UNSC. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the problem with getting Congressional approval is that Congress was not in session when he changed his mind.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Obama needs congressional approval to do what he has done so far.
Civilian against civilian? Let them duke it out. The NFZ is intended only to prevent Gaddafi & his military from attacking civilians.
I don’t have a crystal ball, do you? But since we’ll be out of there by then, NATO forces will have to figure out how to deal with that, if at all.
Don’t know. Don’t care. I only care that they not be mass slaughtered by their own government’s military. That’s all we’re in there to prevent.
By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire after next year when they’re supposed to, plus borrow some more from the Chinese. ::shrug:: Are you really trying to affix a dollar value to human lives?
How is he going to be able to do all of that if he has no more planes or tanks to “hide”? How quickly do you think he’d be able to transfer all that machinery anyway? And since we’ll be out far sooner than France, Italy and Britain are, it will be their potential problem to address, not ours anymore.
We have a very specific mission here, “. . .after the initial U.S. bombing clears the way for it, . . . the administration will be able to hand off “later this week” much of the mission to allies, who will actually enforce the no-fly zone.” Cite.
I appreciate that sentiment, but I must point out it is (or at least appears) at odds with: “If Bricker and Starving Artist support a policy, that’s reason enough to seriously question it.”
As the Sesame Street characters were fond of musically observing, one of these things does not belong here.
I agree, but it’s the same perennially unsettled question of the War Powers Act vs. the President’s Art II powers that always arises, and is not yet definitively settled. So I agree as a matter of policy, but not as a matter of settled law.
I don’t either, but he used to think so.
I don’t think Bricker’s point about settled law really signifies. The judiciary invariably shrugs its shoulders when these things come up and refuse to get involved.
Well, it didn’t take long for the Arab League to start waffling.
I expect all that goodwill to last as long as it usually does.
Regards,
Shodan
Is it “unilateral” if the US is going along with its UN or NATO allies?
I understand that it’s “unilateral” in the sense that the President is pursuing this military action without Congress’ blessing. But if the US has treaties/agreements with the UN or NATO, and a situation arises which necessitates some limited military action (such as the NFZ), is the President acting “unilaterally” by complying with these agreements?
I reluctantly support the President on this, although I want US involvement to end as soon as possible and will scream along with you if any US ground forces are used. I’m not 100% behind the international intervention, and in fact I think it’s hypocritical and selective. I can think of any number of cases for UN intervention around the world over just the past 20 or 30 years which were more compelling than the Libyan rebellion.
But I’ll have a go at your questions:
The portion of the population ‘arising’ against the rebels with stones, harsh words and contempt should be left alone. The portion of the Libyan population wearing uniforms, driving tanks, firing artillery and bombing or strafing the rebels on Qaddafi’s orders are subject to suppression by the international effort. As far as the stability of the region, I suspect that the aforementioned suppression of the Libyan military is more stabilizing for the region than the rebel forces are destabilizing.
I believe this should be a concern for the international community, but it should NOT be a process in which we/they should intervene unless peacekeeping is specifically requested by credible groups within the country. They have a right to retain their country and I would hope that the Libyan social structures and leadership are robust enough to transition to a successor government without more bloodshed.
Commitment of military forces in any way assumes a certain amount of risk, to equipment and to the lives of service members. That risk is part of the consideration behind every deployment, but it is never a justification against deployment in and of itself. I wish we would use most of the Defense budget on better things, but the fact is it’s huge. The cost of having a military this large is not made significantly higher by consuming inventory. (And in fact, this must happen in various ways to assure that military remains functional.)
My answer is I wish Qaddafi thought as you do, and was willing to cripple his army’s effectiveness in this way for even a week. I suspect he’d be gone well within that period of time.
For the purposes of the Constitution, it’s irrelevant.
Not that quoting a news site qualifies as legal foundation, but I found this article interesting nonetheless. . .
"Ever since the United States was formed, there has been a tension over who controls the use of force. While the Constitution formally lodges the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, it just as firmly declares the president to be the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces.
In practice, more power has lodged in the White House than on Capitol Hill. Scholars have estimated that Presidents have dispatched forces abroad between 120 and 200 times, but Congress has only formally declared war on five occasions: the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War and the two World Wars.
. . .
[T]he War Powers Act [of] 1973 . . .requires the President to notify Congress in a timely fashion when American troops are being sent abroad with a strong probability that they will engage in combat. It calls for the troops to be removed from foreign territory within 90 days unless Congress explicitly gives approval for them to remain."
Here’s the sticking point on the constitutionality of this particular action, from the text of the War Powers Resolution:
I don’t see any of those 3 criteria being met here.
Ever heard of the Kurds? :rolleyes:
Who’s telling “big, fat, steaming lies” now?
“The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]”
Or do you just ignore record-setting historical facts as a matter of convienence when they don’t support your argument?
The problem arises in 2(C) of your quote:
This is, by the way, codified now at 50 USC § 1541(c).
The argument against Obama’s actions is that neither (1), (2), or (3) applies.
But what about for purposes of determining whether Obama is a hypocrite for his 2007 quote?
That wasn’t the reason for invasion, Nadir, that was part of the justification for the NFZ’s that started under G. H. W. Bush and were expanded by Clinton. In 2003, there were no such actions being carried out or attempted by Saddam Hussein.
Are you aware of what year this happened?
It’s not your fault, you’re stupid, but you should have the common sense to not keep trying when you fail so utterly and without reservation.
Which happened in 1988. Why didn’t Ronnie or Bush the Smarter do anything about it?
He was referring to the Constitution in that quote:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Emphasis added. This isn’t rocket science here. All you have to do is read one sentence.