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.

 

Libya - The Ron Paul Response

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   











edit on 23-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
By the way.

Here is Biden saying he wants to impeach Obama



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
By the way.
Here is Biden saying he wants to impeach Obama

correction
this video is from 2007 and Biden
was referring to George Bush not
Obama. Obama was not even elected
at that time.

But I do wonder if his words still
hold true when a Democrat is in
the WH?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by mnemeth1
By the way.
Here is Biden saying he wants to impeach Obama

correction
this video is from 2007 and Biden
was referring to George Bush not
Obama. Obama was not even elected
at that time.

But I do wonder if his words still
hold true when a Democrat is in
the WH?


Biden claims he would impeach a president who goes to war without constitutional authorization.

Therefore, it is a video of Biden saying he wants to impeach Obama.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Let's see how MSM spins this. Should get interesting on how it's reported. It WAS said by both Obama and Biden..
I'll bet they never thought it would apply to THEM.

Strange days indeed.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Kucinich was saying the same thing, and he is a Democrat, and not only was he saying it, but his chin was quivering as Bill O'Reilly played devil's advocate for Obama. Kucinich was visibly angry at Obama's actions.

I think a lot of Dems are angry at Obama right now, and ironically the Republicans and Fox are finally supporting him?


I hate politics!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Actually, under the UN Articles 41-45, and cross referenced with US code 287d, The POTUS does not need Congressional Approval. Yes Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that he does, but the US code apparently supersedes that.

Article 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.


Sanctions by the members of the council, ( nations representatives ) had deemed the efforts in accordance with Article 41 inadequate. Therefore, Article 42 is implemented, therein:

Article 42: Which is the framework for action


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.


Now we got into Article 43:


All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.


www.un.org...

But now, we have to cross reference the articles to the US code:

287d states:


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 and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein


law.justia.com...


It goes on to say this:

except as authorized in section 287d-1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.



But here's the catch, the resolution of 1970 under Charter VII, explains in detail the " loop hole" in which the above post stating that the POTUS need not have Congressional Approval supersedes the Constitution, under Article 1 Section 8.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Well #1, nothing supersedes the Constitution.

But, more appropriately, we have to define what we are doing in Libya. Is this just a support of a UN resolution? OR is this an act of war?

I fully support the involvement of the US to enforce a no-fly zone, but I do not support the heavy bombing that is on-going, or the commitment of any troops. We already have special teams inside Libya on the ground assisting the bombing raids, so in my opinion this is an act of war and the president has gone way beyond supporting the UN resolution.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


The legality of the matter is inconsequential.

War waged by the decree of one man is nothing more than a dictatorship.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Well #1, nothing supersedes the Constitution.

But, more appropriately, we have to define what we are doing in Libya. Is this just a support of a UN resolution? OR is this an act of war?

I fully support the involvement of the US to enforce a no-fly zone, but I do not support the heavy bombing that is on-going, or the commitment of any troops. We already have special teams inside Libya on the ground assisting the bombing raids, so in my opinion this is an act of war and the president has gone way beyond supporting the UN resolution.


To many people your first statement would hold true. But the problem is, the UN council was enacted by the US, including the framework. By doing so, has allowed "loop holes " to be enacted. Further, the Constitution to some of us is the law of the land, but we all know that TPTB don't abide by it. Further, the implementation of both Executive orders, and Presidential signed statements, in fact supersede the Constitution. Why do you think POTUS 's of the past implemented this travesty?...to stand as their own government. Read up, Theodore Roosevelt signed some 1000 EO's during his time. Then, Franklin signed over 3000 EO during his time of service. Point being:

The Constitution is no longer deemed the law of the land, but rather, guidelines. The history of the pass POTUS's proves that.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are about the only three people that I would vote for. In 2004 I voted and campagned for Kucinich and in 2008 I did the same for Ron Paul (2000 I was still wet behind the ears and couldn't care less about politics, too busy getting wasted else I would have voted for Ralph). We need to stop the bombing NOW. Give moral support and humanitarian support (within reason) and nothing more. So far the only difference between the beginning of the Iraq war and this "offensive" is UN backing and diplomatic wording, but the rhetoric is the same and the interests involved are the same from what I see.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


The legality of the matter is inconsequential.

War waged by the decree of one man is nothing more than a dictatorship.



What you are witnessing was planned long before Obama was even a Senator. Many more countries will be toppled over there....they will be switching to toppling countries in Asia very soon.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Actually, under the UN Articles 41-45, and cross referenced with US code 287d, The POTUS does not need Congressional Approval. Yes Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that he does, but the US code apparently supersedes that.


Please visit this discussion to have this code explained to you.

You are only vaguely correct. Under 22 U.S.C. §287d, the POTUS has free reign to conduct "special agreements" with the Security Council of the United Nations that would outline which armed forces would be subject to use. Notice how this is the initial paragraph of the code and how it states that it pertains to Article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations. This agreement is subject to Congressional approval.The second part of 22 U.S.C. §287d is what you are misinterpreted. This allows the POTUS to make use of the armed forces outlined in the "special agreement" without consulting Congress.

