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: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
If you read further, in your very own source, references the reverting back to Article 43. ... Also, note that in Article 45, suggests in order for Article 45 to be enacted, it mandates the Article 43 must be adhered
That’s because the articles you cite (Art. 44 and 45) are in pursuance of Article 43, and are therefore unrelated to Article 42, since 42 and 43 are two distinct types of military action.

Article 43 is for a permanent UN force, on the other hand Article 42 is for “the use of force by a peacekeeping operation, multinational forces or interventions by regional organizations,” as explained by the UN source. The current military action underway is an Article 42 action.

Article 43 is not controlling in this circumstance, so neither 44 or 45 apply.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Thats really interesting. under international law, america has no rigth to invade. of course, thats what a dictator does. we can retaliate if lets say, bombed here, or a us ship or people have been severly harmed or killed. but thas not the case. even ghaddaffi recently, hasnt done anything to us. do i like him? no? sympathise? no im just going according to what the article and law states. we have no right to bomb them...damn the pentagon is becoming more and more hitler like arnt they. and as far as we know form history, ti was socialism..even the communist russians didnt invade another country, till something wa done to harm them mainland..an attack.
well in other news i read here.BP has started drilling off libya. SO! its illegal to attack, but drilling for oil ( not in international seas) is ok. sounds like people in pentagon, congress are making money off the oil. the whole prupose of getting america to invade libya...oil=$$$ for a few. how greedy can one get. alot apparently.
and obama copying bush;s statements. ide hire a new speech writter who dosnt copycat obama. or be creative and intelligent and use yuor presidential brain and act n think like one* not as someone told you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Obama's ILLEGAL WAR FOR OIL!!! Where is Haliburton? I guarantee they will be involved too. Its time for you liberals to apologize for smearing Bush! Even your messiah (burp, anti-christ) is a war monger.

War for oil. War for oil. War for Oil!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
They are attacking Libya with many civilian casualties to protect the civilians


What's more ironic is that the rebels are aloud to attack Gadhafi, but Gadhafi can't attack the rebels.

It's a 'Juicy contradiction'

edit on 21-3-2011 by BiGGz because: 2nd



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
If you read further, in your very own source, references the reverting back to Article 43. ... Also, note that in Article 45, suggests in order for Article 45 to be enacted, it mandates the Article 43 must be adhered
That’s because the articles you cite (Art. 44 and 45) are in pursuance of Article 43, and are therefore unrelated to Article 42, since 42 and 43 are two distinct types of military action.

Article 43 is for a permanent UN force, on the other hand Article 42 is for “the use of force by a peacekeeping operation, multinational forces or interventions by regional organizations,” as explained by the UN source. The current military action underway is an Article 42 action.

Article 43 is not controlling in this circumstance, so neither 44 or 45 apply.


i don't know what source you are using, if you could clarify that would be great, but using the source form aptness, Article 42 :


Article 42 of the Charter was not invoked in any decision of the Council. Participants in the Council pro- ceedings did refer to the Article both explicitly34 and implicitly3 ’ in debating the question whether the Council should decide to use force under Chapter VII of the Charter.


This would suggest that Article 42 was never signed wouldn't it?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Another illegal war, this time under the cover of humanitarian aid.
How much more are we going to allow them to push us? Do you not see that this leads to classical tyranny? The people in the shadow government are OUT OF CONTROL. What's it going to take America?

We are being led to utter chaos and disaster by these FOOLS who lust for power and control. Why do we follow?

We have to get rid of the GLOBALISTS and take this country and the world back!!
edit on 21-3-2011 by Topato because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
They set up a no fly zone.
and the first thing they do is
Attack vehicles and tanks?
They have no right to do any of this.
America is Terrorising the world.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
i don't know what source you are using, if you could clarify that would be great, but using the source form aptness, Article 42 :
I’m not sure what you mean, since I am aptness and I have not seen, much less wrote, the quote you cited. But I can clarify the Article 42 question, sure.

