Kucinich Warns Obama on Libya War

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Civilians are going to be killed when they decide they want to act as human shields.

By that do you mean "support their leader?"

I thought the whole point was that they people wanted him out. Why would they be acting as human shields if they did not support their government?

Or are you talking about the US?

That is the problem with one line posts.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Sorry he chairs the UN council.................www.nbcchicago.com...

Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

reply to post by StarLightStarBright2


The UN isn't a state, so that's no great bother.

Wow...Kucinich..The Democratic member of the Socoialist Party of America..telling his Messiah..What?

Are his worshipers findly coming out of their hypnotic trance?

Maybe you can now see the 'truth' now... www.commieblaster.com

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Sorry he chairs the UN council.................www.nbcchicago.com...

And that i a significant difference, isn't it?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
What does that have to do with him making an inaccurate statement? The implications of what a 'no fly zone' entailed were not exactly 'played down' in the media. If anyone thought imposing a 'no fly zone meant the UN would just say "You cant fly", then they were paying only cursory attention. I'm not defending this military action. My contention with that specific aspect of Kucinich's statement in now way implies so.

Ok, any member of congress or the senate should know full well what a "no fly zone" entails. Especially Dennis, hasn't he been in office since Christ was a Corporal in the Legion?

We simply are not going to start flying around our multi-million (or billion) dollar platforms in Libya with their radar and missile defenses operational. That is just stupid.

We won't risk the platforms or the kids who fly them with an intact ADA network in place.

That would be not only imprudent but irresponsible as well for any Commander - no Second Lieutenant out of school would deploy air assets into an active ADA umbrella...too dangerous. You take them out first.

Besides, the President can use forces as the Commander in Chief for a certain amount of time without the consideration or approval of anyone. He did not declare war - we have not declared war since WWII.

I hate Obama with a passion but he didn't do anything illegal in this instance. I wish it were so, because we could get rid of his incompetent ash but that is simply not the case.

Immoral and wrong are not synonymous with illegal…

Originally posted by truther357
Wow...Kucinich..The Democratic member of the Socoialist Party of America..telling his Messiah..What?

Are his worshipers findly coming out of their hypnotic trance?

Maybe you can now see the 'truth' now... www.commieblaster.com

IF you think Kucinich considers or ever considered Obama 'his messiah' you need to turn Glen Beck off and read some actual newspapers for a change.

here, here's a youtube video from over a year ago. You dont even have to read:

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Sorry he chairs the UN council.................www.nbcchicago.com...

Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Just because I don't know any better; doesn't this also make his peace-prize null and void?

I'm asking about that ______-born senator from IL.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I'm still waiting for you to explain how this post of yours relates to mine in any way. It reads totally non-sequitor to me, as if anyone who disagrees with any aspect of your theory somehow supports the killing of civilians?

Please explain.

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
reply to post by BiGGz

 

And to think i voted for him...How we all got fooled.

edit on 20-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)

You were fooled for even thinking your vote counts

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
What does that have to do with him making an inaccurate statement? The implications of what a 'no fly zone' entailed were not exactly 'played down' in the media. If anyone thought imposing a 'no fly zone meant the UN would just say "You cant fly", then they were paying only cursory attention. I'm not defending this military action. My contention with that specific aspect of Kucinich's statement in now way implies so.

We simply are not going to start flying around our multi-million (or billion) dollar platforms in Libya with their radar and missile defenses operational. That is just stupid.

We won't risk the platforms or the kids who fly them with an intact ADA network in place.

That would be not only imprudent but irresponsible as well for any Commander - no Second Lieutenant out of school would deploy air assets into an active ADA umbrella...too dangerous. You take them out first.

He did not declare war - we have not declared war since WWII.

If that is not an act of war, then what is? Your going to tell me bombarding a country with 120+ tomahawk's isn't declaring war? In your head it might be "clearing a path". But to the many - that is an act of war. Bombing another state in any form of perception / aggressive or defensive is war...plain and #in simple.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by forklift

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss

Oh HELL no!

The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.

Who is it governed by than?

Our own state and federal governments. The U.S. is a sovereign nation.

Sovereignty - The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

Yes... so, same as Libya!

But I guess thats a "one-way" definition...

Here's some hard proof from the Library of Congress:

The President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541)

Well, as far as I know the United States hasn't declared war, received approval from Congress, or been attacked by Libyans.

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b0

The POTUS hasn't met with Congress yet, but I saw on CNN earlier today (sorry, I was just listening) that he'd be providing a speech within the next day or two.

Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544).

What the POTUS has done went against the Constitution, and therefor is illegal - approval of the United Nations or not, he has went against his own nation's laws.

Addition: For more a more in-depth explanation, check American Thinker

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
I am not an American so i dont know the finer points of American politics, but am i right in thinking that whatever the UN decides is of more authority than Congress? Surely if they give the ok for military action then surely that superceeds a soverign parliament/congress?

Oh HELL no!

The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.

However the US has agreed to follow UN SC resolutions just like everyone else.....but it has a Veto on the SC so it can block any it doesn't want to follow!

See the wiki article on UNSC resolutions - en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Konah

Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544).

What the POTUS has done went against the Constitution, and therefor is illegal - approval of the United Nations or not, he has went against his own nation's laws.

Not unless congress has actually passed such a resolution - I highlighted the bit you posted that applies - note it starts with".... IF..."

Until then, AFAIK, he's completely within his rights.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Konah

Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544).

What the POTUS has done went against the Constitution, and therefor is illegal - approval of the United Nations or not, he has went against his own nation's laws.

Not unless congress has actually passed such a resolution - I highlighted the bit you posted that applies - note it starts with".... IF..."

Until then, AFAIK, he's completely within his rights.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Unbelievable how many spelling mistakes I can make in such a short post!!

If he had been granted approval by Congress first or the United States was attacked by Libyans, or given specific statutory authorization, then yes you would be correct.

However, he was not. Which means the initial attack was un-constitutional and that your argument is void.

Edit for Clarity: What you highlighted is in regards to the pulling out of military forces stationed in a hostile environment, not entering combat. Did you notice this?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


So what's your point Kucinich?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I'm pretty sure some of those pieces will be depleted uranium. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Bonified Ween

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
reply to post by BiGGz

 

And to think i voted for him...How we all got fooled.

edit on 20-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)

You were fooled for even thinking your vote counts

Yes i was,but not any more....I am DONE voting!!!....There all deceptive and do not have the best interest of our country and the people at heart... and i see no change coming.Its all about greed and power.They have pretty much ruined the usa imo..I am pretty sure now that Obama was already picked to be president well before the elections.Sorry if this is off topic.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Govermnet supporters have said they would place themselves around critical areas to act as human shields to defend it. When civilians actively participate in the defense of legitimate military targets, they are no longer considered civilians, nor are they protected, under the Genevera Convention. By actively and freely choosing to assist in the defense, they are in fact combatants.

In an effort to swing opinions, its reported as civilian deaths, while completely leaving out the finer details.

Will civilians be killed during armed conflict? Absolutely, sadly enough, and I am positive this has occured in the UN actions. Its almost impossible to attack a military target located within a large population center without it. The goal is to take all neccissary measures to limit those actions.