Decyferon Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Then it is down to Americans at the next election to vote for a change, but you arent going to get anything different from the Republicans, at least you have the option to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 i'll go even a step further....i dont think we will get anything by voting at all. the system is set up so only republicans and democrats can get elected. they are just two wings of the same bird of prey. look at the responses of the main stream to former and current presidential candidates iike kucinich and paul. "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Bastiat "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." — H.L. Mencken but to take a step back, you are also missing the insane amount of damage the US government has inflicted on the world. the dresden carpet bombings, the atom bombs, the collateral damage, the deaths of vietnamese innocents, the iraq embargo that killed over 2 million, the death of a million iraqi civilians, innocent deaths of a'stani's, etc. these atrocities pale in comparison to some of these other dictators the US goes after. who is going to hold the US accountable? but im curious to what your position on the actual topic of the thread is... the suing of obama over libya. they have him dead to rights on legal grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 They do not have him dead to rights on legal grounds, that is just your view point and you should realize there are more ways to look at things. My view point is that the war powers act is unconstitutional. That seems pretty clear to me, but I am accepting of the fact that there are other view points which might also be right. I hope it gets to the supreme court, because they will repeal the war powers act in my own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I agree the system we have is flawed, but I can't think of a better one at the moment. As for the topic of the thread I feel it is just another one of those things that is used to raise someones profile, call me cycnical but these people are only doing this to further themseves not because they care about the issue at hand. Ges them some press time. I think it is a complete waste of time to be honest,but then as I have said before the constitution is good in theory not practise, the world isnt the same as when it was written and America doesnt have the same responsibilities then as it does now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 They do not have him dead to rights on legal grounds, that is just your view point and you should realize there are more ways to look at things. My view point is that the war powers act is unconstitutional. That seems pretty clear to me, but I am accepting of the fact that there are other view points which might also be right. I hope it gets to the supreme court, because they will repeal the war powers act in my own opinion. i'll agree with you that the war powers act is technically unconstitutional. but does this really matter today? i mean, sure, it matters for someone like myself, but executive lawyers have also argued that torture is constitutional, the patriot act is constitutional, the suspension of habeas corpus is constitutional, that even the right to assassinate US citizens is constitutional without due process. james clyburn in response to judge napolitano, when asked whether a law he supported was constitutional or not, he smirked and said...'judge, most of what we do up here is unconstitutional.' so in reality it matters not. i've heard plenty of measures come out of your mouth that are blatantly unconstitutional, so it really doesnt matter. the war powers act is unconstitutional not because it 'limits' the presidents war making power, but that it legalizes war for 60-90 days without congressional declaration as required by the constitution, even when the constitution specifically states that the president is ONLY ALLOWED TO DEPLOY TROOPS TO REPEL AN IMMEDIATE INVASION of the US. it does not say 'the president can send troops do whatever he wishes if he is part of a treaty organization' and if the war powers act is unconstitutional, the normal constitutional constrains already restrain the president. there is no way around it. the only argument the administration is putting forth is that this is NOT a war, nor are they engaged in 'hostilities.' which is just like bush and cheney saying torture was not torture because it was 'enhanced interrogation' i think this piece pretty much smashes your entire argument: http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/ its ironic to point out, your viewpoint is held not only by obama, but by nixon, bush/cheney, mark levin, john bolton, among other dictatorial interventionist types Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOPE NOT Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 WHOAAA...(*apologies for not including various members' quotes...) What angers me about the US behaving like the "world's police" is how we pick & choose WHO (what country/regime) is violating "human rights"... If the US considers a country a "friend", we look the other way... WE DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT LIBYA...WE CARE ABOUT ECONOMICS. WE CARE ABOUT THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES, OIL..not the people. If we're going to suddenly assist the Libyan rebels fight a tyrant...why wait over 3 decades??? Iraq had no WMD's they have OIL=fuel for our SUV's, not only was George W. an idiot, so are we if we can't admit the truth...Why aren't the NATO allies invading Syria? Yemen? Pakistan-who DOES have nuclear weapons? Saudi Arabia? They're an ally...Never mind that Bin Laden & most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia!!! Israel continues their Zionist apartheid regime, oh well, only Palestinian Arabs are suffering, not REAL