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: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





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.


Didnt say nor suggest I read your threads in there entirety, thus the reason i made this quote:




After reviewing your threads listed,


Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit is it?




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Thats just the way it is....The U.S. doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever being back to the once great Nation she was. Sorry to say, the scales have been tipped now to the bad side.. There are to many sorry, lazy a$$, good for nothing people now in the U.S. Interested in only drugs, sports and sex....and the other 49% of us want do anything until its to late, which in my opinion it already is.No one person will ever be elected with this system we have that can do us any good. I do see good real Americans rising up soon, real real soon, but many of us will die because of letting it get to where it is now. Good Night America, the party is just about over !!! We have no-one to blame but ourselves....



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 





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.


Actually... You are not quite right about this.

The US Constitution was a riff on the Articles of Confederation, which was essentially written to establish how a very loosely formed National Government would work.

The Articles were a de facto system of government, and this would lead to them being viewed as inadequate.
This would then piggyback a movement to sign an actual Constitution.
Our Constitution was signed as a "legitimate" form of a de jure Government.
(IMHO no government is legitimate)

When the Constitution was signed and ratified, two parties were battling to get this signed.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were a product of Alexander Hamilton's thinking and wanted a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists were a product of Thomas Jefferson's reasoning and wanted the Governments power split amongst a decentralized local government.

The one thing however that they both agreed upon was that some form of loose government was needed in order for the preparation or defense for WAR.
And the most interesting thing about the preparation for war in this country, is that the founding fathers let us perpetually carry debt regarding war.
(I can't speak for proto on this, but I think that is why he would define Constitution as simply a promise to pay back debt)

Because the country had to operate, at the very least as defense, and due to the war with England (aka revolutionary war), we had accumulated a rather large debt with, ironically enough, England.
And all of the previous debt that was granted to the US by those Tories across the pond from before the war was also to be paid back.
That is according to the treaty of paris.

So... You see... Even though we won "our independence", we really didn't win anything because although we were no longer taxed by England, we were taxed by the new Federal Government in order to pay back our previous war debt.
This was not in the form of income tax and our taxes were low compared to that when England ruled, but the FF most definitely allowed anything and everything to be taxed according to the Constitution.

The Constitution and the B O R have nothing to do with England, but they do have everything to do with our Federal Government and the size, scope, and power that we would endear to this newly formed government.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Caji316
 


I have to agree with you, way to many interventionists and not individualists. The need to strive to succeed and push for gain is no longer a motto followed.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Your signature says it all.. nice rebuttal though~



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
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.


Oh you are reading a thread in an alternate universe I see.

Presently there are only 9 people on the planet that can definatively decree what is constitutional and what is not, and they won't be using your google sources and canned statements if and when the issue gets to them to define it.

Further where is this admission that you imagine I made by simply denouncing ANY AND ALL DECREES made by the defacto war time dictatorship in Washington DC that has been running the nation since the Civil War?

That does not make the desperate attempt to get others to abandon their moral obligations and rights you would so eagerly see them give up by pretending to speak with some authority you lack any more valid than the wretched attempt it is at promoting moral decay.

Finally the Alternative Breaking News Forum on ATS requires that the opening piece be based on a News Article and bear the same exact title, so no while it might not be convenient to the agenda you promote this thread is not a hoax.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Your signature says it all.. nice rebuttal though~


Thank you for recognizing the truth to my words.

I am not ganging up on you and IMHO, I sounded really calm and succinct.
The only thing that I search for is truth, and when I see where it is a bit misguided, or I can throw in my collective two cents, then I try.

I was reading through the thread and wanted to respond and try to help clear up any misunderstandings.

Anyone who knows me here at ATS, knows that Proto and I are friends, but my response was directed at you and I would have said what I said regardless of Proto being in the thread or not.

The view that you take of our Constitution was essentially rendered invalid with the signing of the 14th Amendment and the imposition of Maritime Powers by Lincoln in 1862, powers which have never been revoked.

That is the reason for us being in this situation.

If we were not citizens of the Federal Government, then your argument might have merit, but unfortunately we have been forcefed our de facto, completely BS incorporated Federal Government that is slowly taking over every aspect of our lives.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
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?
Congressional approval is required... for Article 43 forces


My apologies if my explanations haven’t been clear. Let me give it another try.

Article 43 of the UN Charter is for the establishment a permanent UN force. Member states would have to sign special agreements, and have them ratified by their respective legislatures, giving the United Nations control over the agreed upon forces made available by the member states for the UN.

In other words, a UN army would be established, made up by the forces of the various member states, given to the UN, under the control of the UN, for whenever military force was required to maintain international peace and security, or to enforce UN resolutions when military force was required.

This has never been done, no member states have signed Article 43 agreements, so whenever a UN resolution requires military enforcement it relies on Article 42. Article 42 authorizes the use of force by the armed forces of member states, but those forces remain under the control of the respective member states.

Member states aren’t obligated to participate. In fact, Germany abstained and stated that it supported the mission but didn’t want to participate militarily.

