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: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



It was an attack on a military target aka the Libyan head of the military, and as such is a valid military target.


Gee, and I didn't even know the US had declared war..
I thought it was just a "no fly zone"..




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


How was 9/11 an invalid target then? It seems the 9/11 attack destroyed CIA and DOD offices, which makes it a legitimate target, the rest is collateral damage, the same thing US calls it when they bomb whole villages in to dust.



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

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



It was an attack on a military target aka the Libyan head of the military, and as such is a valid military target.


Gee, and I didn't even know the US had declared war..
I thought it was just a "no fly zone"..


If you actually knew what you were talking about, a declaration of "war" is not required. What is required is Congressioanl approval for the use of military force, which Obama has not done. Its now up to Congress to either fund, or defund, our participation in the Libyan operation.

The no fly zone is a UN resolution, not a US action.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Obama had his fingers crossed when we started.
So it doesn't count.

Also, Obama has court precident on his side. I cite the case I know You Are But What Am I vs The State Of California 1937 as an example.

________________________________________________________________________

Seriously? I can't believe this administration. The arrogance is overwhelming.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


How was 9/11 an invalid target then? It seems the 9/11 attack destroyed CIA and DOD offices, which makes it a legitimate target, the rest is collateral damage, the same thing US calls it when they bomb whole villages in to dust.


What are you talking about? My comment is in reference to US law and our Commander in Chief and military operations. It has nothing to do with terrorist attacks on civilian targets. Is it going to be possible for you to stay on topic in this thread, or are you determined to derail it?
edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



It was an attack on a military target aka the Libyan head of the military, and as such is a valid military target.


Gee, and I didn't even know the US had declared war..
I thought it was just a "no fly zone"..


If you actually knew what you were talking about, a declaration of "war" is not required. What is required is Congressioanl approval for the use of military force, which Obama has not done. Its now up to Congress to either fund, or defund, our participation in the Libyan operation.

The no fly zone is a UN resolution, not a US action.


If I don't know what I'm talking about then why does nothing you just posted dispute what I posted??
You really need to pick up your act to get the Obama award for employee of the month.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The topic is The War Powers act, which was put in place by Congress during the Vietnam war. It requires the President to report to Congress any military action that lasts more than 90 days. It requires the President to ask Congress for persmission to continue military action beyond those 90 days, which is what the House just did. It requested Obama report to them by Friday.

You made this comment:
/quote]Gee, and I didn't even know the US had declared war..
I thought it was just a "no fly zone"..

In responde to part of my statement:
It was an attack on a military target aka the Libyan head of the military, and as such is a valid military target.

You dont know what your talking about because the comment I made refers to 2 Executive orders in place that prevents the assasination of a head of state, and my comment was in response to a person claiming we illegally tried to assasinate Kadaffi.

I pointed out that because we are engaged in a military action that Kadaffis status changes to that of head of the Libyan military, and because of that targeting him is valid. The EO's prevent political assasination of foriegn heads of state with the exception of military action.

No war has been declared, and Congress does not need to "declare war" to make the attack on Kadaffi valid.

Hence, you dont know what your talking about. Everything I posted does dispute what you typed. What you fail to do was put my response in proper context. You failed to do that when you quoted just part of my response, which changed the nature of my post to something its not.

edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Don't mind telling us whether the University bombings were legitimate targets or not.

Also don't mind telling us whether 9/11 was a legitimate target or not.

According to your logic, 9/11 was a legitimate target, because CIA and DOD offices were destroyed.

You can't claim 9/11 wasn't a legitimate target, but bombing a civilian compound was. Simple logic really.
edit on 16-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Are you suggesting killing Obama's wife and kid is a legitimate target?

Don't mind telling us whether the University bombings were legitimate targets or not.


No, that would be you suggesting it in this response. As far as what other nations consider as a military target reference our leadership, that would be a question for you to ask them.

You really do like to twist words dont you. Read and understand.

