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.

 

The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


So in other words it's my fault that I am asking critical and thoughtful questions as to just how based on your qualifying position that you qualified yourself, where you are pulling a 90% number from, of civilians in the 'eastern' part of Libya supporting their aerial assault by foreign interlopers, which friends, relatives and neighbors are dying in ‘collateral’ damage?

So now you would like to deflect from that inability to verify the veracity of your figures by insinuating I am unreasonable?

Sure, punish us by withholding more un-sourced, highly biased propaganda.

That will teach me a lesson!




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

IT's just very disingenuous of you to pretend anything being done by obama that is somehow "distasteful" is not being done by obama at all. It's the UN!

I'm just getting ready to post a new thread on obama's "Abu Ghraib". Going to blame the UN for that, too?


It's not disingenuous at all... because it is the UN. I have no opinion on Obama at all and couldn't care less what he does. The facts remain and your opinions are not facts.

I'm not going to blame the UN for Abu Ghraib because it's an American installation, simple, I hope.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

edit on 21-3-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
A rose is a rose by any other name, and whether they call it a No Fly Zone, its an armed, organized act of violence that leads to death of human beings and other life, and the destruction of property by states, this is what is known as WAR.


Well I disagree, I've asked for you to post facts that you use in your arguments and I've not seen any yet.

But that aside, we have different opinions which I can live with.

The reason for this recent bombing is to take out military threats to the no fly zone, the reason for the no fly zone is to stop Gaddafi attacking the east, which he was doing with far greater weaponry than the civilian rebels had. The no fly zone is there to protect those in the east, those mothers, wives and children, so which would you prefer?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 


You are absolutely correct I am unable to provide you with the exact details of covert top secret intelligence operations in the Middle East, I can't imagine why?

Because we all know at the end of the day those involved in the Intelligence community love to rush home and brag about their top secret expoits by posting them on the web, with photos of classified documents and names and addresses of covert operatives!

So since this hasn't happened you are right it's safe to assume the CIA, MI6 and the MOSSAD could not possibly be involved.

Even though they openly admit to the press that they are 'in touch' with elements inside of Libya!

Probably just pen pals from their college days.

The fact that there is internal strife in Libya doesn't warrant or justify Americans or French or anyone else going through an abitrary murderous process of using stand off and attack weapons to target and destroy based on "No Intelligence" since as you contend our intelligence agencies can't be involved with out a Google Source, targeting facilities within Libya that civilians work in and or live close by to, with even an added degree of sophisticated weaponry that the people have no defense against.

But I suppose you would much rather prefer a cruise missle from a warship 50 miles off your coast kill someone you love, that you have no defense against, sent by a capitol 6,000 miles away that you have no chance to retaliate against, as being better than the guy 100 miles away living in a tent that is trying to kill you and her.

The tacks, they just don't get much sharper on any board my friend!, you rock!





posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Actually, in order for the USC to have any impact, the Congress does have to give authority to the POTUS, under Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. I've seen many posters stating that these actions are not Unconstitutional. On the contrary, any act of war, preemptive or other, requires Congressional approval.

Since its birth, the United States has been accorded certain rights and obligations under the world legal system and, like all nations, it has been our sovereign right to decide what course to take as an international actor. The process by which we make that decision has evolved from one basic text -- the Constitution.

As I understand the Charter, a state is not obliged to act militarily unless it has concluded a "special agreement" with the Security Council under Article 43. The United States has not signed such an agreement -- and could not without Congressional approval (22 United States Code, 287d).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Thanks for the polite reply.

To base your arguments on assumptions is fine but I don't share your assumption's.

Of course the UN has data on Libya and it's anti-aircraft positions... they do have eyes in the sky and you know that don't you (sorry assumption).

But what's the alternative, leave the east to die?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Thanks for the polite reply.

To base your arguments on assumptions is fine but I don't share your assumption's.

Of course the UN has data on Libya and it's anti-aircraft positions... they do have eyes in the sky and you know that don't you (sorry assumption).

But what's the alternative, leave the east to die?



There is another thread the PPT is on, tends to base his responses off of emotion. Not sound evidence. Wouldn't waste your time.





posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Actually when you combine the HB Gary controversy with congressional funding of various intelligence initiatives and look at past performances of the Intelligence and Military establishment there is in fact an overwhelming propenderance of evidence to suggest external manipulation as a pretext for exactly what I stated in my opening post to this thread.