The provision the Senate enacted (22 USC 287d) requires the President to get Congressional authorization, and to get the agreement ratified, for Article 43 forces. So if the President wanted to contribute with troops for this permanent UN force, he would have to get permission from Congress and ratify the special agreement that would manage the relation between those forces, the US and the UN, as Article 43 specifies.

When it comes to Article 42 military action, however, as per 22 USC 287d, Congressional authorization is not required. The current mission against the regime of Gaddafi is an Article 42 action, so the President doesn’t need to get authorization for that.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I tend to disagree in one small part. I believe that we are in this situation across the globe due to the interventionists in power. Now, we could cover many topics of issues about intervening, but thats for another day. No regulation, no oversight...etc etc.

I do concede in one motion, the Constitution and the BOR, do illustrate the de jure, and yes we are living in a de facto " state". Does it make it right, by no means. We all know that the rights and liberties within the text are the laws of society ( if you will ), but government does quite often infringe on that regularly...or as you stated, de facto.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
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?
Congressional approval is required... for Article 43 forces


My apologies if my explanations haven’t been clear. Let me give it another try.

Article 43 of the UN Charter is for the establishment a permanent UN force. Member states would have to sign special agreements, and have them ratified by their respective legislatures, giving the United Nations control over the agreed upon forces made available by the member states for the UN.

In other words, a UN army would be established, made up by the forces of the various member states, given to the UN, under the control of the UN, for whenever military force was required to maintain international peace and security, or to enforce UN resolutions when military force was required.

This has never been done, no member states have signed Article 43 agreements, so whenever a UN resolution requires military enforcement it relies on Article 42. Article 42 authorizes the use of force by the armed forces of member states, but those forces remain under the control of the respective member states.

Member states aren’t obligated to participate. In fact, Germany abstained and stated that it supported the mission but didn’t want to participate militarily.

The provision the Senate enacted (22 USC 287d) requires the President to get Congressional authorization, and to get the agreement ratified, for Article 43 forces. So if the President wanted to contribute with troops for this permanent UN force, he would have to get permission from Congress and ratify the special agreement that would manage the relation between those forces, the US and the UN, as Article 43 specifies.

When it comes to Article 42 military action, however, as per 22 USC 287d, Congressional authorization is not required. The current mission against the regime of Gaddafi is an Article 42 action, so the President doesn’t need to get authorization for that.


Nope I got ya, re-read further...I do concede~



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


The truth is we are hostage to this process and have no real say in it. The government does what it wants to do, it makes us pay for it, and teaches us to praise it for the abuse, and that we freely give it these powers through a free and fair process.

The truth is it arbitrarily does what it wants through systems and agencies and appendage corporations that are so large and deeply entrenched that as long as the system itself exists virtually any one or combination of politicians selected through the sham election process has no chance of changing it fundamentally or radically even if they wanted to.

The government's policies are not representative of my thinking or even the vast majority of people I know, and is most often only accepted by those who have been so taught to believe in the authority and legitimacy of the state that they question it not at all.

It is a government that in fact does not represent the people and the people actually have no mechanism for ever gaining or getting control back of.

It exists to serve multi-national corporations and their interests, and to make us all subsidize the cost of that while providing them a veil of legitimacy.

The question is, is how long will the people not just in this country but the rest of the world resign themselves to doing nothing in the ever increasing violent and murderous face of it's ambitions and desires?

Clearly our forefathers all spoke out on the dangers of empire and taking sides in foreign conflicts and warned to not undertake these things.

Clearly since the Civil War all we have done is build empire by using our military as a mercenary force for corporations securing resources and markets while taking side after side in every dispute between nation and insisting we are the ultimate arbiter of all such conflicts through a dictatorial gunboat diplomacy that has left millions around the world dead, maimed and homeless.

It is what it is, and the people with the greatest courage are those who have the honest desire to recognize and speak the truth and dare to try to change it.

It has never worked out well for any nation taking our path to empire through war and policing actions and it's not going to work out any better for us in the long run.

When the real bill comes due, people really aren't going to want to pay it, so I think we would all be well served by stopping the ride now.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:22 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)
I'd rather fight it with our own hands and citizenry because it would cheaoen our true efforts as patriots of our constitution and united brotherhood of being citizens of our country and not nescessarily the gov't.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentblue

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)
I'd rather fight it with our own hands and citizenry because it would cheaoen our true efforts as patriots of our constitution and united brotherhood of being citizens of our country and not nescessarily the gov't.



That was my sentiment to original poster. He answered not caring who came to " rescue ' us.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   


"Of course its a war, it is simply a sham political process of corrupt leaders all tied into the same banking and energy systems decreeing in unison what they must for the sake of continuing the enterprise.

Haven't you yet understood the word games that they are playing. Fight your own dictator you are a freedom fighter, fight against us taking over and dictating to you, you are an insurgent.