My comments, which you are not understanding, are only from an American viewpoint. I am telling you, that under normal circumstances, the US prohibits the assasination of a head of state. I am telling you, that during a time of armed conflict / military operations, that the foriegn head of state becomes a valid military target as commander in chief of their respective armed forces.

The Executive Order is not law, and only applies to the executive branch of Government, which is to say CIA / FBI NSA / DSS etc etc etc.

I have no idea how other countries decide their targeting strategies. Again, you need to ask them.

Since you added more after my response, I am not the one who brought 9/11 up, you did. My comments have nothing to do with 9/11, yours do. My comments deal with the topic at hand, the war powers act, where as yours does not.
edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I take it the next thing we'll see is a presidential photo-op in Misrata or Tripoli? Ol' Barry making sandcastles with the kid on vacation, like his swim in the pure unpolluted waters of the Gulf?

After all, there's not a war going on, right Barry?


I am getting sick of all the government propaganda and BS fed to the public about these ongoing conflicts we either started or joined, that have absolutely NO connection to our "National Security". We have the "Help for Heroes" crap, whereby everyone is expected to rally round and support or brave guys and gals, and it seems to be seen not to do so kinda makes you a heartless terrorist sympathiser! Well, sorry folks, I would support them if they were indeed protecting our national security against an attacker - I'd probably be there fighting too - but they are not fighting to protect our shores, our national security or our "Freedoms". And besides, I already pay taxes, so shouldn't the government that sends the military off to war be paying for their care when they return broken? Sorry, it's just another government instigated "rally round the troops" BS exercise to get eceryone on board, and once again, so many people fall for it and are thus seen to be supporting the wars, by their de-facto support of the troops.

Bit of a rant there.. sorry!


Back to the point of the OP. A slick lawyer interpreting what does or does not constitute a war thousands of miles away from his plush office, means little to the people under the bombs!



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If you haven't noticed the US still hasn't declared war against Libya, US is only involved in the no-fly zone, and not in a no-Qaddafi zone ahm, I mean NATO.

The no fly zone orders the protection of civilians in the conflict (from both sides of the conflict).

The no fly zone doesn't order the killing of Qaddafi, nor does it order the bombing of civilian targets.

Once again, US is not involved in a war, US is involved in a no-fly zone, since you want to be technical, please see do admit at least that this not a war, nor a military conflict against the Revolutionary regime of Libya. That's the official reasoning, which no one here in ATS believes anyways, except maybe you, because we have all seen the US full support of its pawns. I mean it would be odd seeing US bombing its own pawns who also kill civilians by the way. We have video evidence of CIA backed rebel's torture and killing of civilians, we have video evidence of CIA backed rebels shooting at peaceful pro-Libyan regime demonstrators.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
If you haven't noticed the US still hasn't declared war against Libya, US is only involved in the no-fly zone, and not in a no-Qaddafi zone ahm, I mean NATO.


I dont know if you havent noticed, but the US Congress does not have to use the term "war" to authorize military action. For Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress used the term authorization for the use of force. Also, I will point out that your comment about Congress not declaring war is actually on topic, but you chose the wrong words.

Congress wants the PResident to explain our mission and provide timelines of withdrawlas, will ground troops be used etc etc etc. Failure of the President to answer those questions results in Congress not approving any more money for operations in Libya, which would force the Pentagon to withdraw US participation.

That is what the War Powers act does, although Congress has always had the authority to not fund military operations.



Originally posted by confreak
The no fly zone orders the protection of civilians in the conflict (from both sides of the conflict).

Correct, and the No Fly Zone was established under UNR 1973 - UN Resolution establishing a no fly zone



Originally posted by confreak
The no fly zone doesn't order the killing of Qaddafi, nor does it order the bombing of civilian targets.

The UN Resolution allows the use of force against legitimate military targets belonging to the Government of Liya. Since Gadaffi is the Head of the Libyan military, he is in fact covered under the UN resolution. As far as Civilian targets go, please clarify.



