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.


Congress is discussing Cutting off Libya Funding

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:52 PM

Congress is discussing Cutting off Libya Funding

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are discussing several mechanisms to cut off funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, arguing that since President Barack Obama did not obtain congressional authorization, he is essentially waging an unconstitutional war.

Rep. Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) is one of the lawmakers leading the charge. He says that not only does he believe Obama should first have consulted Congress, he opposes and would have opposed any U.S. military involvement in Libya.

"I think this, combined with our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq ... just elevates hatred toward America
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:52 PM
It's a beautiful thing when Congress actually stands up and demands that the president follow the law and procedure. Since when did we get approval from NATO before Congress any how? Impeachment would be an even more beautiful thing. Obama has taken Executive Order to new levels. Bush set precedent, but Obama masters the art of pushing a world government.
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 23-3-2011 by lostviking because: gammar

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:54 PM
Wow - congress has woke up!
This is a very good thing indeed!

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:55 PM
If it is so unconstitutional then they need to charge him and have him impeached. The fact there there are just some pushing to cut his funding, shows me that it is nothing more than political posturing....

They don't care about whether or not his actions are unconstitutional or not... If they did, they would be going about things differently....

It amazes me that they think the people can't see right through their crap.. That goes for politicians on both sides of the fence...

The people aren't stupid!

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:56 PM
There is no cause that I know of for impeachment, which is really a huge waste of time anyway. It takes a long time, is wasteful, and even if successful we'll get Biden.

I would love to see the purse taken away in this latest violent endeavor. It would, however, be kinda ironic if it was the Republicans who did it, but I'll take what I can get.

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:56 PM
I wouldn't say woke up but at least they realized if they want to scratch their butts they might want to stand up first. At least it is a step in the right direction, next step put him on trail. If not it is all a show as is their usual MO.
edit on 23-3-2011 by DrCarter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:58 PM
Under article 2 section2. it is impeachable. Now how much leeway while working with NATO or UN is debatable, but the Constitution should not be over ridden by either group.

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by mugger

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, what would be the point since there are many other things to do with that legislative time and money. Since removing the money would fix the problem and save money anyway, that seems like a much better option in my book.

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:04 PM
The Repubs are just showing the same courtesy that Bush recieved whenever he did anything. Just political maneuvering. Obama didn't do anything unconstitutional, he has 100 days to consult Congress after doing an executive order.
Obama could care less, now he can paint the other side as for Kaddafi, a man gulty of killing americans in the plane bombing, and this action got the goods on him when defectors came over with the proof. I'm sure he calculated he will come out smelling like a rose.

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:12 PM
Might be a halfassed step in the right direction, but something tells me this is just some theatrics to make the fools that elect them think they are trying to do something.

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:13 PM
The problem with Obama is that he believes Executive Orders give him justification to do whatever he wants without checks and balances. Obama has gone overboard on approving whatever he wants, when he knows Congess won't approve. Healthcare, Guantanamo, Libya, what else?

The guy first and foremost believes in World Government, led by the USA. He needs to hurry and implement these changes, before America loses it's dominance, and China and Russia tell us 'no you don't' Time is of the essence to put forth socialist policy while undermining nationalism and American pride.

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

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:36 PM
Lets get it done congress! We need you on this, and on bringing all our troops home!

All great empires fall eventually, cant we atleast fall with grace and pull back and admit we are wrong

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:32 AM
I don't know whether this should be impeachable or not, but people made exactly the same accusations against George Bush for Iraq and Afganistan, and nothing was ever done to him. Nothing will happen here, either. Whether that's right or wrong is another story; I guess it comes down to whether it is another nation's business when they start murdering their own citizens.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:38 AM
This is great, but Tim Johnson is a huge hypocrite since he favoured the Iraq war and followed Bush's lines.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:48 AM
Well I can understand the Republicans wanting to oppose Obama with every chance they can get. In this case though, I believe the Republicans would be foolish to pursue it without finding out public opinion polls about this move. I for one don't see any problem with the president defending civilians as part of the UN resolution. These people seem to support the US and we get to bomb Gaddifi in the process. Sounds like a win win. When Ronald Reagen did it, it was like a show of force and I didn't hear any criticism. Gaddifi is a lunatic in my opinion. The fact that he has billions of dollars to hire a large foreign army does make me question the wisdom of supporting something that could end up being a losing cause without a much larger commitment and money. The rebels may be two bit wanna be soldiers that would have melted away into Libyan society instead of getting killed. I'm thinking Obama gave in to pressure and did not want to make the US appear weak to all the Arab countries.