The Security Council, as per Article 39, “[determines] the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

On February 2011 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1970 which condemned the use of lethal force by the regime of Muammar Gaddafi against protesters and imposed a series of international sanctions, in accordance with Article 41.

Art. 41 — The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Since the international community reached the conclusion the sanctions and measures adopted in Resolution 1970, in accordance to Article 41, were inadequate, it adopted, in March, Resolution 1973 demanding an immediate ceasefire and authorizing the no-fly zone.

Article 42 was triggered because the measures taken in Resolution 1970, pursuant to Article 41, were deemed to have been inadequate to resolve the situation.

Art. 42 — Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Besides these reasons, another evidence that the current mission isn’t pursuant to Article 43 is the fact that the United Nations itself acknowledges no Article 43 agreements, as required by the Charter, have ever been signed.


This would suggest that Article 42 was never signed wouldn't it?
Like I said I don’t know whose quote is that you have attributed to ‘aptness,’ but it isn’t mine. Regarding your question, Article 42 doesn’t require additional ratification, unlike Article 43 that you have pointed out.

The Senate ratified the United Nations Charter in 1945 and enacted the provisions in 22 USC 287d stating that the President didn’t need Congressional authority for military action pursuant to Article 42, but it needed approval and ratification by Congress for Article 43, as specified by the Charter itself [Art. 43(3)]

I hope I have now been able to clarify this question.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
They set up a no fly zone.
and the first thing they do is
Attack vehicles and tanks?
They have no right to do any of this.
America is Terrorising the world.



Less we forget, its not just America involved there trigger....may want to read up before making specific assumptions.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


The confusion poster heaping scorn and derision on the concerned…check
The anti-conspiracy poster adding nothing of relevance or fact…check
The look to the false left/right divide political process for a future solution…check
The pseudo intellectual trying to make himself appear more intelligent by trying to make others appear less…check

I could go on, but let’s face it; this is a game that ends not in checkmate but stalemate.

But you really already knew that didn’t you?

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


There is no content to add to a debate when it it based on falsehoods and inuendo. It's like debating unicorns and pink elephants that walk on ceilings.

"Foreign Policy PowersThe president or his designated representative, such as the Secretary of State, has the exclusive authority to communicate with other nations, recognize foreign governments, receive ambassadors, and make executive agreements. Throughout U.S. history, Congress and the courts have granted the president great deference in conducting foreign policy. This deference is based, in part, on the need for one person, rather than 535 members of Congress, to represent and speak for a national constituency.

These powers were illustrated in the aftermath of the september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. President george w. bush warned the Taliban government of Afghanistan to surrender Osama bin Laden and other terrorists or face the possibility of war. In the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other representatives lobbied the United Nations for support of the U.S. position on Iraq.

In addition to the authority to recognize foreign governments, the president is empowered by Article II to make treaties with foreign nations, subject to the consent of the Senate. A treaty is an agreement between two or more nations containing promises to behave in specified ways.

Executive agreements are international compacts that the president makes with foreign nations without the approval of the Senate. They do not have the same legal status as treaties unless they are subsequently ratified by the Senate. The Constitution does not expressly give the president the power to make executive agreements. However, this power has been inferred from the president's general constitutional authority over foreign affairs. At one time, executive agreements involved minor matters, such as postal relations and the use of radio frequencies. Since the 1930s, however, presidents have negotiated important foreign policy issues through these agreements rather than through treaties. The Supreme Court has recognized that an executive agreement is legally equivalent to a treaty and therefore the supreme law of the land. Executive agreements enable the president to achieve results while avoiding the uncertainty of treaty ratification.

Presidential War PowersAn integral part of the president's foreign policy role is the enormous power of the U.S. armed forces, over which the Constitution makes the president commander in chief. The president may threaten a foreign nation with force or actually conduct military actions to protect U.S. interests, aid U.S. allies, and maintain national security.

Although the president is commander-in-chief, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Despite this apparent constitutional impediment, presidents since Thomas Jefferson have dispatched troops to combat situations without the prior approval of Congress. The Supreme Court held in the Prize cases, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459; 70 U.S. 451, 18 L. Ed. 197; 70 U.S. 514, 18 L. Ed. 200; 70 U.S. 559, 18 L. Ed. 220 (1863), that the president has the authority to resist force without the need for special legislative action.

