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.

 

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Obama asks, "What war in Libya?"



Questions for you Obama supporters,
1. is our presence in Libya ok with you?
2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression?
3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make?


WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.
In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.
www.nytimes.com...

edit on 15-6-2011 by Scoriada because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
As soon as a weapon was used his argument went right out the window.. If you fire a missile that is easily an act of hostility in my book...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


1. is our presence in Libya ok with you? No... And all the wars or what ever the heck they're calling them!

2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression? Never in a million years, and now he's worse than GWB

3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make? Total rubbish, blowing things up = WAR

I'm totally disgusted with this president and the congress for letting this happen



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Deploying military resources in any capacity to one side of a conflict is hostility. You may not be the one firing but you're making it possible. And just because a drone does not have a pilot doesn't make it's missiles any less deadly, we may not have forces on the ground (at least from media reports but who can trust that) but there are forces actively engaging targets within the country.

Edit: Didn't go question by question because I didn't vote for the warmonger.
edit on 15-6-2011 by j35us because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


What a load of crap BarryO is spewing.
I will have to say that if someone is firing missiles or bullets and or dropping bombs on me, they are at war with me.
If he believes he is in the legal area, I say we remove him as he is delusional.
If someone fired at him he would call them hostile I'm sure.

Our non elected leaders are getting us deeper and deeper into world conflict, it may be too late to dig out of this one.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JJDoggie84
 

Honestly, I think even GOPers are surprised at how aggressive and blase Obama is with military action. I am a GOPer and even I don't like these middle east theaters we are in.

GET OUR MILITARY BACK HOME NOW! SCREW THE CONSEQUENCES!!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
someone shooting missiles and drones at the us would constitute a act of war.

the fearless leader obama can do whatever he wants which is pathetic.

a constitutional lawyer knows what hes done is wrong and he continues to do the same things

those same things he campaigned against bush on only to become him.

every action obama has done justified bush but wait no bush was bad obama is not.

hmmm i am so cornfused.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Actually, all you have to do is mess with a computer or point out a flaw in our network security to be blamed for an act of war.

We can dish it out... But we can't take it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scoriada
reply to post by JJDoggie84
 

GET OUR MILITARY BACK HOME NOW! SCREW THE CONSEQUENCES!!


Right on! When is enough, enough? I'm I guess independent and I can't stand these kinetic military actions!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mapkar
 


silly me i'd rather someone be shooting 1's and 0's at me than someone dropping bombs and missiles on me.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


Obama over stepped the War Powers Act of 1973, and no amount of argument by his lawyers will change that fact;

The War Powers Act of 1973

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President
(Bold Text My Own)

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2.
(a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.


War and Treaty Powers The issue: How have the war and treaty powers in the Constitution been interpreted?

I think the Constitution is pretty clear on who gets to declare war, in any instance whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


REgardless of what side of the aisle your on, the war powers act is unconcstitutional as it restricts authority granted to the President by the Constitution. The war powers act came about because of Vietnam and has been rejected by every president since, Democrat and Republican alike.

Congress attempts to use the war powers act in an effort to shift the perceived lack of support of the troops from them, back to the Commander in Chief.

The President can send troops where ever he wants.
Congress can decide whether they are going to fund those troops or not.

Congress hides behind the war powers act instead of going on record and refusing to vote for troop funding for the deloyment.

If Congress doesnt want military action / participation in Libya, then dont fund it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scoriada

Obama asks, "What war in Libya?"



Questions for you Obama supporters,
1. is our presence in Libya ok with you?


Yes.



2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression?


When we start sustaining casualties in Libya then I'll worry about your perceived 'aggression'.



3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make?


Yes.

My questions for you:

1. When France came to the aid of the colonists during the revolutionary war, did they declare war on Britain or not?

2. How is this different?

3. Why should we not be in Libya or why do you think we're in Libya?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Obama ordered the illegal assassination attempt of a foreign head of State using our military. The failed Kadafi strike where they only got Kadafi's grankids and sons.

to cover up that illegal act all of the sudden all over the TV...."we got bin laden"...scapegoat propaganda.....

Obama's guilty of War Crimes.

Congress signed the Hague Treaty on the Protection of Archeological/historical sites in 2008. So every single old artifact, building, site, road....that America destroyed attacking Libya....we now have to pay for.

Obama's very successful in destroying the United States. There will not be another President to replace him.

We now can't afford to even hold another Presidential election...which makes him dictator for life.

I hope the Liberal Left is happy at what they did.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
And people are more concerned with 'Race Issues' and other such propaganda that the media 'Reports'

this is the exact reason i am not a Democrat or a Republican,



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scoriada

Obama asks, "What war in Libya?"



Questions for you Obama supporters,
1. is our presence in Libya ok with you?
2. When you voted for Obama did you ever imagine he would behave like GWB when it came to military aggression?
3. Do you agree with Obama that shooting missiles from drones does not a "war" make?


1. No. It's irresponsible at best, illegal at worst.
2. No, I was taken. I won't be again.
3. This is ridiculous. Bombing a country is making war. Semantics doesn't mean jack squat when you're killing people.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Scoriada
 


REgardless of what side of the aisle your on, the war powers act is unconcstitutional as it restricts authority granted to the President by the Constitution. The war powers act came about because of Vietnam and has been rejected by every president since, Democrat and Republican alike.

Congress attempts to use the war powers act in an effort to shift the perceived lack of support of the troops from them, back to the Commander in Chief.

The President can send troops where ever he wants.
Congress can decide whether they are going to fund those troops or not.

Congress hides behind the war powers act instead of going on record and refusing to vote for troop funding for the deloyment.

If Congress doesnt want military action / participation in Libya, then dont fund it.


Your grasp of the Constitution is amazing...ly poor.

Article 2, section 2 gives the President the power to direct troops.
Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to give the President the troops to direct.

So, you are correct that the War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. But because it gives the President powers he was never intended to have.

/TOA
edit on 16-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by The Old American because: grammar



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


Dude, it's not war, it's humanitarian bombardment. We are bombing Universities with books, we are bombing Police stations with manuals, we are bombing peace delegations with flowers, we are bombing anti-corruption agency headquarters with intelligence, we are bombing innocent children with fetus. That's not war dude, that is humanitarian bombardment.

Wouldn't you be happy if 11,000 bombs and missiles were dropped in and around New York city? Dude, it is like peace, not war.

Right on



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Scoriada
 


So does this mean that Obama can now bomb Pakistan,Syria,Yemen and Iran without seeking approval from congress??

Sure looks that way to me.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Scoriada
 


So does this mean that Obama can now bomb Pakistan,Syria,Yemen and Iran without seeking approval from congress??

Sure looks that way to me.


Don't forget the other 187 nations of the U.N., and the three that aren't members. He should change his name to Obomba.

/TOA
edit on 16-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Obama ordered the illegal assassination attempt of a foreign head of State using our military. The failed Kadafi strike where they only got Kadafi's grankids and sons.


I keep seeing this comment. I was under the impression that it was British / French military craft that bombed Kadaffis compound not the us.

Also, the executive orders in place with regards to assasination of a foreign leader is an executive order, not a codified law. Secondly, during times of military conflict the head of the country is also head of the military, which is where they make the distinction. It was an attack on a military target aka the Libyan head of the military, and as such is a valid military target.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join