I forgot to mention in my experience it is not very wise to start something you don't intend to finish. Gaddifi may hold a grudge and come back to attack us years down the road. I still believe he had something to do with a large civilian airline that went down with many lives lost. He has billions of dollars to pay terrorists to fund an operation and now he may think he's at war.
edit on 24-3-2011 by orionthehunter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:33 AM
Cutting funding is the only legal action congress can take if they want to stop this.


Read through that, it's the basis the Bush administration used for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Ultimately, the Justice Dept. told the executive branch that the president could do just about anything he wanted with the military;

Conducting military hostilities is a central tool for the exercise of the President's plenary control over the conduct of foreign policy.

In 1898, Acting Attorney General John K. Richards wrote:

The preservation of our territorial integrity and the protection of our foreign interests is intrusted, in the first instance, to the President. . . . In the protection of these fundamental rights, which are based upon the Constitution and grow out of the jurisdiction of this nation over its own territory and its international rights and obligations as a distinct sovereignty, the President is not limited to the enforcement of specific acts of Congress. [The President] must preserve, protect, and defend those fundamental rights which flow from the Constitution itself and belong to the sovereignty it created.

In 1995, we opined that the President "acting without specific statutory authorization, lawfully may introduce United States ground troops into Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . to help the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . . . ensure compliance with the recently negotiated peace agreement." Proposed Deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We interpreted the War Powers Resolution to "lend support to the . . . conclusion that the President has authority, without specific statutory authorization, to introduce troops into hostilities in a substantial range of circumstances."

In Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization (1980), we stated that our history is replete with instances of presidential uses of military force abroad in the absence of prior congressional approval. This pattern of presidential initiative and congressional acquiescence may be said to reflect the implicit advantage held by the executive over the legislature under our constitutional scheme in situations calling for immediate action. Thus, constitutional practice over two centuries, supported by the nature of the functions exercised and by the few legal benchmarks that exist, evidences the existence of broad constitutional power.


On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994)

The argument that the president can't do this or that military action has been asked over the course of the history of the country, it has been answered, squarely in the affirmative that the president can.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:24 AM
but yet we see THIS:

The Congressional Research Service reported that the Obama administration had been preparing to relay military aid to Libya this year. In a report by Christopher Blanchard and Jim Zanotti, CRS cited plans to provide military education and training for Col. Moammar Gadhafi's security forces.

The report said military education funds for Libya were first requested by the Bush administration for fiscal 2009, but was not provided. The report cited a 2009 State Department report on continuing rights abuses in Libya: ........

that's military AID TO LIBYA !!!!!!

CRS, which provides background to members of the House and Senate, said Libyan participation in the U.S. military education program would have paved the way for additional training.

Instead, Obama expanded military cooperation with Libya during his first year in office, the report said. CRS said the White House requested the Libya be eligible to receive weapons under the U.S. Foreign Military Financing program.

is this a conflict of interest ?

having trouble making up your mind ?

This month, the administration has reported that the United States suspended military cooperation with Libya, Middle East Newsline reported. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the cooperation was not significant, but did not elaborate. ....

"For FY2010, the Obama administration requested $350,000 in International Military Education and Training funding for Libya to 'support education and training of Libyan security forces, creating vital linkages with Libyan officers after a 35-year break in contact,' " the report, titled "Libya: Background and U.S. Relations," said. ......

In 2006, Washington lifted its arms embargo on Libya. While the United States was said to have banned lethal weapons for export, European Union states have offered Tripoli a range of aircraft and other combat platforms.

where was congress on this one ????

edit on 24-3-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:15 AM
Cool, now can they talk about cutting off funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and send the bill to Haliburton? That should just about kill the deficit.

new topics


log in