If that is indeed how the WPA defines covered hostilities then that would be correct, under the definitions of that law.
The op was not asking if it was a good law or not, just if the current US involvement in Libya qualifies.
There are lots of reasons to consider it a poor law. It fails to achieve its desired intent in multiple ways.
His cronies got billions of dollars from the invasion, and as for power he wasn’t impeached. But yes, mostly he failed, because he’s incompetent as well as evil.
Poe’s Law; it’s difficult to caricature conservatives because no matter how horribly you portray them, their real positions will be just as bad.
On every issue, conservatives are consistently on the side that is factually incorrect or just plain evil. From evolution to Iraq to prayer in schools to climate change to segregation to the oppression of women to forbidding same sex marriage to anti-abortion laws to stem cells; if there’s a right and wrong side, the conservatives will be on the wrong side. And insisting on some false equivalence between them and everyone else won’t change that; it won’t make their positions any more right or just, or make them less cruel.
So all their defenders can do is insist that everyone pretend that the conservatives aren’t as bad as they actually are.
I was just going by what was in the OP
Which sound like planes bombing targets in Libya.
You don’t think drones are part of the Armed forces? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a definition of “forces” that means explicitly humans. Here’s the DoD dictionary definition:
I read that as any combination of those elements being part of “armed forces”.
On every issue, conservatives are consistently on the side that is factually incorrect or just plain evil. From evolution to Iraq to prayer in schools to climate change to segregation to the oppression of women to forbidding same sex marriage to anti-abortion laws to stem cells; if there’s a right and wrong side, the conservatives will be on the wrong side. And insisting on some false equivalence between them and everyone else won’t change that; it won’t make their positions any more right or just, or make them less cruel.
So all their defenders can do is insist that everyone pretend that the conservatives aren’t as bad as they actually are.
[/QUOTE]
Most conservatives support the civil rights reforms (which BTW passed due to Republican support) and certainly everybody in the mainstream supports equality for women. In most of the other issues conservatives themselves disagree and for that matter being wrong on something like say Iraq may be wrong but not evil. And what about nuclear power? It has been impeded largely due to fanatical environmentalists,.
You didn’t bother to note the use of past tense: “have assisted”? That phase is long over. Currently the US is in a support role, and possibly, to some degree, or possibly no longer, using drones to take out specific targets.
Do note that personnel is part of the definition of your choice. Here, try this one:
Again, the WPA may be a badly written law, but international law, as cited in the International Red Cross article, defines armed forces as being persons, and the WPA apparently defines hostilities as involving those forces entering the space of the country. So while I do not know the status of the drones, if they are currently being used for attack purposes or not, even if they are it seems like Obama is, legally, correct. If what was quoted is accurate. To my non-lawyer read anyway.
Arguing drones /= people so therefore America isn’t fighting a country is abolutely ridiculous. If another nation launched a missile into the US you’d be hella pissed and wouldn’t be placated with, ‘but it wasn’t a person!’.
Still. I cannot find reliable proof our drones or missiles are still hitting Libya even though everyone admits we’re staging and loading our bombs on British and French planes.
This is still bullshit though and Obama has nothing to lose by asking Congress to continue this. They absolutely won’t say no, but even in the unlikely event they did the Republicans would become the ‘cut and run’ squad.
The drone attacks are part of the offensive. Whether or not we launched one today is irrelevant. It’s an ongoing mission, and Obama has not indicated that we will not send any out tomorrow.
The question was the legality. If the law defines hostility as an ongoing action that involves persons in the territory and that is not occurring then the law, toothless or not, is not being violated.
From my personal sense of the spirit of the law, drones should count, and if they do not it is only because those who wrote the law crafted it poorly, so I care about that. I’d consider a drone attack against my country to be hostility. So I want to know. That’s just me though, not the law, not the legal obligation.
Seconded.
I agree. It is like saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a ‘hostility’ as we were above the ground. Just because drones can be controlled via more remote location doesn’t mean anything.
We don’t just fund the insurgents.
I don’t understand how you can conduct a ‘humanitarian mission’ with the mission being ‘regime change’ and not call it hostile.
But I can’t think of many times in history that a total regime change was done without ‘boots on the ground’. I mean, it’s going to take an ‘invasion’ of some sort to really enact ‘regime change’. I’m not sure it can be limited to drones, intel, and training. (I’m assuming the $$ comes with a little know-how.)
The fact that Sen. Dick Durbin - one of Obama’s main backers and the guy partially responsible for his success - is breaking from him re: War Powers is suggestive that Obama is in a fantasy land right now.
We’re really so close on how we’re getting to the point, it doesn’t even matter. I disagree on where we end up. However, you saying you’re asking for the current situation, and I was responding to Obama’s reported May 20th positions he claimed did not rise to WPR involvement in hostilities. Maybe irrelevant right now.
I don’t know what’s going on today. If we’re using drones to bomb in Libya, WPR applies. That’s not questionable in my book.
As far as (1), “Intelligence and logistic support”, if we’re saying someone destroyed target X and all we did was say here’s the fuel, map, gps coordinators and we’ll paint the target for you…but you destroy it with your British plane and pilot. Fuckin’ A. I love it, but that’s fighting a war against someone no matter how you slice it. And we’re America, and I don’t think I’m underselling our “intelligence and logistic support.” If I’m wrong, I’m definitely open to correction.
Congress did authorize an open ended war against Al Qaeda and its supporters in 2001.
Why? There are already “boots on the ground” in the form of the Libyan rebels. It’s rare in history because most of the time we are just trying to put into power or keep in power a government that no one but us wants.
But if the rebels are our proxy (or we are supporting them), then I feel that it counts. But…how could we not actually enter, with boots on physical ground, Libya at some point? It isn’t as if these rebels operate by remote control, and they’ll need training and ‘peacekeeping’.
And there’s nothing that says these rebels will be friendly to us later.
We aren’t in control of them at all. And why would we go there “with boots on physical ground”?
And? There’s nothing to say that any group of people will be friendly to us later. Britain or Canada could turn hostile in ten years, for all we know. But not conquering them and laying waste to the country and not supporting a crazed dictator over them are good starts.
Funny. People keep trying to argue what the WPA should say, as if that means it does say it. They really cannot understand that their personal definition of “hostility” does not matter at all to the question of whether or not Obama has a legal obligation under the Act.
The Act, according to the information provided, explicitly excludes support services from being “hostilities”. It defines hostilities as putting armed military forces (persons) in the space of the conflict and requires a report by 60 days if hostilities as so defined (“in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced … into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces”)
So it is nice that you think, nay “fukin’ A” think, that a President should be obligated to report to Congress if US intelligence is pointing another country’s missiles to the right targets. But that is not what the law states.
Because we usually train people we’re giving billions to.
What are these Marines doing in these aircraft?
That is dated March 2011, so it’s not relevant to this discussion.
I figured whatever’s gone on in the last 60 days in Libya was pertinent to the discussion. Are we not arguing on the ‘hostilities’?
How do we decide (or argue and never agree) on what ‘hostilities’ are if we don’t talk about said actions in Libya?
Explain. I’m apparently not getting it.