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: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 


Im afraid you have misunderstood the 43rd Article:


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.


Now according to USC 287d:


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...


Take note in the exact phrase you highlighted.



pursuant to such special agreement or agreements


Now the next explains this :


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).


Since we have determined that this action is not based on the Article 43, which specifically calls for Congressional approval, Article 42 is the article enacted. Thus further suggesting,


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.


ETA: you stated:



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,



But technically speaking, the implementation of a NFZ isnt legally defined as an act of war. They are preemptive measures taken for resolution. Mind you, I dont condone the actions of invasion, or bombing...Libya hasn't done anything to us that would suggest outsourced actions. No there are many who "claim", it is an act of war, as I would agree in my own perspective of things. But who am I to define the act?


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




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Ah. If only we still followed the Weinberger Doctrine.

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I believe you have missed the entire point of my post and it seems you read things out of order, as you've proved nothing. 22 USC 287d is void, as it does not apply in any case where a special agreement hasn't been made. The last bit you quote from me was regarding the fact that he didn't gain Congressional approval and none of those mentiond cases apply, so the attack was unjust.

A NFZ itself may not be considered an act of war, but how about the bombing of military targets within Libya for two days?



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join