It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Nikolam
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.

I would call it one of the least critical minded responses to the Original Post. The Patriot Act is not something Americans voted for and not something the founders would have voted for. It essentially allows for any political organization or state to be declared a terrorist nation or organization often through a set of criteria that is all politics.

Israel's actions are little different and often worse than those organizations the President and or Congress decrees terrorist organizations without the American people having any say so in at all, in what is neither a democratic process or a representative one as a result.

An honest Supreme Court would have struck down the Patriot, Homeland Security, and FISA Acts but hasn't.

The Court has been afraid to do it's job since Lincoln issued a warrant for the arrest of the Cheif Justice who tried to oveturn his Martial Law decision to suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus the most fundamental and basic protection human beings have ever had to protect them against government since the Magna Carta when it was first introduced.

The Union Army General who executed the warrant was able to 'reason' with the Cheif Justice who went ahead then and decided not to challenge Lincoln's actions.

It sent a clear message to the Supreme Court one Roosevelt followed up on during the New Deal legislation that kept being overturned by the court, by publicly stating he would ask congress to amend the constitution to allow him to appoint an additional 9 justices to the Supreme Court raising the total to 19 where the Cheif Justice then switching his vote on criical New Deal piece of legislation near and dear to Roosevelet gave rise to the saying a "Switch in time saves nine".

Because a rubber stamp congress under a presidential and military/corporate dictatorship creates legislation to ram its imurder, theft, and frauds down the throat of the people does not make it legal or wise, when the checks and ballances in government have all been destroyed and the people no longer have a real say in the process.

This is probably why the entreaty to be a mindless minion of the military and corporate dictatorship in Washington went largely overlooked.

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:14 PM

Originally posted by nunya13
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

Lets stick to the title of this thread, constitutionality and legitimacy. You are right something can be legal and constitutional but it is a judgement call whether to do it. That unfortunately for you is not the basis of the debate here.
If you are too emotionally attached to an issue it may be wise to step away.
I quoted the entire sections which were relevant, they did include other powers of the executive branch and how they too are legal but I didn't want to take only portions of the text or people would try to accuse me of taking things out of context. There are others who quoted the UN doctrines that apply and they show no breach of constitutionality and demonstrate the legitimacy of the actions taken in Libya.
All you can do is find another Messiah come voting time if you disagree with the path he chose. In the meantime you can write your Congressman.

As to your other points, the only "Opportunity" grabbed here was to prevent a massacre. In case you are not watching, here.....

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:02 AM
Well, illegal or not......they better finish the job on this one and finish it quickly as possible so that it does'nt turn out to be another Iraq or Afghanistan.....worse still, pour in to Europe.
edit on 22-3-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

You bring up some valid points, however, this is a 2 fold problem that continues to propagate itself every 2 years. The first part of this problem is that the general public reacts to situation calling for action, the worse the event, the greater the cry and call for that action, without anyone ever stopping to define that action. The elected officials, the second part of the problem, respond to that cry, and pass legislation to appease the general population. No thought was ever given to the long term or the consequences of those laws that were pass. So the country got attacked on 9/11 and the public demanded action on the part of the government, and the government was more than happy to oblige. Now the cry is that those actions curtail the freedoms of many, for the security of all. To quote Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The Patriot Act, and the department of Homeland Security, from what has been researched out, has not been challenged in court, or gone through up to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court sets its own docket and determines what cases it will and will not hear, and the cases have to be based in prior court cases to justify the position there.
But as I previously mentioned, this is a 2 part problem. The first is always fear and reaction. People are afraid and call for action, so the congress obliges them and gives them what they asked for, in a Faustian deal. The second part is the federal government. If you think that the government is in this for the betterment of the country, then one would be sadly mistaken. The politicians are in it for themselves, coveting the chairs and halls of power, most making a career out of getting elected and staying in office, and we the people put them there time and time again. They do not represent the interest of the country or its citizens, and have always had the power and authority to stop any action that the President could have done. Instead they handed it over to the President of the United States. Armed conflicts are not cheap, and require money, that congress has to approve. If the people wanted such to end, they would send to congress people who would vote and end the conflicts, removing US military from the different actions going on, and closing the purse. But the people did not, so that brings us to what all is going on today.
As far as the UN is concerned, it was a vote through the Security council, and it requires a unanimous vote on the part of the security council. Take for example, Viet Nam. The only reason why the US got involved is cause the Soviet Union walked out and there was no veto from them. If there was, then the US would have never gone in. This is true with every other armed conflict where the question to go in or not on the part of the UN has been decided on. Each of the 5 permanent members have used their veto powers at different times to push their own countries agendas. As Russia and China are permanent members of the Security council, they held within their own power to stop any and all actions against Libya, but did not, rather abstaining from the vote. This is an indication that they initially supported the action, along with the Arab league, and all of them are now backing tracking on their decision. So the ultimate question has to be why are they now back tracking their decision and what is in it for them?

