But What About Libya? Congress Did Not Approve Use Of Military Force!!

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Today, Democrat Ralph Nader raised an important discussion point: The President of the USA does not have unilateral power to use Military Force unless Congress votes on it.

However, that did not happen when Obama sent in air power to take out Quadafi.

Should the POTUS be impeached? What's going on here??




The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress -- not by the President. The decision to go to war -- and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war -- is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. “Consultation” with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.


SOURCE[ /url]



[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya]BOMBING OF LIBYA



On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war,[18] and military operations began, with US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force[20] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed.[22][23] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States


SOURCE

I guess its ok for POTUS to help out his buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

And why did we get rid of a perfectly cooperative leader in Egypt? What threat was Mubarak to the world? NONE!!

Seems this President does what he wants, when he wants and I am sick of it. He is a maniacal egomaniac who needs to be stopped.
edit on 29-8-2013 by phantomjack because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-8-2013 by phantomjack because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
We (the US) put Mubarak in charge of Egypt after Sadat's assassination to ensure two things..

1) US warship access to the Suez Canal; MUST keep that oil flowing West;

2) To be an ally in the region that was sympathetic to Israel.

For 30 years, he did just that. While not the most benevolent dictator, Hosni carried out his charge and he and compatriots were handsomely rewarded for it.

As for your initial question... since when has this President, or even the one before him... actually gave a hoot about the Constitution or the checks of power between the 3 branches of government?

Answer: Never. This President views the Constitution like a Grimm fairytale, and one that he dislikes.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Dreine because: murloc



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreine
We (the US) put Mubarak in charge of Egypt after Sadat's assassination to ensure two things..

1) US warship access to the Suez Canal; MUST keep that oil flowing West;

2) To be an ally in the region that was sympathetic to Israel.

For 30 years, he did just that. While not the most benevolent dictator, Hosni carried out his charge and he and compatriots were handsomely rewarded for it.

As for your initial question... since when has this President, or even the one before him... actually gave a hoot about the Constitution or the checks of power between the 3 branches of government?

Answer: Never. This President views the Constitution like a Grimm fairytale, and one that he dislikes.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Dreine because: murloc


Yes, but what everyone fails to mention is that CONGRESS did vote to allow military intervention in Iraq...yet Bush still gets accused wrongly thanks to the Liberal Media and the MSM.

IRAQ RESOLUTION



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Well I don't get cofused. I was very angry back then that congress gave the yes nod. It was openly debated and the public knew the vote. Bush did do it the right way though.

Obama has obviously decided to circumvent congress when it comes to any military intervention. His ego will not allow them to second guess any decision he makes. That is obvious, or should I say the the new puppet masters are playing it that way.

Thy got away with it in Libya, they will again in Syria. And who know the years ahead, since they have set a precedence.

We are sheep.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Wasn't Libya a NATO operation? that's one difference I see with the Syria events that are unfolding.. that is, the UN and NATO are not involved in the decision to use force.. if we're going it alone then Congress should definitely have the final say..

I don't know if NATO trumps congressional approval or not, it seems like it has in the past..



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
That was actually a French led NATO strike.

We just helped.

We will always give resources to NATO and the UN.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The United States is a federal corporation so who here trusts big business??


(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.


source:www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chickensalad
That was actually a French led NATO strike.

We just helped.

We will always give resources to NATO and the UN.


Thank you for clarification.

I have been wrong in the past



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chickensalad
That was actually a French led NATO strike.

We just helped.

We will always give resources to NATO and the UN.


It was a joint US, UK, and French operation for the first couple weeks. After that is was turned over to NATO as a NATO operation. And as for the OP airstikes are rarely approved by Congress. They are sometimes briefed. Of course traditionaly the President has rarely gotten Congressianal approval for military operatrions. Only the war powers act from 73 tried to change that except most Presidents have ignored it as needed. Obama like Reagan will let key members of Congress know about the strikes but will not ask for a full meeting of Congress to get permission as that would be silly from a military stand point.





new topics




 
2

log in

join