. what defines a 'war?' i mean, you are just ridiculous in all this... going to these great lengths to defend your home boy in office. Not defending him at all, I think he is wrong, but this is not a war, it is supporting a treaty and is legal

 

why are you taking a stand against only my 'libertarian' position on all this, but you cant even touch Hope Not's arguments? Hope not is arguing unclearly and I think I might agree with himdo you think dennis kucinich is just an idiot as well? do not really care if he is a idiot or not, not relevant to this debate

 

you are plainly trying to call war, something other than war. no I am not, you want to lump all hostilities into "WAR" and that is just not a factually position

no different than calling torture 'enhanced interrogation' or murder 'reducing targets' Actually it is different then these

 

but heaven forbid anyone dares to say anything outside the ideological spectrum from hillary and joe biden to mccain and boehner. i mean, if anyone has a view that is outside of this little 3x5" card, why, they are just some wacked out extremist. heaven forbid, silence them! they just dont understand the world! Nothing wrong with having a position outside the ideological spectrum,(in fact I support it fully) unless they are not based on factual info and twist facts to fit their points of views

 

 

because the president has no authority whatsoever to use the military without congressional authorization except in the case of immediate invasionactually he does, you just do not want to accept that, no matter if he is part of some global organization, he cannot use the US troops without congressional approval for anything. period wrong again. i documented all this quite wellno you didn't, your whole argument is based on you saying you are right and calling it a war, which it is not, and you refute it with your idiotic rebuttals about 'twisting words,' 'burying your head in the sand,' 'not knowing anything about the real world,' and 'you are just an isolationist' (which is the exact opposite of my views). your rebuttal is just...'well, you are wrong, i cannot prove it, i have no supporting evidence to back up my claim, you are just wrong and the president can do what he wants, its constitutional, because, well... because obama's lawyers say sowrong again, he can do it because he is legally authorized to do it. but im still technically against it. i oppose all acts of aggressioncool, but your hard line approach to this is blinding you to not see facts or accept them. this is wrong and immoral, but the president needs to be supported. he can do it all he wants. he is Der Fuhrer.rhetoric'

 

your entire argument is based on the fact that nato is intervening in a country it shouldnt bewhy shouldn't it? it is part of why there is even a NATO to begin with, it is arbitrarily engaged in aggression, and since it refuses to say this is a 'war' it just isnt. as if you bought a dog, but refused to say its a dog, referring to it only as an animalanother example that does not make sense or apply.

 

thanks for showing your true colors. nothing but a statist, pro imperialist, empire hungry, war monger who sits on the left side of the aisle.again you are wrong. people like you believe that someone else believes everything that they do or they must be against you. There is no middle ground with you ad that makes you a extremist

 

I have said I agree with many of your points, but still do not think you are realistic. You really should step away and reevaluate your hard line positions and you will see that the world is more gray than black or white.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD: don't forget the boots on the ground video of balaclava wearing CIA agents.

 

There probably is CIA in every country in the world, are we at war with all of them?

[angelofdeath]

I have said I agree with many of your points, but still do not think you are realistic. You really should step away and reevaluate your hard line positions and you will see that the world is more gray than black or white.

 

stay on the 3x5 card. stay on the card

 

since we'll never agree on terms, since you think changing the name of something makes it legal...

 

please point to me the clause in the constitution that gives the executive branch power to institute and enforce no fly zones, bomb targets, or the power to prosecute criminals outside of their jurisdiction who have committed no crime against the US? all US treaty power is limited by the powers the executive has. the executive cannot use power he doesnt have in a treaty situation, any more than you could go next door to your neighbor, institute a 'no walking zone,' set up a perimeter, shoot people that walk in and out of the house, etc.

 

as stated previously, the president does not have the power to conscript any more than he has the power to engage in military action of any kind without congressional consent. but if NATO needs troops, and because the US is stupidly part of NATO he cannot conscript americans even if NATO calls for it. get it?

 

i'll be waiting for the enumerated executive power that states the president can do ANY the stuff that he is doing in libya

 

10$ says, you'll retort with 'you dont understand the world, its not black and white' for the 200th time.

