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.

 

Sen. Joe Biden: War without Congressional Authorization is an Impeachable Offense

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Too bad Bush already took a dump all over the constitution and drafted laws that allow a president to do exactly what he (and now Obama) has done. To start with, this isn't a "war" just as Korea and Viet Nam weren't wars, just as the second Iraq invasion wasn't a war.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.


Gaddafi qualifies as a head of state that exports terrorism, he's long been held in that regard. The language in that bill above was used to allow the president to preemptively go after any country they felt connected to terrorism, in whatever way they chose. That's how Bush bludgeoned his way into invading "Islamistan".

Obama isn't even the first president to fly air-strikes against Gaddafi, Reagan did the same thing back in 1986, we used F-111's to bomb several of Gaddafi's compounds in Tripoli and managed to kill one of his son's. No declaration of war then either.

So it's pretty ironic that the right-wing would pull the "it's not constitutional" card when they're the enabler who applauded Bush for shredding it and paved the way for means of bypassing it. The language that allows Obama to do exactly what he is doing now was penned by Bush.

Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle. At least Kucinich has been consistent in his views on this brand of military intervention.
edit on 24-3-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Great find Loam


I mean, our soon to be V.P. on Hardball threatening to impeach the Pres. only to come back to haunt him years later.

I'm sure Biden will soon explain how all that was said on Hardball was taken out of context to make him look bad


They're all criminals.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chancemusky
 


Doesn't matter. These guys are just angry that we're trying to keep Muslims from dying. They were mad for the same reason when we intervened in Serbia / Kosovo. Illegal wars against Muslims? A-okay. Legal UN actions to keep Muslims from dying? IMPEACH OMG IMPEACH IMPEACH!

Just to recap.

1st Iraq war = good
Lethal sanctions against Iraq for 12 years= good
Somali invasion = good, until Clinton's inauguration, then bad.
NATO intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing in Former Yugoslavia = BAD BAD BAD!!!
Completely pointless invasion of Afghanistan = GOOD!
Illegal invasion of Iraq = GOOD!
Drawdown in Iraq = BAAAAAAAAAAD!
Escalation in Afghanistan = Ambivalent muttering
Trying to keep Libyans from getting massacred = BAAAAAAD! BAAAAAD!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oaktree
Great find Loam


I mean, our soon to be V.P. on Hardball threatening to impeach the Pres. only to come back to haunt him years later.

I'm sure Biden will soon explain how all that was said on Hardball was taken out of context to make him look bad


They're all criminals.


Biden currently does have the authourity known as President Of The United States Senate and is incredibly well versed and is highly respected by the international community as Foreign Policy is actually something he is good at. Legal loopholes means that this conflict is backed fully by The United States Senate and guess what else? The Senate is the Upper Chamber of The Congress.

Allow him to handle and oversee this with our allies and we should not expect to see this happen same way Iraq and Afghanistan did. Cheney and Rice were horrible when it came to matters like this.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by chancemusky
 


Doesn't matter. These guys are just angry that we're trying to keep Muslims from dying. They were mad for the same reason when we intervened in Serbia / Kosovo. Illegal wars against Muslims? A-okay. Legal UN actions to keep Muslims from dying? IMPEACH OMG IMPEACH IMPEACH!

Just to recap.

1st Iraq war = good
Lethal sanctions against Iraq for 12 years= good
Somali invasion = good, until Clinton's inauguration, then bad.
NATO intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing in Former Yugoslavia = BAD BAD BAD!!!
Completely pointless invasion of Afghanistan = GOOD!
Illegal invasion of Iraq = GOOD!
Drawdown in Iraq = BAAAAAAAAAAD!
Escalation in Afghanistan = Ambivalent muttering
Trying to keep Libyans from getting massacred = BAAAAAAD! BAAAAAD!


Read this fully three times before you try to reply :

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM (Courtesy of The US Dept Of Justice) :
www.justice.gov...

The President has the legal authourity as Commander In Chief to engage the military against any threat to the nation or our allies especially in those nations who are active and confirmed State sponsors of terrorism!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 




Biden currently does have the authourity known as President Of The United States Senate and is incredibly well versed and is highly respected by the international community as Foreign Policy is actually something he is good at. Legal loopholes means that this conflict is backed fully by The United States Senate and guess what else? The Senate is the Upper Chamber of The Congress. Allow him to handle and oversee this with our allies and we should not expect to see this happen same way Iraq and Afghanistan did. Cheney and Rice were horrible when it came to matters like this.


Biden as V.P. has no vote whatsoever, except in the case of a 50-50 vote, he is the tie-breaker.

Your opinion as to how he is viewed by the international community is irrelevant.

The Senate, nor Congress authorized this action, so the fact that the Senate is the Upper Chamber means nothing.

The rest is nothing but your little opinion.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

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


Wiki

I do not think Libya has met the criteria, but unfortunately Bush's terrorist act might give him authorization.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
While I do disagree with the US involvement in Libya and this could be considered an impeachable offense, I doubt we will see impeachment proceeding over this.

Look, the US has been involved in over 400 military skirmishes/conflicts over the years. Of all those incidents, only 5 times has congressional declaration of war been made; the last being WW2. So, if no past president was impeached over illegal wars, then I don't see it happening in this case either.

my 2-cents







 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join