In times of crisis, the president has the power to commit U.S. forces, but the Vietnam War led Congress to place limits on the presidential war power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1541 et seq.) restricts the president's power to mobilize the military during undeclared war. It requires the president to make a full report to Congress when sending troops into foreign areas, limits the duration of troop commitment without congressional authorization, and provides a veto mechanism that allows Congress to force a recall of troops at any time.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to use force to fight a War on Terrorism. President George W. Bush issued military orders in October and November 2001 that mobilized National Guard and Army Reserve units and directed the detention of enemy combatants by the military. In a controversial move, President Bush authorized military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, many suspected terrorists were captured and moved to military prisons for indefinite terms of detention. The invasion of Iraq by U.S. and British forces in March 2003 was authorized by Congress in the fall of 2002, again giving the president as commander-in-chief broad authority to conduct a military campaign.

The president also has broad powers over domestic policy during wartime. President Abraham Lincoln issued an order to military commanders suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, which allowed the military to arrest and detain persons without trial for an indefinite time. Congress later passed a law suspending habeas corpus, but after the Civil War, the Supreme Court, in ex parte milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866), condemned Lincoln's directive establishing military jurisdiction over civilians outside the immediate war zone.

During the early days of U.S. involvement in World War II, President franklin d. roosevelt issued orders authorizing the establishment of "military areas" from which dangerous persons could be expelled or excluded. This order was used to designate the West Coast a military area and to remove and imprison 120,000 Japanese Americans in "relocation centers" for the duration of the war. The Supreme Court upheld the relocation order in korematsu v. united states, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944), finding that the government had a compelling national security interest during a time of war to take such extreme measures.

Following the September 11 attacks on the United States, Congress passed the usa patriot act, which gives the president increased powers to wiretap suspected terrorists without judicial supervision as well as the power to indefinitely detain Aliens who are suspected of Terrorism. U.S. citizens who have been held as enemy combatants in military prisons without the right to consult with an attorney or have a criminal trial have challenged the president's authority. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the courts must defer to the president when dealing with issues of national security. Therefore, the president could order the indefinite detention of enemy combatants"

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Everything you are trying to debate is perfectly legal, no mysteries about it, unless you like to stay ignorant by being too lazy to look up the facts so you can fuel unfounded conspiracies.

edit on 21-3-2011 by TinfoilTP because: to add quotation marks

edit on 21-3-2011 by TinfoilTP because: spelling



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Using your source I understand what you are saying. But i haven't seen where it states under the Article 42 or any other, that allows for the POTUS to unilaterally maneuver around Congressional approval. I have clicked all the extra links added within your source, but am unable to locate the specific sentencing that allows this action by the President.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Using your source I understand what you are saying. But i haven't seen where it states under the Article 42 or any other, that allows for the POTUS to unilaterally maneuver around Congressional approval.
That’s in 22 USC 287d, that you yourself have cited here and here.

Here is the pertinent language of the statute, with the emphasizes on the Article 42 question—

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. 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 said Charter ...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II
So the Libyan army moving and pounding towns didn't happen?


Were you there to see it happen? for yourself?..

If not, then you will never really know.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Using your source I understand what you are saying. But i haven't seen where it states under the Article 42 or any other, that allows for the POTUS to unilaterally maneuver around Congressional approval.
That’s in 22 USC 287d, that you yourself have cited here and here.

Here is the pertinent language of the statute, with the emphasizes on the Article 42 question—

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. 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 said Charter ...





So with that, my argument is correct then. Quoted from page 3



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).



Which suggests Congressional approval needed? Or do I have it backwards?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 





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.


First not only do I live in the United States but I was born in it too, so where you are imagining I am not is something I don't have a clue.

I highly recommend if you have an interest in what the Constitution is and isn't you read these threads.