Where as I do not deny my posts are often aimed at making a moral appeal to people to consider the actions and the propaganda for the violent and decietful murderous enterprise that they truly are, the blanket denial that some posters who are in, knowing full well that we daily rack up a civilian body count in other theatres of operations that this hasn't occured in Libya is just well retarded.

The Nazis paid a price too after a pretty good run, a run that they thought too would last a 1,000 years!

See you at your war crimes trial!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





Where as I do not deny my posts are often aimed at making a moral appeal to people to consider


Though i understand your insight, this thread is not about emotional backed, or even " moral " issues. Its about the Constitutionality of the actions of the US..period! In earlier posts you, claimed that it was Constitutional, but on the contrary, the actions of the POTUS, clearly is not. The Constitution clearly identifies the need for Congressional approval.

In regards to Libya, we do agree that Libya, is just another illegal war to allow the mighty dollar to thrive for the war profiteers. But reverting back, this whole thing involving Libya is not a moral issue, but a constitutional issue, or the lack thereof.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


If only it were up to you to define the issue. I can in fact prove that the word Constitution in Latin simply means Promise to Pay Back Another's Debt and display within the Treaty of Paris preamble dictated by prince, prince elector, and arch-treasurer George of the Holy Roman Empire that the U.S. Constitution was decreed by George as well as the once every ten year Census as a gaurantee to European Lords and Creditors that their contracts and stock and bond investments in the colonies would be honored in perpituity and paid moving forward, as all other outstanding loans.

So the Constitution is a myth that very few Americans even understand at it's core what it actually is and why it actually exists.

This is a moral issue, as it is all about using a might makes right mentality of dominance through violence centered on the use of organized warfare to establish that dominance and instilled notion of 'right' through it's intimidating and deadly application.

Therefore, needless to say, it won't be to you I look to define this or any other issue in regards to the grave state of the world in which you but I also live.

The issue is the war, not the legitimacy of the mechanism evoked as a method of application for war.

Very simple my friend, make it complex at your own risk.

Your nation's behavior, my nation's behavior, our nation's behaviors in this regard puts us all at risk, a risk for no gain, a risk no universally recognized ligitimate group within Libya asked us to undertake with such murderous and destructive resolve.


edit on 21/3/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


If only it were up to you to define the issue. I can in fact prove that the word Constitution in Latin simply means Promise to Pay Back Another's Debt and display within the Treaty of Paris preamble dictated by prince, prince elector, and arch-treasurer George of the Holy Roman Empire that the U.S. Constitution was decreed by George as well as the once every ten year Census as a gaurantee to European Lords and Creditors that their contracts and stock and bond investments in the colonies would be honored in perpituity and paid moving forward, as all other outstanding loans.

So the Constitution is a myth that very few Americans even understand at it's core what it actually is and why it actually exists.

This is a moral issue, as it is all about using a might makes right mentality of dominance through violence centered on the use of organized warfare to establish that dominance and instilled notion of 'right' through it's intimidating and deadly application.

Therefore, needless to say, it won't be to you I look to define this or any other issue in regards to the grave state of the world in which you but I also live.

The issue is the war, not the legitimacy of the mechanism evoked as a method of application for war.

Very simple my friend, make it complex at your own risk.

Your nation's behavior, my nation's behavior, our nation's behaviors in this regard puts us all at risk, a risk for no gain, a risk no universally recognized ligitimate group within Libya asked us to undertake with such murderous and destructive resolve.


edit on 21/3/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)






Every post, you keep saying the same thing, that you can in fact prove blah blah blah....but I still havent seen this alleged evidence? Further, I highly recommend you re-read the US Constitution. You openly admitted your not from the US, and don't have the fundamental understanding of why our ( the US ) founding fathers, implemented the Constitution to begin with. Our constitution is drastically different than you abide by, ( or maybe you dont )? The purpose of ours was to separate ourselves from the Kings rule. The letters from the founding fathers go into detail about their perspective. And then depicts the reasons and the need for the BOR.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Some people need to take a step back and remember:

Gaddafi was massacring his own, innocent population. Like Hussein did. Personally, I don't care if a war is legal or not if the end result is stopping these psychopaths committing more atrocities.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Let me ask you, if these very same atrocities were occurring in your country, would you rather figure it out with your citizenry, or outsource those efforts?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


That's the thing
Should China come here and arrest Obama and all the Banksters?