people. Haiti has some of the world's worst poverty, why didn't we hang Papa Doc & Baby Doc Duvalier like Saddam Hussein? Why ignore the military coupe, led by Duvalier's former generals, against Haiti's elected pres. Aristede? Oh, just keep funneling millions of $ there that never reaches the people... I could enumerate, I think my sentiment is obvious... NOBODY on this fucking planet even gave a damn about the Middle East until OIL was discovered... If Libya wasn't OIL rich...we'd ignore this whole situation. What we're protecting in Afghanistan is not human rights, it's the MULTI-NATIONAL pharmaceutical co.'s interests...the whole economy there is heroin driven, from the current Afghan gov't to Al Qaeda terrorists...WTF!!! As the "leaders of the FREE world"...maybe the US has a moral/ethical obligation to defend global human rights...but choosing to help only when our enemies are in violation, SHOULD be unacceptable. Censorship of mainstream media is contributing to mass complacency in this country...Not seeing graphic war photos is keeps Americans' hearts from empathizing or caring...If the media hadn't shown the twin towers fall over & over, the planes, people leaping to their death...would the entire nation have risen up, demanding JUSTICE??? Doubtful. The public outcry to withdraw from Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos was fueled by such images... Terms like: "collateral damage & a billion points of light" make war's suffering & bombing, death & destruction into a video game where we lose touch with reality. As long as we have fuel/energy to drive our cars, heat homes, a/c, electricity...plenty of beer, pizza, sports & porn, etc...WE DON'T SEEM TO CARE what's done behind the scenes. Even if it means depriving millions of their quality of life, turning millions into refugees, orphans... Damn...I swore to myself I'd only post a one paragraph response...and I wish I knew why this reply box is 1/2 the normal size & why it's impossible for ME to add comments from 2 or more members...maybe I should ask my former district rep Anthony Weiner...he knows A LOT about the internet!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOPE NOT Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 i'll agree with you that the war powers act is technically unconstitutional. but does this really matter today? i mean, sure, it matters for someone like myself, but executive lawyers have also argued that torture is constitutional, the patriot act is constitutional, the suspension of habeas corpus is constitutional, that even the right to assassinate US citizens is constitutional without due process. james clyburn in response to judge napolitano, when asked whether a law he supported was constitutional or not, he smirked and said...'judge, most of what we do up here is unconstitutional.' so in reality it matters not. i've heard plenty of measures come out of your mouth that are blatantly unconstitutional, so it really doesnt matter. the war powers act is unconstitutional not because it 'limits' the presidents war making power, but that it legalizes war for 60-90 days without congressional declaration as required by the constitution, even when the constitution specifically states that the president is ONLY ALLOWED TO DEPLOY TROOPS TO REPEL AN IMMEDIATE INVASION of the US. it does not say 'the president can send troops do whatever he wishes if he is part of a treaty organization' and if the war powers act is unconstitutional, the normal constitutional constrains already restrain the president. there is no way around it. the only argument the administration is putting forth is that this is NOT a war, nor are they engaged in 'hostilities.' which is just like bush and cheney saying torture was not torture because it was 'enhanced interrogation' i think this piece pretty much smashes your entire argument: http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/ its ironic to point out, your viewpoint is held not only by obama, but by nixon, bush/cheney, mark levin, john bolton, among other dictatorial interventionist types SO RIGHT ON POINT!!!angelofdeath ***Oops..I screwed up my post once AGAIN...wanted parts of above quote & my message is missing...sorry...will fix this after I walk the dog...*** you slay me!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 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. You put forth an assumption that you make and argue against that instead of what is really said. You view of America is skewed and do not deal with the complexities of the current world. The war powers act is unconstitutional because it limits the power of one branch of government by making it fall under another branch. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 what am i supposed to do, post only people who hold the opposite beliefs of me as evidence that i am right? makes no sense. these comments about 'the real world' are just silly. that is what i AM talking about. the real law of the land. the constitution. the rule of law. either take the stance of the constitution doesnt matter or take the stance that it does matter. you seem to only back the 'constitutional' stance/argument when it fits your case. im also assuming you are holding this position as a supposedly anti war person, because you believe the US military should intervene in 'humanitarian' operations, like darfur. until you disagree with that statement, i'll assume this is your position. the only reason i conceivably believe you are taking this stance when being a supposedly anti war person, is because you want the executive dictator to have the power to wield the military, for things you want them to do. iraq-bad- republican. libya-good-democrat-peace prize winner. please present your case from the constitution, exact quotes, that says the president can initiate any action he pleases, send the US military anywhere he wants, bomb whatever he