So, Congress has the ability to approve which and how many armed forces will be available to the U.N. Security Council, but after this approval the POTUS may use the forces as he wishes (in accordance with the the specific U.N. Resolution) without Congressional authorization.


edit on 3/23/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 


Yeah, I personally think debating the legality of the matter is pointless.

One man should not be able to wage a war.

And the US president certainly should not take his violent marching orders from a globalist institution like the UN.

It really doesn't matter what the law or the constitution says about this.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by mnemeth1
By the way.
Here is Biden saying he wants to impeach Obama

correction
this video is from 2007 and Biden
was referring to George Bush not
Obama. Obama was not even elected
at that time.

But I do wonder if his words still
hold true when a Democrat is in
the WH?

Biden claims he would impeach a president who goes to war without constitutional authorization.
Therefore, it is a video of Biden saying he wants to impeach Obama.

" Holy Cow "...to your response.

It is something that 'Jared' or 'erad3' would type not you


ERAD3 Link


If the crew of the NASA mission uses a green screen then they are able to fake the mission.
The crew of the NASA mission uses a green screen.
Therefore, they are able to fake the mission.



edit on 23-3-2011 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by hp1229 because: edit content



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Why?

It looks like Biden is stating he is against unconstitutional wars.

It stands to reason he should be against all unconstitutional wars no matter who initiates them.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I understand your point, and I agree with you, but if he is going to verify his actions by such laws/codes/resolutions then there needs to be more proof than simply stating, "No."

Our Constitution has been forgotten it, seems, and he, along with the majority of the government it seems, needs to be reminded of the oath they swore upon taking office.
edit on 3/23/2011 by Konah because: grammar



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konah

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Actually, under the UN Articles 41-45, and cross referenced with US code 287d, The POTUS does not need Congressional Approval. Yes Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that he does, but the US code apparently supersedes that.


Please visit this discussion to have this code explained to you.

You are only vaguely correct. Under 22 U.S.C. §287d, the POTUS has free reign to conduct "special agreements" with the Security Council of the United Nations that would outline which armed forces would be subject to use. Notice how this is the initial paragraph of the code and how it states that it pertains to Article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations. This agreement is subject to Congressional approval.The second part of 22 U.S.C. §287d is what you are misinterpreted. This allows the POTUS to make use of the armed forces outlined in the "special agreement" without consulting Congress.

So, Congress has the ability to approve which and how many armed forces will be available to the U.N. Security Council, but after this approval the POTUS may use the forces as he wishes (in accordance with the the specific U.N. Resolution) without Congressional authorization.


edit on 3/23/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)




In reference to Article 43 of the charter, you will also see that no agreement had been signed. You stated:



This agreement is subject to Congressional approval



Is null and void, no agreement had been met nor signed at the time of implementation.

Again Article 42:

Article 42 of the Charter enables the Council to use force to maintain or restore international peace and security if it considers non-military measures to be or to have proven inadequate. As the United Nations does not have any armed forces at its disposal (for details, see Article 43), the Council uses Article 42 to authorize the use of force by a peacekeeping operation, multinational forces or interventions by regional organizations.


Now cross reference that with Charter VI and VII.


Peacekeeping operations have had mandates ranging from traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully under Chapter VI, such as promoting reconciliation, assisting with the implementation of a peace agreement, or performing mediation and good offices, and more forceful action as authorized under Chapter VII which can authorize a range of measures including the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter.



The military action in Libya, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1973, is an Article 42 action, not 43. And this is what the legislation I have mentioned before, and you referenced, 22 USC 287d, says regarding Article 42 actions and Congressional authorization—


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 [the United Nations] Charter

§ 287d. —

law.justia.com...

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.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.law.cornell.edu...


Under Article 43, Congressional approval is required. 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.

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, 23 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konah
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I understand your point, and I agree with you, but if he is going to verify his actions by such laws/codes/resolutions then there needs to be more proof than simply stating, "No."

Our Constitution has been forgotten it, seems, and he, along with the majority of the government it seems, needs to be reminded of the oath they swore upon taking office.
edit on 3/23/2011 by Konah because: grammar


The government is an illegitimate institution that receives all of its funding through violent theft.

It is reasonable to assume that it will do whatever it wants and no piece of paper will prevent it from doing so.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


In reference to Article 43 of the charter, you will also see that no agreement had been signed. You stated:



This agreement is subject to Congressional approval


Is null and void, no agreement had been met nor signed at the time of implementation...

Under Article 43, Congressional approval is required. 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.

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.


You are correct in stating that Article 43 has not, or ever been, utilized, and as such there was no agreement(s) for Congress to authorize. But my point was not null. Read the second paragraph of 22 USC 287 d again and pay attention to the bold text:


The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein...


Since there has been no special agreements made between the POTUS and the Security Council per Article 43, this entire law is void in this case, and in any other case that used this law as authorization. In this case, the POTUS actively sought out authorization of the U.N. over the U.S. Congress and this authorization isn't even approved by law. The War Powers Resolution/Act may be brought up, but he still had no just cause for the attacks because; there has been no declaration of war or reprisal, Libya has not attacked us or threatened us, and he has no specific authorization. It was an offensive attack, which may put the U.S. in future danger and may instigate war, which is unconstitutional.



new topics




 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join