The Patriot Act does away with many of the laws that the patriots who founded the country fought and died for and cautioned us to never give up or relinquish most especially in times of crisis when adhering to those principles would be more challenging but be our saving grace.

Detainees are kidnapped victims that through rendition are being held outside of the protections of any legal agreement governing war, once again through a series of word games.

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. "



You're wrong PT, this isn't war. This is a "surgical strike". Or "military intervention". Or a "no-fly zone".

That's the problem in America these days (and the western world as a whole). Nothing is a war. That word leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Therefore we call it something else and then the populace can feel good about it while watching it on CNN on their 50" screens from the comfort of their living rooms and continue on with their daily lives. The average American citizen under the age of 70 has no concept of WAR. Military intervention is something that lasts for 1/2 hr. on their nightly news.

It's also the biggest problem with American foreign policy. The govt. likes to think that launching a dozen tomahawks solves their problem (or their citizen's problems).
Unfortunately war is war, and the way in which we wage "war" just continues the problem. If we want to rid the world of Quaddafi then let us wage WAR. If not then leave the Libyans the hell alone.
edit on 21-3-2011 by The Baby Seal Club because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by The Baby Seal Club because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Oh I get it. If I find some quassi journal publications with the title "Pigs Fly" with a photoshopped image of a pig with wings, it is not a hoax so long as it is copied and pasted over here according to rules?
While that may be technically true it is very weak that you had to resort to that to defend the accuracy of this thread.
I'll stick with the multiple sources of legal documents that prove the Libyan action is neither unconstitutional nor illigitimate.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
A hot topic


It's amazing how people misunderstand isolationism vs. non-interventionism

But at the end of the day he explains it perfectly



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Minister Louis Abdul-Haleem Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr. (born Louis Eugene Walcott; May 11, 1933) is the leader of the Chicago, Illinois-based Nation of Islam and he "Blasts Obama on Libya Bombing":




Let us not jump to conclusions about Gadhafi. It appears he has been firing on his own people but do we know the whole story? Is he being painted as a boogey-man to legitimize U.S. take-over of Libya?

Ponder this:
“Be careful, brother, how you handle this situation because it is coming to America! It has already started. Look in Wisconsin! Look in Ohio! Look at what’s going on in your country! And remember your words because the American people are rising against their own government: It’s not Muslims; it’s not Black people! It’s White militias that are angry with their government, and they are well armed. Are you going to tell them-’Put your arms down, and let’s talk it over peacefully?’ I hope so. But if not, America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so, but because the dissatisfaction in America has reached the boiling point. Be careful how you manipulate the dissatisfaction in Libya and other parts of the Muslim world,” he warned.

Obama and the military-industrial complex have not cared and do not care about the people of Libya:

“Is it that you’re (U.S. officials) so concerned over the blood that is being shed in Libya, when you looked the other way when the Israeli Defense Force was bombing the innocent people of Gaza, unarmed men, women and children? … You looked the other way when the Israeli Defense Force went into Lebanon thinking that they were going to have an easy victory, then you had to come out with your tail between your legs?”

Nor did they do anything in Africa to help the people during the genocides (which are still going on?) So, WHAT IS YOUR GOAL HERE MR.PRESIDENT?

Read the full article here:
www.prisonplanet.com...
edit on 20-3-2011 by Topato because: (no reason given)


Another discussion about America's 3rd illegal war and Kucinich's warning here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The American people are being conned into believing this latest war crime against humanity is actually to help the rebels in Libya when in fact we have been told that Gadhafi is not the primary target in this mission. EXCUSE ME? Who is the cause of the rebel deaths if not Gadhafi himself? So how is he not the target?

The hypocrisy continues. The New World Order is here. The crooks in government are becoming unstoppable. How much longer will we take this abuse?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I'm not going to lie or be embarrassed. I have teared up about this quite a few time over the past few days. What we are doing is despicable. I am so angry I have no idea what to do with that anger. Our president has usurped our nation's laws in favor of international law. We have turned a civil war with many casualties on both sides, to an international war with TOO many casualties on both sides.

NOT ONE SINGLE INNOCENT DEATH is justifiable in this. Our government and especially our Presidents (past, present and most likely future) are out of control!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Your post shows that you completely miss the point. For one thing, your source justifies these actions by alluding to the PATRIOT Act when the very existence of the PATRIOT Act is often hotly debated. You want to just point out some online legal dictionary as proof that what is going on is legal. I think the point is whether or not this is right. Is it right for us to continually intervene in the affairs of other countries with brute force? If so, why do we chose to help certain countries and not others? Is it because we have to get something in return in order for it to be worthwhile? If so, how can we, as citizens of the United States, continue to sit idly by while I government wages wars of OPPORTUNITY while killing innocent people and spending billions when our own country is in dire straights?

No amount of links that "prove" the legality of this actions will ever convince me it is RIGHT.
edit on 21-3-2011 by nunya13 because: to add content



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I love how you make the most intelligent and informed response to the OP and the happenings in Libya, but the people that agree with the OP and the article completely ignore your post.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join