[angelofdeath]

AOD: don't forget the boots on the ground video of balaclava wearing CIA agents.

 

no doubt... good ol' al-CIAeda.

ironic the US is supporting, arming and working with the same groups we are fighting in a'stan and other places. and, us silly isolationists think we should always be playing both sides... and never minding our own business.

[CILONE/SK]

Here you go big guy, read the whole thing:

From the Attorney Generals office/B]

 

Key part, with references to court cases

 

"The Constitution, to be sure, divides authority over the military between the President and Congress, assigning to Congress the authority to “declare War,” “raise and support Armies,” and “provide and maintain a Navy,” as well as general authority over the appropriations on which any military operation necessarily depends. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 11-14. Yet, under “the historical gloss on the ‘executive Power’ vested in Article II of the Constitution,” the President bears the “‘vast share of responsibility for the conduct of our foreign relations,’” Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 414 (2003) (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610-11 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)), and accordingly holds “independent authority ‘in the areas of foreign policy and national security.’” Id. at 429 (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 291 (1981)); see also, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S.

6

Authority to Use Military Force in Libya

at 635-36 n.2 (Jackson, J., concurring) (noting President’s constitutional power to “act in external affairs without congressional authority”). Moreover, the President as Commander in Chief “superintend the military,” Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 772 (1996), and “is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command.” Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850); see also Placing of United States Armed Forces Under United Nations Operational or Tactical Control, 20 Op. O.L.C. 182, 184 (1996). The President also holds “the implicit advantage . . . over the legislature under our constitutional scheme in situations calling for immediate action,” given that imminent national security threats and rapidly evolving military and diplomatic circumstances may require a swift response by the United States without the opportunity for congressional deliberation and action. Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization, 4A Op. O.L.C. 185, 187 (1980) (“Presidential Power”); see also Haig, 453 U.S. at 292 (noting “‘the changeable and explosive nature of contemporary international relations, and the fact that the Executive is immediately privy to information which cannot be swiftly presented to, evaluated by, and acted upon by the legislature’” (quoting Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965)). Accordingly, as Attorney General (later Justice) Robert Jackson observed over half a century ago, “the President’s authority has long been recognized as extending to the dispatch of armed forces outside of the United States, either on missions of goodwill or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.” Training of British Flying Students in the United States, 40 Op. Att’y Gen. 58, 62 (1941)."

[CILONE/SK]

BTW Angel

 

 

"you dont understand the world, its not black and white"

 

hahaha

[lord_casek]

There probably is CIA in every country in the world, are we at war with all of them?

 

 

the video in question is of agents showing the Libyans how to use mortars

[TheoHuxtable..]

[CILONE/SK]

the video in question is of agents showing the Libyans how to use mortars

 

and?

[lord_casek]

and?

 

 

Talk to anyone from Fort Hood today?

[CILONE/SK]

Actually I did earlier and forgot about it. I will send a PM.

[lord_casek]

S, the War Powers act allows 60 days of actions with a 30 day extension for withdrawal...how long have we been over there?

[CILONE/SK]

White House spokesman Jay Carney

 

"We do not believe, as a legal matter, that our engagement in this mission meets the hostilities threshold set by the War Powers Resolution, and therefore does not apply," he said.

[CILONE/SK]

This is why they got sued. I hope it gets to the supreme court, but I seriously doubt it will ever see a court room.

[angelofdeath]

Here you go big guy, read the whole thing:

From the Attorney Generals office/B]

 

Key part, with references to court cases

 

"The Constitution, to be sure, divides authority over the military between the President and Congress, assigning to Congress the authority to “declare War,” “raise and support Armies,” and “provide and maintain a Navy,” as well as general authority over the appropriations on which any military operation necessarily depends. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 11-14. Yet, under “the historical gloss on the ‘executive Power’ vested in Article II of the Constitution,” the President bears the “‘vast share of responsibility for the conduct of our foreign relations,’” Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 414 (2003) (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610-11 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)), and accordingly holds “independent authority ‘in the areas of foreign policy and national security.’” Id. at 429 (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 291 (1981)); see also, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S.