Originally posted by confreak
Once again, US is not involved in a war, US is involved in a no-fly zone, since you want to be technical, please see do admit at least that this not a war, nor a military conflict against the Revolutionary regime of Libya. That's the official reasoning, which no one here in ATS believes anyways, except maybe you, because we have all seen the US full support of its pawns. I mean it would be odd seeing US bombing its own pawns who also kill civilians by the way. We have video evidence of CIA backed rebel's torture and killing of civilians, we have video evidence of CIA backed rebels shooting at peaceful pro-Libyan regime demonstrators.


The notion that there must be a declaration of war by the US Congress is a fallcy. The US Constitution gives the President the authority to be Commander in Chief, and gives Congress the Power to go to war. Nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 does it prescribe the language Congress must use to authorize military operations. All it says it Congress will have the authority to:


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


Congress can declare war using any language they wish. All that is required is for Congressional approval and funding of said operations, which is exaclty what is occuring. Congress is wanting answers, the Preisdent feels he doesnt need to supply those answers, which will result in Congress not authorizing funding for US participation.
edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Wait, wait.
When this while Libyan conflict began, wasn't it a U.N., not U.S. action?
Wasn't it initially instigated and led by the French, not the Americans?
Or was that a timeline in a parallel universe that we jumped from a month or two back?

And, coincidentally, where was this outrage when Bush declared war on Iraq without congressional approval?
Are we creating demons just to feel politically significant?
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, anyhow?
edit on 6/16/2011 by dethduck because: (no reason given)

And why does text prediction suck so much?
edit on 6/16/2011 by dethduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dethduck
Wait, wait.
When this while Libyan conflict began, wasn't it a U.N., not U.S. action?
Wasn't it initially instigated and led by the French, not the Americans?
Or was that a timeline in a parallel universe that we jumped from a month or two back?


Correct, it was spearheaded by the French and supported by the Brits. It quickly transitioned though to the NATO command since Nato forces were primarily being used. Some ME countries also are supporting with either combat aircraft or support roles.

The US initially was involved with airstrikes and naval missile strikes, and since then we have transitioned to a support role.



Originally posted by dethduck
And, coincidentally, where was this outrage when Bush declared war on Iraq without congressional approval?

This is actually incorrect. President Bush did seek and Congress did approve US military actions in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.


The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.


and


a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.




Originally posted by dethduck
Are we creating demons just to feel politically significant?


Who knows with the President. Half the time I have to check to see if he is actually representing the US with some of the things he says.



Originally posted by dethduck
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, anyhow


3 according to Mr. Owl



Originally posted by dethduck
And why does text prediction suck so much?
edit on 6/16/2011 by dethduck because: (no reason given)


Autocorrect for the windows... err win.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That is the point I'm trying to push across, the no-fly zone is to protect civilians from both sides of the conflict, but US uhm I mean NATO is attacking the Libyan regime only. Doesn't look like they are saving civilian lives, rather they are merely supporting the rebels.

So it begs the question, are they protecting civilians, or are they they siding in a civil war (which is against International law).

Regarding the congressional approval, Obama is not arguing whether it is legal to continue this war or not, rather he is arguing that this is not a war, rather merely a support mission.

Obama's administration for that exact reason wrote a 30 page report, saying this is not a war, rather a support mission therefore doesn't need congressional approval. Meaning that congressional approval is required.


"The president is of the view that the current US military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorisation because US military operations are distinct from the kind of "hostilities" contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision," the White
House said.

Source



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
That is the point I'm trying to push across, the no-fly zone is to protect civilians from both sides of the conflict, but US uhm I mean NATO is attacking the Libyan regime only. Doesn't look like they are saving civilian lives, rather they are merely supporting the rebels.


Actually its not the US, but NATO. Secondly if you go to NATO's website you can see the daily briefings that talks about combat operations. Command and control sites are being targeted, and are valid military targets since this is how Libyan military forces are coordinating their attacks on rebel positions.