wants, without congressional approval without the US being attacked, invaded or other similar actions where immediate action is necessary. "The war powers act is unconstitutional because it limits the power of one branch of government by making it fall under another branch. " this is a faulty argument. if you want to make this case, then the constitution and the enumerated powers themselves are 'unconstitutional' because it delegates certain powers to each branch. i dont even understand where you are drawing this authority from. congress declares war, funds it, etc. the president commands the military once war has been declared or can deploy the military to defend the US against immediate invasion, etc. since even the obombya administration realizes this, they are basing their entire case on 'the libyan war is not a hostile action.' just like torture was 'enhanced interrogation. this is not a case at all. anyone can see right through it. no sane person would agree that the libyan intervention is not a 'hostile' action. im arguing against exactly what you said. you said the libyan intervention is constitutional. i said its not. i presented evidence and many points to back up my case. your case is..well.... nothing. nothing based on constitutional theory. i said its immoral and unnecessary. you agreed, but you vehemently disagreed with it being illegal/unconstitutional, which is the issue at hand. its so much better to hear a left leaning person like hope not (judging from their rhetoric) hold real principles and stand by them no matter who is in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Angel, you are not getting me to debate certain points with you because I refuse to let you define the debate which is what you keep doing. I view your point as skewed and not based on realistic situations. It is like talking to a 6 year old about paying bills, the 6 year will never understand anything past their want to play with toys. You will never understand anything past your closed narrow minded libertarian world. To me, you have not presented one bit of proof that your position is correct except for your own insistence that it is and your fellow libertarians backing it up. Because you think it is, does not make it so, no matter how insistent you are about it. This is also why Ron Paul will never become president, because when everything is all said and done, the world and the US is not black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 obviously you have never read the constitution. its all there in plain text. its quite understandable you dont want to debate certain points, because you dont have a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Your whole case is " because I think so". So I do not think you have an arguement either and seriously doubt your understanding of the constitution based on your narrow viewpoints concerning it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 House Votes Against Authorizing Obama’s Libya War http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/house-votes-against-authorizing-obamas-libya-war.php Well, there ya go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Casek, this whole thing is symbolic because it will not go through and it is just a waste of time when they should be dealing with more pressing issues then this political grandstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Article 2 Section 2 - The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States Hamilton, principle author and constitutional propagandist stated the presidents powers in war were "... to have the direction of war when authorized..." during the constitutional debates. Federalist #69 - Alexander Hamilton explained that the president's authority "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature." even lincoln understood it: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't." "The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood." "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress...therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." George Washington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Casek, this whole thing is symbolic because it will not go through and it is just a waste of time when they should be dealing with more pressing issues then this political grandstanding. more pressing issues than bombing foreign countries and killing innocents that never attacked us without legal or moral authority? mass murder is a waste of time? obama should of been impeached for much less than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Your biggest misunderstanding is that this is not a war and you keep trying to frame it as such. That is what you refuse to understand or accept because it does not fit into your narrow view points. Nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 more pressing issues than bombing foreign countries and killing innocents that never attacked us without legal or moral authority? mass murder is a waste of time? obama should of been impeached for much less than this. Your an isolationist who would build around the US. Too bad your way of sticking your head in the ground and pretending nothing is happening outside our borders does not work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Your biggest misunderstanding is that this is not a war and you keep trying to frame it as such. That is what you refuse to understand or accept because it does not fit into your narrow view points. Nice try. hahaha. paging orwell freedom=slavery war=peace torture=enhanced interrogation wasting money=investment nice case you have though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Let me see if I understand this. It is a war because you say it is?? You might have a case saying that NATO is at war, but right now, the US is not. Sorry to let you down, but that is a fact and unless that can be overcome, your