It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I'd like to know if someone knows if President Obama had approval from congress or if he doesn't need one for Operation Odyssey Dawn.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
according to Ron PAUL
Congress is needed and this is an illegal action
because Libya has not attacted or threatened the US it is doubly illegal...

of course what hasn't been illegal lately

edit on 19-3-2011 by Danbones because: www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Thank you for your reply Danbones. I'm giving you a star.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I would think Obomber just went over the heads of Congress, and dumped the decision on the UN so the NATO puppets could go in. That's probably why they say there will be no US boots on the ground. We'll have to wait and see. I guess they have disassociated the terms 'offensive' and 'war'.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
IAW the War Powers Act, the President can use force to enforce a UN resolution.

www.loc.gov...

The President just can't wake up one day and send troops into harms way unless the UN tells him to, of course.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Thank you for the link to the video.
I like the guy. Ron Paul seems like a reasonable man!



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Starting with Baby Bush, the President has not needed permission from anyone to do anything. Congress, the UN or the people...nobody.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Technically no. It's rubbish, but the President only needs Congressional approval if he seeks to declare war. Absent seeking that declaration, he can do what he wants and the only thing the Congress can do is withhold funding. This happened in Korea, Vietman, first Gulf War. Happens all the time. Bosnia, Panama, Grenada. Hell, we send our military in far more often absent a declaration of war than we do with one.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


I can't find the part where it says that the president can use force to enforce a UN resolution.
Can you point me to it?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


By what I've read thanks to previous posters pointing me to the War Powers resolution, the president does need authorisation from congress if he intends to put armed forces into action or harms way.
Is there something I don't know?
edit on 19-3-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


You're straight in with that one. Ever since 9/11 the national state of emergency has been renewed, even Obama extended it. So during this perpetual national terrorist crisis he can still issue executive orders without house approval.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.

I think the above speaks volumes. The POTUS was able to do this and the courts found that the member of Congress had no legal standing to bring the suit. That's absolutely ridiculous! But there you go.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


Thanks for the reply but one last question. Isn't it illegal to violate the War Powers Resolution? I mean shouldn't clinton have gone to jail for violating it? As I understand it, the War Powers Resolution is a LAW. If you break a LAW, there are consequences. Am I right?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Within the War Powers Act states:

"The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."

The way they get around this is that the President brings in the Congressional leadership and tells them what he is going to do. The rub is that by the time the 60 days is up the military can be so buggered up in the campaign, that it is irresponsible to pull them out. In that situation the Congress will grant an authorization to use force. Again, once you get in country and start blowing stuff and have troops on the ground, its a bit tricky to simply pull them out, so in reality the President can pretty much do what he wants. It can be a game of chicken, but with troops in harm's way, the President is always going to win that battle. The spirit of the act was such that the President should be able to act quickly and deploy the military in the event of an attack or an attack against an ally. It has been abused and often and Congress has often enabled the abuse by virtue of them not having the spine to vote on an actual declaration of war.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


He didn't break the law. Where do you read that he broke the law.

Since we follow the laws of the UN, Congress has basically given their permission for any military action deemed necessary by the UN. So, in that way, the War Powers Act is not violated by the President enforcing a no fly zone in Libya or anywhere else as long as it's approved by a UN resolution. Pretty scary stuff.

Government law is like jazz, you have to read/listen to the words/notes not there.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Damn... I think I understand now. But its all so complicated and twisted. It's almost as if they deliberately want to make it that way. A government that truly cares about its armed forces would make things clear as ice. No BS...

Anyway, thank you for your replies.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I'm pretty sure that the first Gulf War had congressional approval. Poppy was very careful covering his own butt for that one.

Somalia, however, whole 'nother story.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You're right he did have approval. What he did not have approval for was Desert Shield, since we never fired a shot, he needed none. Smooth, spend a couple hundred million bucks to place military assets in place and then ask if you can use them. What was Congress going to do, tell him to bring all of that stuff home?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


All that because Saudi Arabia didn't have the men to use all the armaments they had bought from us in the first place, too
it was never about Kuwait - that's why we spent vastly more time blowing up things in Baghdad than we did kicking Saddam out of Kuwait and securing the place. it was about slapping him around for Saudi Arabia and removing his capacity to threaten them again.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join