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:18 AM
* US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines

* France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships

* UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland

* Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases

* Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown

* Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases

* Denmark: F-16 strike aircraft

* Belgium: F-16 aircraft

We can fly but not you!

Sounds just like..

We can have WMD but not you!

We are the UN! .. and when its the UN, how is Joe Public involved? He's not.

If one has a grievance with ones neighbourhood, one can go to the town hall, a problem with ones country - go to ones MP but when it's a global issue like this in Libya, one that affects so many, one can do nothing.

The UN has nothing/nobody other than itself to answer and it shows.

Effectively taking over the air space is but the first step to taking over the land. The UN have started a war and just like the war on 'terrorism' , for given the questionable reasons going to war, how many years will it take to 'win' the war of ....whatever is supposed to be this time?

The rebels' strategy is to push west but this has got off to a halting start, and without further concerted air strikes it is difficult to see how this rag-tag army will ever achieve its aim of unseating Col Gaddafi.

Asked about the explosion, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said in a Washington news conference that the United States was not trying to kill the Libyan leader. "At this particular point I can guarantee that he's not on a targeting list,"

So if the MO is simply about removing just one man, how's about we bomb stuff and maybe he'll stop being mean?....

Or maybe, after a few years we'll find him in a cave and then we can hang him on TV!

Mr Ibrahim said Monday's air and missile strikes had caused "numerous" civilian casualties, especially at the "civilian airport" in Sirte.

He said the coalition also attacked a "little fishing port", known as Area 27, near Tripoli.

...without further concerted air strikes it is difficult to see how this rag-tag army will ever achieve its aim of unseating Col Gaddafi.

Of course, further random violence is what we need. Germany, Poland, Australia? Why don't you guys give us some of your planes too?...whaaaaa? Terrorism? No, no, this is the UN, we're the cool ones with blue hats, it's 'peace' dude! We're actually opposed to any nation having any sort of independence but because there's a bunch of us doing it it makes it look cool!

Maybe when Libya joins the gang, they can come on a bombing run on the next war,

....oh wait, Libya is already in the UN! - Guess we can't use your planes then?!?

edit on 22-3-2011 by Beyond Creation because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5

We're never getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan... and now... Libya

I wonder how far the Illuminati can push this, how many countries under U.S. invasion it will take before enough is enough?

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:21 AM
Just goes to show the world will blame America for anything they are involved in no matter if its good or bad the right or wrong thing to do, its always the US fault LOL i really feel sorry for you guys

Lets not forget Britain & France pushed for the no fly zone not the US they just backed it, and lets not forget the Arab League also called for it and then pretended they didn't know what it meant, and lets also not forget the UN voted on it

Now that its happened and the no fly zone is in place and even so the US is taking a back seat on the operations its still Americas fault, personally my self i fail to see that, it all just feels kinda staged with all these politics now being played out

edit on 22-3-2011 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by Topato

Well, lets see now......

Still on the "axis" of evil are Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran

They'll continue until all American and coalition forces are stretched out then they'll bring in compulsory conscript and THAT's when the people wake up and say enough is enough.