whole argument is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 NATO et al were not in place when the constitution was made, agreements made after the constitution are still valid agreements, if america hass a responsibility towards NATO or the UN then I'm sorry the constitution is invalid in those points because they were not able to look into the fututre and predict all outcomes. This is why the constitution is nice as a guideline but not applicable as written law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 im with you as far as saying the constitution is not perfect. but where your argument fails is that the UN's charter specifically states that any actions by the UN's cooperative nations that make it up, still respect each countries 'constitutional processes.' i dont have as much nato knowledge as i do the UN, but section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945 states that special agreements ‘shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.’ not only that, but because a country signs a treaty with someone else, it doesnt mean that the governemnt or certain parts of it can miraculously engage in a power that they dont already have. the constitution created the federal government, not the UN charter. NATO cannot give the president of the US the power to use the US military for things that he doesnt first have the power to do in the first place. put into example form...the NATO goes to war (mind you, nato is basically synonymous with united states government). the US government does not have the power to conscript under the constitution. but because nato needs forces, you cannot start conscripting people, a power the government doesnt have. but all this aside, the US shouldnt be in NATO or the UN. they are nothing but sovereignty robbing organizations that are up to no good in the first place. i'll agree the constitution is useless today. we dont follow it, if we ever did. it is useless in restraining government. but when the government does wrong, it must be stopped on all available grounds. these silly arguments can be smashed on moral grounds, constitutional grounds, strategic grounds, and practical grounds. libya fails on all counts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 It only fails in your view and for you to make the assumption that your view is the only right way to view things is proof that you are stuck in a role that does not leave you open to other ideas regardless of logic. This is a prime failing of most libertarians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 what i dont get is why you try to make these arguments about such and such being unconstitutional, that certain powers exist in the constitution that dont... and then when your premise is smashed, you simply forget about it and go on multiple post rants about how i think my view is the only 'right' way to view things. do you not think your view is the only right way? i mean, what am i missing here? isnt that why we are debating? you think you are right, i think im right? im open to plenty of ideas. but initiating aggression against anyone, or any nation, is not something i like to do. i see no need to try to justify it by calling mass murder of innocents, anything but immoral and an act of aggression that also happens to be unconstitutional. but we agree to disagree right? just make sure you stroke off your check to mr obama for his 'non violent peace keeping mission' in hot sandy places, even though you are supposedly against this action and consider it immoral. obama couldnt of found a better lap dog. if you were around during bush's reign, you would of fit right in on his board of advisors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You have nothing if it is not a war, which it is not? My premise is not smashed as you stated, because there has not been a war declared. Until that happens it is well within the presidents right to support NATO. I do not agree with the bombing, but I also do not agree with your assertion that it is unconstitutional. Everything is not black and white, and just because you think something, does not make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 BTW, I can agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 ^That would be all well and good except for the close US ally of Bahrain doing the same thing, and instead of the US cruise missiling (see the new verb i just made?) the fuck out of Bahrain's army, they just "urge restraint on all sides" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 they have been urging Bahrain and Syria to no avail, I know even in NATO they dont want to get into another situation like Libya because it is rankly a cock up, but they have set a precident with Libya so we will have to see what happens in these other countries. But I think in Bahrain they are beginning discussions to try and come to an agreement within the country which is something Libya is not. All they need to do is play the political game and look like they are doing something right and they wont get bombed. Also, I havent caught up on what is happening in Bahrain but the didnt start bombing civilians and jets against them - not that I agree with the police marching in and shooting at protestors etc but again it isnt quite the same degree of violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 ^That would be all well and good except for the close US ally of Bahrain doing the same thing, and instead of the US cruise missiling (see the new verb i just made?) the fuck out of Bahrain's army, they just "urge restraint on all sides" 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.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 but cruise missling isnt war like hostilities you see.. its just...well, we dont know what it is, but its legal. I believe "kinetic action" is the word you're looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.