All Roads Lead to Rome

Tax Day April 15, 2010 the London Banker’s Celebration of the Anniversary of Lincoln’s Death,

The 2010 Census, How I Have Responded to 5 Enumerators

I have contributed volumes of information on the subject of the Constitution to the site and prompted some of the best research you will see anywhere on it.

You want to ignore the real issue of the war to argue the constitutionality of it while you don't even understand what the constitution is or the context and for what purpose it was actually created.

That will get you chasing your tail like a dog in a circle.

Divide and conquer, divide and conquer.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Explain where the burnt out hulks of armor and artillery and many kilometers of burnt out wreckage came from outside of Benghazi after the French attack jets attacked?
Did TPTB sneak in with thousands of chinooks overnight and place them there under the cover of darkness? I suppose they doctored up Misrata, Ajdibaya, Sert etc with hollywood props to satisfy your outlandish conspiracy?

This is the funniest conspiracy of them all. Nothing ever happened unless you were there, lol sounds like you just jumped in from the moon hoax debate.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Why exactly do you imagine the armed invasion of sovereign nations through a murderous mechanized militant process is legal? Because a corrupt body of corporate bought and paid for politicians put some words to pen and paper that it is?

Sure Hitler's henchmen did the same and it didn't serve them to well and Nuremburg.

There is legal, there is lawful, and then their is moral.

If you imagine a nation that likes to go around butting it's nose into every one else in the world's business and telling them at the point of a gun and quite violently how they should live and what they must do and overseeing a process that sometimes sees their own leaders sent to the gallows pole, won't ultimately invite the same response when the world has had enough, I think you are dangerously foolish and oblivious to the temporal nature of the power of empires, and the price that they pay when they have reached their zenith and the tide of their power receeds.

I never authorized these wars, consented to them, or condone them, therefore no it matters not to me, which maladjusted greedy lunatic pretending to represent me said they were legal.

That's what you and people like you don't get.

Some of us don't want this as a way of life, on our concious, or to be held responsible for what are the criminal acts of murder and theft that the government that claims to represent the people does for it's own greed and to grow and perpetuate itself.

You can dress up a turkey anyway you want but it will still be a turkey.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





our 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)



At first glance, I thought you suggested that you lived out of the US.





I have contributed volumes of information on the subject of the Constitution to the site and prompted some of the best research you will see anywhere on it.


Conceited much? After reviewing your threads listed, not impressed. As your comments are based off of emotion. Not to mention, copying and pasting works from another, is hardly categorized as research. Further your tax thread, is comical. I highly recommend reading the the Founding of America, letters of the founding fathers. Would do you a world of good. It would appear, your attempts of " research " are more for stats, than anything else. Sad really, but whatever floats your boat.




You want to ignore the real issue of the war to argue the constitutionality of it while you don't even understand what the constitution is or the context and for what purpose it was actually created.


Um, no, I have said that I do not condone this war, let alone these actions. But I do debate the Constitutionality of this invasion.

It would seem, that instead of conjuring up a constructive thought of your own, you'd prefer to copy and paste everything. Which not only derails, but limits the amount of constructive debate.

Good day~


ETA: page 3



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.


I was quoted sayin the above.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


When faced with the legality of it all, you claim a higher moral right.
This whole thread is debunked and now belongs in the hoax bin by your own admission. It is not unconstitutional, or illigitimate. False claims in the title.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Actually the threads I have listed in their entirety would be the equivelant of reading War and Peace about 4 times over, so yeah I am sure you reviewed them!

There is tremendous research in those threads regarding the treaties and documents that frame the basis of the world that we live in.

The only person you will be doing a disservice to in your hasty attempts to misidentify that is yourself.

Don't pretend to care about the constitution if you aren't prepared to learn from whence it came, why it was created and who it was intended to serve and does.

Our nation is involved in three open wars now, one more that practically is a war, while agitating on yet another nation, and you might want to take stock of the actual situation while there is still perhaps some chance to stop this train wreck.

I am widely read on the site friend, I don't think it will serve you well to pretend what many others have read as a result is something other than it is.




top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join