God King Plans On Violating War Powers Act

The totalitarian regime known commonly as the Obama administration has taken it upon itself to launch an foreign war of aggression against Libya without any congressional approval.

This action violates the War Powers Act, which specifically states the president’s constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into “hostilities” with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

Further, the act limits engagements in those hostilities to a maximum of 60 days without congressional approval. That 60 day deadline is fast approaching for our hostile actions in Libya.

In response to this violation of law, several republican senators have issued a letter to Obama asking him if he plans on obeying the War Powers Act or not.

Democrats have been mute on the issue and slimeballs like republicrat McStain have stated, ”I’ve never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, either Republican or Democrat.”

You can expect nothing to come of the letter.

But are you surprised?

This is the question I keep asking people that point out Chairman Obama's issues. Are you surprised? I am not. I dont see any massive protests, no marches, not a single person taking a sign board and standing in the road screaming at the top of their lungs about these things. This is the generation of keyboard warriors. No one remembers how to protest anymore. S+F for you.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well, isn't this just dandy.

Obama's general remarks left some wondering whether the administration would actively seek congressional approval for further actions in Libya, or whether Congress might have to force Obama's hand by passing a measure dictating the extent of military involvement.

But Congress may not have the appetite for the latter. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said the Senate is not likely to support a resolution withdrawing troops from Libya, as some Democrats believe congressional authorization is not necessary.

thehill.com...

Coupled with this spooky nonsense about bill 1034, a very ugly picture begins to develop:

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

www.aclu.org...

If we can't have a production-based economy, I suppose we'll have to settle for a glorified merc state? Keep those internecine brush fires a burnin', boys.

I totally can't wait 'till they choose a new American Idol.
Anyone??

reply to post by Screwed


You're well screwed there, buddy.

All the contestants got conscripted.

The mission is under Canadian NATO command I thought?...

So, if Obama removes all American military hardware from the region then the U.S and American congress will be happy?...

Serious question.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


The language of the act refers only to troop withdrawal.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

reply to post by mnemeth1


He won't abide by the War Powers Act and won't be forced to. There are too many neo-cons in the Senate to stop this President engaging in a "non-war". Too much juice tossed around by the military industrial complex.

I've never seen one, but perhaps there is some fine print on the Nobel Peace Prize which gives the recipient a pass on needless military aggression.

This gent is beginning to make Dr. Strangelove look like a pacifist.

Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article 2 Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.




It would seem to me that Congress can not legally delegate its powers to initiate war to the president.

reply to post by mnemeth1


alot of people are very confused by what obama is doing

i keep telling people to look at it from the point of view that the goal is to start world war 3, or at least a war that would largely cover that whole area

then it will make more sense, you can even start predicting what he will do next with accuracy with that knowledge
surely, it must be correct. america is trying to instigate a grand war.

makes much more sense

reply to post by mnemeth1


It is merely grand standing. If they don't like what Obama is doing all they have to do is cut off funding. The Constitution was suspended after 9/11 and the same congress just signed agreement for another 4 years. That actually means the President can do anything he wants along with anyone else that has to abide by Constitutional law. Don't forget it was BUSH who enacted this. Obama is going to enjoy all the power it affords. WAKE UP. we are and have been in a police state for years now they are just getting more heavy handed.

The War Powers Act is nullified in the event the people of a foreign nation seek out help for which they did.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Really? How do you define "people"? There is not a country on the planet that does not have people who would like to institute change in the government. If Uncle Sam hears the call, is it OK to send the troops in?

Its a bit of a slippery slope and that is why the War Powers Act was instituted in the first place. We were bombing in Libya before we even knew who the "people" were. We had the Director of the CIA stating they were a religious organization on the same day that the Director of Intelligence was stating that they were a secular group.

Its a war and there are constitutional requirements to engage in war.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Really? How do you define "people"? There is not a country on the planet that does not have people who would like to institute change in the government. If Uncle Sam hears the call, is it OK to send the troops in?

Its a bit of a slippery slope and that is why the War Powers Act was instituted in the first place. We were bombing in Libya before we even knew who the "people" were. We had the Director of the CIA stating they were a religious organization on the same day that the Director of Intelligence was stating that they were a secular group.

Its a war and there are constitutional requirements to engage in war.

Not when you've got The Congress watching over your every move, The people that contacted the State Department was the Libyan Rebel Group who called us seeking help and when we are asked for help we must act and not sit on our hands until they go numb while innocents suffer. In the Echelon of Government the Director of National Intelligence who currently is James R. Clapper supercedes CIA Driector Leon Penetta any day of the week as Penetta answers to Clapper. I'd listen to Clapper before I'd listen to Penetta. Besides The CIA don't know it's tail from it's elbows and didn't know The Berlin Wall was coming down until they started to get hit on the head by the bricks, mortar and concrete.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


The reporting relationship between Clapper and Peneta is irrelevant - Peneta was shown to be correct in his assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood being an Islamic group and that view the one supported by the President. That Clapper has been either out of the loop or asleep at the switch throughout all of the activities in the Mid East is yet another topic.

There are folks in the Sudan who are asking for help. Congo too. There are folks in Cuba asking for help. Somalia also comes to mind. The difference? The Neo Cons don't give a rip about Africa and there is more money to be made raping the mineral wealth of those nations than feeding the war machine, so the military industrial complex likes the status quo just fine in Africa.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

The reporting relationship between Clapper and Peneta is irrelevant - Peneta was shown to be correct in his assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood being an Islamic group and that view the one supported by the President. That Clapper has been either out of the loop or asleep at the switch throughout all of the activities in the Mid East is yet another topic.

There are folks in the Sudan who are asking for help. Congo too. There are folks in Cuba asking for help. Somalia also comes to mind. The difference? The Neo Cons don't give a rip about Africa and there is more money to be made raping the mineral wealth of those nations than feeding the war machine, so the military industrial complex likes the status quo just fine in Africa.

Muslim Brotherhood had it's footing in Egypt and not Libya so get your facts straight.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You are absolutely correct. I just get confused by all of these different Muslim insurgent groups we seem to be supporting at the moment. I guess we're still looking for a name for the folks in Libya and then will move on to what we call the patriots in Syria, now that we're tossing bombs that way.

OP, you should have save this for another 30 days. After all, that is how long Obama has left

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

My bet is we are out of there before the additional 30-day mark.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
OP, you should have save this for another 30 days. After all, that is how long Obama has left

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

My bet is we are out of there before the additional 30-day mark.

The fact that the Libyan campaign ended Mar 31 2011 means we have met and adhered to the 30 day order that started on Mar 19 2011.

Wiki entry for Operation Odyssey Dawn :
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Aggie Man
OP, you should have save this for another 30 days. After all, that is how long Obama has left

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

My bet is we are out of there before the additional 30-day mark.

The fact that the Libyan campaign ended Mar 31 2011 means we have met and adhered to the 30 day order that started on Mar 19 2011.

Wiki entry for Operation Odyssey Dawn :
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 20-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

That makes no sense in the context of the actual wording of the War Powers Act. Do you care to point out to me the specific wording that states that operations must end within 30-days the "declaration" of the end of operations?

BTW, I don't recall any official end on March 31st. What I recall is a turning over of leadership of the operation.

Don't get me wrong...I'm against the conflict in Libya; however, I'm sick of the misrepresentation that the D-bag OP and other ATS d-bags present as truth. Agenda much OP?