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.


Does the United States have the right to attack Libya?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:33 PM
I do not see under Congressional rules how the United States can justify our actions. Iraq was way different with them breaking the cease fire agreement. I do not want to delve back into that with the WMD garbage.
What authorization does NATO or the UN hold over the Constitution?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Five wars have been declared under the Constitution: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II.

Under Section 2 Article 2, it is clearly stated that a declaration of war must be stated for authorizing it.
Obviously it has been circumvented in Vietnam and Korea by using the term "police action".
Later, the Korean police action was changed to a war status.


Just based on those Constitutional requirements, I would like to hear ATS's response if the United States can be involved without Congressional approval for a UN sanctioned WAR. If this is unconstitutional and is a agressive action without provocation for an illegal war by Obama?
Or any of the other countries involved,France, England.
edit on 21-3-2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:38 PM
Your answer may be in the link below.

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by mugger

Since when do rules/laws/common decency have anything to do with US international affairs?

Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra, etc.

Again, I'm amazed that we've all forgotten decades of corruption because of this Gadhafi situation. Is anyone really surprised by this move? Doesn't make this situation OK or legal at all, all I'm saying is - Why would you expect anything else?

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

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by mugger

Let's cut to the chase...

If North America wants to Police the world, it can start by setting an example at home...

Until that moment occurs, let nations on the periphery and semi-periphery fend for themselves - it's not like they will cry foul and demand international support while disregarding basic human rights values...

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:47 PM
Dennis Kucinch thinks it's an"impeachable offense",not that I care what he thinks,but here I think he is right.
Let the UN handle it,we have no business dropping bombs over there.
Let France and Italy and the rest of them take care of it.
Keep the US out!

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Preemptive , sovereign state.... doesn't matter.... attack by us and others, just another excuse to control that region...will the U.N. come in and protect , we the people, if we decide our government is so corrupt that it is time to overthrow it??

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
Preemptive , sovereign state.... doesn't matter.... attack by us and others, just another excuse to control that region...will the U.N. come in and protect , we the people, if we decide our government is so corrupt that it is time to overthrow it??

No,they will not.
They will be running around like a bunch of girly men,shouting
"what do we do now,the US can't protect us anymore!"
I say we need to pull out of all our forces,and concentrate on protecting ourselves.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:30 PM
During the G.W. Bush administration, the Boston Globe asked a U. S. Constitution scholar:

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Take that question and modify it, a little:

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Libya without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected anti-aircraft -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

Here's the scholar's answer:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Who was the "scholar?" What was the forum?

Barack Obama's Q&A

By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

Whanna know which legal advisers he relied upon back then?

Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago (now Information and Regulatory Czar)

In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.

Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)(now gen'l counsel to the Defense Department)

Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)(former White House General Counsel, fired when Obama decided not to close Guantanamo, after all.)

You get what you pay for, no?

edit on 24-3-2011 by jdub297 because: citation

posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by mugger

In my humble opinion,Obama should be impeached over this many more wars are they going to get us into?
edit on 11-4-2011 by APOCALYPSEWATCHMAN because: misspelled a word

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:36 AM
The constitution is very vague about the President vs. Congress when it comes to using military force.

Article 1 Section 8 clearly gives congress the power to declare war however,
Article 2 Section 2 allows the President the power as Commander and Chief over the Army, Navy, and Militia.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say who is delegated to make use of military forces outside of wartime but it can be argued, and has been, that this power falls within the Presidents constitutional rights.

This is why Congress passed the War Powers Resolution which only gives the president 60 days to use military forces, in whatever way he see's fit, before having to go to Congress for approval.

He is allowed this time because there may be times when immediate action is required and there is not time to convene the Congress for debate on the issue. Without a doubt though the Presidents have misused this power with Gerald Ford being the only one who followed this resolution as it's clearly laid out.

This is really the fault of the Congress though for not holding Presidents responsible when they break the War Powers Resolution. In fact no President since Ford has gone to Congress for permission due to the fact that, as Bush is quoted as saying, "By going to Congress it implies that they have final say over the use of the military."

But to answer the op question, yes it is within the Presidents right to send military to libya and not against the Constitution in any way.

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by kdog1982

Remember that impeachment doesn't entail an ousting. Bill Clinton got impeached but he was not recalled.

All impeachment is to bring to trial.

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:52 AM
It's all a charade.

Obama swore up and down that the US would take no further action, no troops and would "bow out" and let the UN/France essentially take over.

They put the United States at risk for the "attacks" they're always talking about and telling us to be afraid over. Completely unnecessary. We didn't need to park carrier groups offshore just to shell people.. Honestly, for what? If France had such a hard-on for attacking Libya and supposedly "defending the people", then I'm sure them and every other nation would simply "understand" if the US didn't want to take part in this one.

This is certainly not over, and it's truly pathetic and irresponsible for anyone in authority to suggest this is "over and done with". Another "Mission Accomplished", where the consequences are yet seen, but predictable.

As Gerald Calente said, there are a bunch of losers leading us into chaos, and they're all batting zero.

Absolutely nothing this administration has done, nor the former, has impacted this country in a positive way. Now they've gone ahead and put our "national security" at risk, the very thing they never shut their damn mouths over.
edit on 12-4-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:04 AM
No, its not ok, the US is in sorry shape right now and we are broke, we need to recoup a bit before we continue our imperial ways. This just means we will break sooner.

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 08:07 AM

* About 32 percent of Libya's oil goes to Italy, 14 percent to Germany, 10 percent to France and China and 5 percent to the United States. * Buyers have said the shortage can be covered by alternative sources such as Nigeria and
Azerbaijan, which produce similar light, low-sulphur crude oils. * Saudi Arabia has raised production to fill the supply gap, but opinions differ how much
spare capacity the kingdom has got and whether it can ramp up production further.

Based on the exports and who receives them, I do not see any threat to U.S. interests except one important one.
BP would like to have a stable access to Libya's supply of oil.

Could it be a Muslim related event that is the driving force behind Obama's decision to create more of a Theocracy based government in the region? Obama has been cited quite a few times on the differences on his Muslim and Christian beliefs. The Contrast is quite amazing. Even Quadaffi has recently stated in his letter to Obama calling him his "brother".

Link to all quotes

#1 "Islam has always been part of America"

#2 "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"

#8 "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."

#1 "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation"

#2 "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

A quote from May Soetoro suggests Obama is a Muslim.Obamafiles

"My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim."

I haven't actually seen any reports as to exactly who the rebels are in Libya. I've seen reports linking some to extremists groups of Al-Queda with some links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

One thing is clear: The sudden emergence of Obama’s National Security Council Advisor, Samantha Power, and the “new theory” she is using as justification for action in Libya, has very serious implications for future military action against Israel. As John Podhoretz explains in the New York Post, the “reason” behind the Libyan military strike is not the traditional justification of “protecting the national interest.” It is a “new” standard called “R2P” or “right to protect.” This concept is being promulgated by the “one-world” order activists at the United Nations, like Samantha Power.

new topics

top topics


log in