It's like I said along time ago, no son of mine will fight a rich man's war and no son of mine will want to nor do they.

To protect one's nation on his own soil is a whole different ball game but fighting for the globalist elite has no honour....why don't the American military understand that?

Watch this:

The end game of these particular wars......the Globalists loose. How do I know? Because the masses in our nations have'nt arisen yet.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:18 AM
After listening to Obama talk about this today it sounded worse than what I hear in a pussie business meeting with someone trying to agree with someone and suck up to them. It is very apparent that either #1, he doesn't give a shiate and he is in charge of doing it or #2, he doesn't give a shiate and is only in charge of talking about it. My gut reaction to how he sounded is #2...he is just the spokesman, and he is not a very convincing one. Plus, I don't think he has the gray ablitlity to crtically think about such things - he is no more than an All American BBall playa.

Am I the only one who wishes Billy was back?....No matter what BS he said, it sounded like he really believed it. Dont get me wrong, his bosses were the same but he seemed a little less worried about what they thought in favor of what he thought.

It has never been more appararent than now that our government beyond being un-hijacked. We can still probably find a free country to live in that pretends to be friends with the power but can still escape it's tryanny....... as long as we aren't brown.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:43 AM
maybe this is why China and Russia and what's left of Japan will get together and destroy the USA once and for all and that is the Nostradamus prophecy only everyone thought it was the USA that was the the good guys fighting with the bear but it is the bear and the dragon that will kill the eagle (owl for Horus actually).
And thus the New Order actually does begin but not the way everyone thought
Oh well just a dream i had

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:52 AM
I should have just posted these videos on this thread.

...but made a new thread. At least he's getting his point across on the MSM.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:53 AM
I really hope you guys know there is a difference between declaring war and this...

The president is in charge of all the US forces, he has not declared war, and doesn't need approval yo send troops. However, he can can easily make war. Just as we have in the past...We haven't declared war since WW2. Although we have had military engagements approved by congress, decisions made in the UN are funded by congress as auto approved, without a say.

Put it in to perspective, Bosnia was not a declared war, or an engagement approved by Congress, but approved by the UN. Is this bad that we stopped the mass genocides of Jews and others?

You people sit and write all of this stuff as if you know.

Recall, we DO NOT need to DECLARE war, to MAKE war.
edit on 22-3-2011 by trevordbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:24 AM
People here supporting and advocating the militay action against Libya are misguided. This "humanitarian" mission is neither humanitarian in intentions or just. Ask yourself, why is the U.S and much of the West so happy to support democracy when it favours them and so happy to support dicatorships when it favours them?
Here is a list of dictatorships, many murderous, far beyond Qaddafi, that the U.S has supported(keep in mind this list isn't complete).