Should Russia Bomb the U.S. because of all the deaths in Pakistan, Yemen and Iraq while having a reputation of "helping" and then permanently occupying the country with military personnel?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
As I understand the Charter, a state is not obliged to act militarily unless it has concluded a "special agreement" with the Security Council under Article 43. The United States has not signed such an agreement -- and could not without Congressional approval (22 United States Code, 287d).
Article 43 is for the establishment of a permanent UN force — in essence, a UN army. Article 43 has never been invoked (source)—

As the United Nations does not have any armed forces at its disposal (for details, see Article 43), the Council uses Article 42 to authorize the use of force by a peacekeeping operation, multinational forces or interventions by regional organizations. ...

Article 43 – Member States’ obligation to offer assistance in the maintenance of international peace and security
The obligation for United Nations members to undertake to make armed forces available to the Security Council, render assistance and accord relief as necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security exists only in accordance with one or more special agreements. Nevertheless, such agreements were never concluded and no State is obligated to make troops available to the Council in a particular situation.

The military action in Libya, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1973, is an Article 42 action, not 43. And this is what the legislation I have mentioned before, and you referenced, 22 USC 287d, says regarding Article 42 actions and Congressional authorization—

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of [the United Nations] Charter

Your comments don’t seem consistent with this piece of legislation you yourself referenced.



On the contrary, any act of war, preemptive or other, requires Congressional approval.
This is not related to the present circumstances, and I’m just curious about your opinion, does the President require Congressional approval to, in self-defense, reply and defend from a military attack on the United States?


edit on 21-3-2011 by aptness because: added language for clarity



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Let me ask you, if these very same atrocities were occurring in your country, would you rather figure it out with your citizenry, or outsource those efforts?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

If my family was being killed in the streets by a crazy leader and his mercenaries, I really wouldn't care who came and stopped it. Natives, foreigners, aliens, don't care. No matter what nightmare my country might turn into afterwards - gotta beat being dead, right?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


If you read further, in your very own source, references the reverting back to Article 43.

Article 44 :


When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces



Also, note that in Article 45, suggests in order for Article 45 to be enacted, it mandates the Article 43 must be adhered:

Article 45:


In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


Now reverting back to Article 43, since we the US apparently did not sign into action any special agreements with the security council, under Article 43, the US could not undergo any action without Congressional approval. ( US code 287d )


Also, ETA, The US code supersedes any mandates put forth, meaning, that the US code must be adhered to, ( or Congressionally voted on ) prior to any action involving NATO or UN.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 



I work for a company that has on going works in Libya (mostly Benghazi area) and can confirm of large scale civilian casualties. For the record, my company has NO involvement in the oil, chemical or security areas (simple construction work). We are in touch quite often, but no longer daily, with Libyan management as all of our workers have left the country.


How are you Flavian? We are glad you decided to join in on this thread. This topic must be near and dear to you as you seem to have first hand knowledge of what is going on there. This is a good thing for us here on ATS and we appreciate any kind of insight you can offer.

I know that AECOM does a lot of construction in Lybia and I was wondering if that's the company you are affiliated with.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Let me ask you, if these very same atrocities were occurring in your country, would you rather figure it out with your citizenry, or outsource those efforts?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

If my family was being killed in the streets by a crazy leader and his mercenaries, I really wouldn't care who came and stopped it. Natives, foreigners, aliens, don't care. No matter what nightmare my country might turn into afterwards - gotta beat being dead, right?


What if it wasn't your family that was killed, but others killed by your own crazy leader, and then an outside force came in to stop your crazy leader and ended up (accidentally) bombing your house while you were away and killing your family?

Would you have the same sentiments, or did they die for a "good, greater cause?"

ETA: Even, what if your leader wasn't crazy and killing its own people, but some outside nation, simply not liking your leader, decided they felt he would be better off removed, er, regime change. So they do so, at great damage to your country, infrastructure and people.

See where this is going?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join