6

Authority to Use Military Force in Libya

at 635-36 n.2 (Jackson, J., concurring) (noting President’s constitutional power to “act in external affairs without congressional authority”). Moreover, the President as Commander in Chief “superintend the military,” Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 772 (1996), and “is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command.” Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850); see also Placing of United States Armed Forces Under United Nations Operational or Tactical Control, 20 Op. O.L.C. 182, 184 (1996). The President also holds “the implicit advantage . . . over the legislature under our constitutional scheme in situations calling for immediate action,” given that imminent national security threats and rapidly evolving military and diplomatic circumstances may require a swift response by the United States without the opportunity for congressional deliberation and action. Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization, 4A Op. O.L.C. 185, 187 (1980) (“Presidential Power”); see also Haig, 453 U.S. at 292 (noting “‘the changeable and explosive nature of contemporary international relations, and the fact that the Executive is immediately privy to information which cannot be swiftly presented to, evaluated by, and acted upon by the legislature’” (quoting Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965)). Accordingly, as Attorney General (later Justice) Robert Jackson observed over half a century ago, “the President’s authority has long been recognized as extending to the dispatch of armed forces outside of the United States, either on missions of goodwill or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.” Training of British Flying Students in the United States, 40 Op. Att’y Gen. 58, 62 (1941)."

 

ah yes, some gobbelty gook defending executive totalitarianism from the unelected black robed deities that is not found in any written part of the constitution. ironically, judicial review itself was invented by the supreme court as it is mentioned no where in the constitution either.

 

like i said... still waiting for the exact enumerated power of the president to engage in any of these actions whether you call it a 'war' or a sunday picnic.

 

you lose again.

damn. isnt it getting old?

[angelofdeath]

White House spokesman Jay Carney

 

"We do not believe, as a legal matter, that our engagement in this mission meets the hostilities threshold set by the War Powers Resolution, and therefore does not apply," he said.

 

and 'enhanced interrogation' isnt torture. 'secret rendition' is just an 'unexpected vacation?'

i've yet to hear the executive argue AGAINST itself having authority to do anything. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

[CILONE/SK]

I cite the attorney generals legal opinion and you still do not get it. You are the one who has lost. All those words, which you call "some gobbelty gook", means you lost and also cites all the legal precedent to back up my position which is inline with the constitution. It is not my problem if critical thinking is not a ability that you have, but that might explain how you are unable to understand simple logic and stick to your narrow mined view points.

 

 

"I can tell you blind to the facts

So you can not see

But you better recognise

Whats in front of your eyes"

[CILONE/SK]

and 'enhanced interrogation' isnt torture. 'secret rendition' is just an 'unexpected vacation?'

i've yet to hear the executive argue AGAINST itself having authority to do anything. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

 

 

Go put on your tinfoil hat, because the black helicopters are coming to get you.

[angelofdeath]

with all due respect, the same attorney general said the president has the right to assassinate american citizens without any trial.

 

do you also agree with this?

 

and do you think if hitler cited a court case to back up the extermination of the jews or stalin cited a show trial to back up his opinion that this would hold weight and exonerate them?

[CILONE/SK]

Again you use examples that are extreme and do not apply.

 

You seem to have a problem dealing with failure like a man.

[angelofdeath]

since courts have found these powers in the constitution, why cant you?

please, point them out.

i'm still waiting

 

and are you denying that the obama administration has also argued for extrajudicial assassination of american citizens? the same administration you are defending their rights to wage war without congressional approval? and you think their arguments hold weight?

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

and this is not from a 'blatantly biased libertarian isolationist' source that i used as 'evidence to support my case.'

[lord_casek]

Again you use examples that are extreme and do not apply.

 

 

 

But it does apply. If this guy is spouting shit about presidential powers reaching into assassination of American citizens, he's automatically deemed full of shit and cannot be

trusted.

[CILONE/SK]

Changing the subject? There is no one talking about assassinations.

 

Unlike hard liners like you believe, the constitution is not a fixed document. In fact amendments and legal precedent are able to apply it to today's world. I guess you can not understand that and just goes to show everyone that you do not understand how to interpret the constitution except in very basic terms.