Country Dictator Dates Statistics
Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990 3000 murdered. 400,000 tortured.
Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981 30,000 murdered. more
Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno,
1975 support of East Timor genocide
500,000 dead after 1965 coup; 100,000-230,000 dead in East Timor; more, more, more.
Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-
Iran The Shah of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris
Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today
Iraq Saddam Hussein
Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout ( says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989
Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-
Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989
Zaire Mobutu
Saudi Arabia Saud family
Kuwait a monarchy
Panama Noriega was US-supported for years
Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc
Dominican Republic Trujillo, a military dictator for 32 years with US support for most of that time; Belaguer, Trujillo's protege, installed after US Marines intervened to put down an attempt to restore the democratically elected government of Juan Bosch 1930-61, 1965-78
El Salvador 1980s
Nepal monarchy since 1948
Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67
Uzbekistan Kamirov "The Boiler", $150M from the Bush administration for an air base.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:53 AM
i will probably get bashed but here we go.......Why are we dropping bombs? good question.. from the news we have taken out the tanks that were heading towards Bahrain. and any of Quadafis artillary that he has stashed over the past 40 years. We(UN) have taken out his compound to give him something to think about at night. We(UN) have basically taken out every bit of his air and ground equipment in less than 4 days. He has handed out 1 million guns to civilians to take up in the effort against the UN and has placed decoys in and around Tripoli to confuse us of what we are thinking are Quadafis army, which are citizens... which is why we ceased bombing his compound for the fear of civilian casualties that may occur. By him handing out or making civilians take guns he has created a newer disguise- now every one is armed and who is the bad guy? or the people there are really ready to take on the UN and think they have a shot at it?. Something will have to give he has no way of causing anymore damage now by the news and media or he has set us all up for a fall b/c now we are looking like the bad guys of course. We have got to stick to are guns as Americans its either all the way in or get the hell out now! ,b/c the way are president half - butted it makes you wonder....... first of all it took 9 days before we implemented the no fly zone and that is kinda weird since as Americans we are always ready to jump into world police. Maybe its b/c are economy is and has suffered so long that we to are becoming more of a single country and trying to work through the mess that we have created. We are worried whether or not we are going to have a job tomorrow and not to concerned about being some where else b/c we cant seem to take care of are self. We have always played world peace, President Regan created star wars which could have not been one of the most beautiful ideas.....scare your enemy of what they could never imagine. We..... or should i say President Obama has made us look weak and wounded. We have helped in the no fly zone but we are not really in it!.... if you read the headlines in the paper its kind of like we maybe playing on both sides of the fence or we just cannot afford it and will hurt the economy even more. France has had one hell of a mission and is showing how strong they are. Now having said that i never in a million years would have thought that the US would not be leading the pack in this no fly zone mission. Maybe we are just tired of the mess in Afganistan, but yet again we have lost touch that we were the ones that seeked out the people who caused 9/11 and didn't really know what kind of ghost we would be fighting. Anyways there is so much going on at one time it can really stress you out but the main focus is that we have one of the strongest countries and government and we are fighting for what could be the next democracy that libya may now be able to implement and give the chance of libya's citizens to enjoy what we have. but also we have to watch out for the fall of our economy also. If we cannot afford to put a no fly zone in place or aid in it.......then we are truly hurting as americans and we really need to step back and think of how to fix what is broken. As far as the oil prices We have to open the doors to pump are own oil. We cannot keep worrying about how to get oil in to the country and just pump it ourselves. We could save a lot of face in world by space exploration and having the world work as one instead of killing one another. We are inteligent creatures and we as a whole should put are money into space and out of this will come technology and jobs. Quit worring about killing each other and see were we can go. The population of the earth is steadily increasing we need to figure out how to feed a never ending growth. We cannot let are minds go to waste.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:59 AM
In two nights the coalition has probably fired off more artillery than Libya ever has in their country's history. Have a look at some of Libya's history. Khadafi is a little idiosynchratic, but then nobody is calling him Ghandi. If you ask me his biggest crime is wanting a United States of Africa. That is certainly strictly the domain of the IMF and World Government

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:10 AM
This is a disgrace. Another War

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:25 AM

first time poster.

I believe that the un has opened a can of worms on this one. so many countries are now saying (hey i thought you said controll the air space and proect the people,not boom the place! just so they can say i told you so)! well that was untill the un realised they had to kill the libyan leader before he buys some powerfull friends.

i believe that the un are up to no good ,but the world should also be watching the turncoats in the un (mainly russia and he arabs) but these are just my opinions

greatings from New Zealand .

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:31 AM
al cia duh is attacking gadaffy

Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side

so all you war apologists are sucking ......wind
end of story
edit on 22-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:27 AM
If the US didn't bomb Libya i'm sure people would of complained that they didn't. Besides, I thought we were all under the impression that Gadhaffi was the bad guy for shelling the crap out of his own civilians? Unless there is of course some super-secret-hidden-agenda. I mean, I sure I am missing something important, but it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation and I rather of us "invaded".

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:35 AM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

That doesn't mean anything. All it means is that we're keeping good relations with neighboring and other powerful countries, and you probably have to weigh in all the variables that could of happened if we didn't help them.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in