There was a strike against his compound, which is also a command and control location. If he is there when the bombs hit, oh well. If he is not, then dont stay in a military facility.

Also, if you are going to accuse just the US of this, then would you please provide sources that support your claims? The only info to date about the attack on the compound were reporters on scene who sepcualted it was a US cruise missile attack. Nothing was confirmed.


Originally posted by confreak
So it begs the question, are they protecting civilians, or are they they siding in a civil war (which is against International law).


Good question - I would suggest you forward that question on to whatever government represents you, or submit it to the UN or NATO and ask for an answer.



Originally posted by confreak
Regarding the congressional approval, Obama is not arguing whether it is legal to continue this war or not, rather he is arguing that this is not a war, rather merely a support mission.

The War Powers Act, as I have stated in other threads, has been rejected by just about every President on both sides of the aisle. The Constitution has always stated Congress controls the purse strings, and if Congress does not want to fund military operations, they arent required to. With no money, the Pentagon would be forced to return those assets back to peace time / war prep status.

The term "declaration of war" is not, nor has it ever been required to be used for military action. As for what the President thinks it is, and what Congress thinks it is, is between those 2 branches of Government. Both sides feel they are within their authoroty, with Congress holding the trump card since they control the purse.



Originally posted by confreak
Obama's administration for that exact reason wrote a 30 page report, saying this is not a war, rather a support mission therefore doesn't need congressional approval. Meaning that congressional approval is required.

Again its a showdown between the President and Congress. Congress will win in the end since they can stop the funding.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I pointed out that because we are engaged in a military action that Kadaffis status changes to that of head of the Libyan military, and because of that targeting him is valid. The EO's prevent political assasination of foriegn heads of state with the exception of military action.


really?? And yet US admin has clearly stated they were not targeting Kadaffi..

Your the same in all threads..
You pull out BS laws from where ever suits you..


I don't think you know what you're talking about.


Well being I am from the United States, and you are not, I really dont know how you can accuse me of not knowing what im talking about. I understand how my government works as well as the military, where as you do not. If your going to accuse me of not knowing, then provide your sources that support your claims. Otherwise, please shut up so the rest of us can engage in conversation and debate.

All you do is derail the threads.

Ok, please provide a source that states
#1 The US was involved in the strike against Kadafi
#2 That Kadafi was intentioanlly targeted in the attack

Again, I answered questions from other posters. You are the one who is jumping up and down on something I never stated. What I did was explain how military targeting works with regards to a foreign head of state during a time of armed conflict, and pointed out that there are executive orders in place that prevent assasination of a foriegn head of state not involved in any military operations.

Your the one who is taking my source info and turning into something its not, which you seem to do everytime you respond to me in a thread.

Either take the time to read and follow the entire conversation, or dont post. Its that simple. All you do is complain and launch personal attacks while never providing any source information that is relevant to the topic.

Stay on topic or leave. Any more posts from you are going to be flagged since you apparnetly cannot act like an adult nor can you engage in a debate / conversation.
edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


So your answer then would be no, you dont have any sources that state the US was behind the attack on Kadafi, other than your basless accusation. Your other answer would also be no, you dont have any sources you can supply that state Kadafi was intentionally targeted.

Out of curiosity are you going to participate in this thread and remain on topic, or are you going to just throw your usual temper tantrum, launch baseless allegations, and launch personal attacks on me?

I am flattered by the way that I am able to get under your skin enough to cause you to act like a child. I would love to return the favor, but unfortunately you dont rate high enough on my care list to rate any special attention.

Since you cant stay on topic, I will not be responding to anymore of your childish temper tantrums, that is unless you can stay on topic.

Anyways - back on topic.
Does anyonelse think that Obama is going to ignore Congressional requests for an update and justification to continue US operations with NATO in Libya?

Also, does anyone know if there are troops on the ground yet from either France or Britain? I know both had gone down that conversational road?

If those 2 countries do deploy troops, do we think the US will follow suit?


edit on 16-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join