Republican bill would halt 'unauthorized' U.S. strikes in Libya

reply to post by Jason88

Yes, but, as the world's superpower you have policing powers to cross the cross walk at a red light, flash your badge, pull your cruiser into the middle of traffic and halt the laws currently in place to make adjustments to the current state of life in motion.

The people of the world really did not appoint the United States it's police officer. Corrupt politicians in other countries who enjoy the fact that they don't have to ask or demand or FORCE their citizens to pay for 'policing' actions, or fight and die in them, are all too happy to bow to our gunboat diplomacy in what is little more than an extortion and protection racket designed not to make the world 'safer' for the citizens of the world, but a handful of corporations 'richer' and more profitible.

Your world view neglects to consider all the ugly side effects that are so numerous that they actually stop becoming coincidental, things like the abuses in the Oil for Food Program in Iraq, Haliburtons abuse of it's no bid contract for a 1 million dollars a day to rebuild Iraq infrastructure that not only hasn't been rebuilt but one might also ask how does policing to 'remove' a dictator end up having to include the destruction of an entire infrastructure of a people, people just like you, who had air conditioning and electricity and function bridges and roads and government services, that all of a sudden don't because these fixed stationary non-human things that are designed to make urban life function are ruthelessly targeted systematically in these 'policing' actions.

It's an elastic, dynamic take on the law that allows the US, in its post-drafting Constitutional status, to make adjustments to laws that fall into the gray areas. Gadhafi starting killing his own people, unlike other trouble regimes in the area, so while there is no hard ancient law on the books, we had to act with our new-ish found power.

Sounds like a war-mongering mind, completely taken over by propaganda minus a critical thought, fixated on singular poorly sourced and qualified elements, using the power then of life and death usurped from the Congress and the American people in an attempt to make legitimit murder.

So how is our murder of Gadafi's citizens any different than say Gadafi's murders of Gadafi's citizens? Is our process of bombing through stand off and attack weapons from miles away any more discerning? Is it any less arbitrary, are the people killed in the process any less dead? You are simply using a process of indiscriminate murder to justify more indiscriminate murder, based on first murdering the law of the land, our land, to do what our forefathers didn't want us to do because it leads to our own bankruptcy morally and financially, and that's taking sides in foreign conflicts and building an empire.

People who want to play policeman in Libya should simply move to Libya, volunteer for a force, see if you can get hired!

Otherwise what you are advocating is called DECLARING WAR and INDISCRIMINATE MASS MURDER and has nothing to do with policing anything.

It's part of being a Christian nation accepting of all people's of the world, it's part of having the most power to protect other people against hostile governments. It's our job to help others, and times have changed with recently found US power.

Clearly it's part of 'Christians' wanting to FORCE other people to adopt their own often differing, vague interpretations of what it means to be Christian. Church and State are seperate here in the United States, and it is actually treason for the Christians to want to take over a Democratic Republic to instead label it and make it a Christian nation, with as you admit their dubious Christian morals as a standard instead of Constitutional Guidelines.

You show me where in the Constitution it says the United States shall use it's taxpayer's monies and the lives of the flower of it's youth to IMPOSE Christian morality on it's own citizens and the rest of the world and that furthermore violence is acceptable and preferred in forcing that.

Clearly when you start using non-government related constructs like 'Christian' you are only interested in serving Christianity in that selfish endeavor. If you want to help others you might want to first help yourself by learning to define yourself as a human being, rather than a 'Christian' a vaguely defined concept thousands of different sects and sub-sects can't even agree upon exactly what it means.

Edit to add: I am not hanging my hat on Christian ideals in this conversation, but I do believe it informs our actions to some never-admitted degree, but in a good way not the extremist versions out there.

While you will no doubt lie to yourself in regards to it, you sir or ma'am are simply advocating violence, not policing, you are advocating war, not detective work, you are advocating wholesale destruction, not apprehension, and you are advocating execution, not incarceration.

What's more so you are advocating it in a foreign nation where you hold no office and your oppinion is not relevant and even sicker and more frightening is you are pretending this violent murderous process has something to do with being a good adherent to a religion, a religion you are also quite insanely purporting to be superior for it's virtues while displaying none at all.

Policing in the United States is designed to 'investigate' crimes that may have occured, and to try in a recognized court of law the accused by a jury of their peers.

A process that allows for and requires the accused be given the opportunity to confront witnesses and provide testimony and evidence in their own defense.

This hasn't happened and it sure hasn't happened for the thousands of individuals we are holding in secret prisons throughout the world.

The same constitutional protections you don't like when they stand in the way of forcing your ill defined notions of Christianity violently on others, are likewise the only thing that is going to protect you when other people who want to 'police' people who do that, come for you!

I wouldn't be so quick to trade them away.

People in glass houses and all.

The only problem with this bill and the allegations against Obama ( no Im not defending him ) and Congressional approval is null and void. Yes the Constitution, under Article 1 section 8 states:

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

www.usconstitution.net...

Under the war powers act, allows for " side stepping " Congressional approval:

The War Powers Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon. It's supposed to be the mechanism by which the President may use US Armed Forces. It purports to spell out the situations under which he may deploy the Forces with and without a Congressional declaration of war.

How ever, this isn't specifically just the US declaring war on another nation. This falls under the UN sanctions, and articles. Because its been deemed an act perpetrated by the UN and its members, the articles/charters of the UN govern.

UN Article 41:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations

The UN had already put sanctions/tariffs and what not on Libya years ago. The members of the UN council agreed and deemed those measures inadequate. Which leads us into UN Article 42.

UN Article 42:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Now, for the UN members to act as a whole, Article 43 lays down the framework:

Article 43:

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

www.un.org...

Now it gets even more tricky, because now, because of US involvement, the USC is implemented.

USC § 287d:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

Take note in this above code:

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter

Considering that the UN, was predominantly designed by the US, including the framework, and writings of the articles, should come as no surprise, as it is a means to unilaterally avoid Congressional approval. Much like the Executive Orders, and Signed Presidential statements. These two are used as side stepping measures.

The War powers resolution would have you believe that the act was repealed, but again, this is not just the US taking offensive actions towards another nation. But a combined effort by many nations as a whole so the resolution:

Section 2 states the Resolution's purpose and policy, with Section 2(a) citing as the primary purpose to "insure that the collective judgment 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."

ection 2(b) points to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution as the basis for legislation on the war powers. It provides that "Under Article I, section 8, of the Constitution it is specifically provided that 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...."

Would be deemed null and void, because you have to revert back to the fact that its a UN act of aggression as a whole.