Libya and Obama; it's the last straw for me

[Lobohan]

It might help if we had some context on the Obama quote:

**A Question posed to Obama:
**2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites – a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

**His Answer:
**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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

It seems to me this is about deciding what “a military attack” is. Obama may not consider enforcing a UN Humanitarian No Fly Zone a military attack. I’m not saying I agree, but I’m not a lawyer. And by not a lawyer, I mean not a nitpicky douchebag.

[markdash]

@John_Mace

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.

Fine. Are there laws on the books which enumerate to the President certain powers when accompanied by the UNSC resolution, or NATO agreement? Or is this a moot point, since a law passed by congress is not “under the Constitution”?

[John_Mace]

Thanks for the context, but I don’t think that changes anything. I hope he doesn’t try to tell us this isn’t a “military attack”, but it will be interesting to see how he does respond when he is asked about it, as he most certainly will be.

[John_Mace]

@markdash

Fine. Are there laws on the books which enumerate to the President certain powers when accompanied by the UNSC resolution, or NATO agreement? Or is this a moot point, since a law passed by congress is not “under the Constitution”?

The constitution takes precedent over any law passed by Congress, so it doesn’t matter.

Now, plenty of people have argued that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS has not weighed in on that.

[Nadir]

@Bridget_Burke

Which happened in 1988. Why didn’t Ronnie or Bush the Smarter do anything about it?

Why didn’t we go into Libya at the 1st sign of trouble?

[John_Mace]

@Nadir

Why didn’t we go into Libya at the 1st sign of trouble?

Because it took several weeks to get the coalition together. I don’t find that unreasonable, even though I disagree with the policy.

[Lobohan]

@Nadir

Why didn’t we go into Libya at the 1st sign of trouble?

So waiting two weeks is the same thing as waiting a decade or two?

You’re fucking too stupid to be here. Go to the Hannity forums, they won’t ask you to think there. Why can’t we have one fucking intelligent far-right conservative on this forum? What the fuck will it take to get one god-damn person who can argue the other side without being a sniveling moron like Nadir here?

And in answer to your question, you ignorant clot, Obama was waiting for a UN resolution and the support of the Arab League.

[elucidator]

"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

• E.M. Forster

Now, this quote doesn’t directly apply, but it leans in the direction I want to illustrate. Issues of legality as compared to, and often opposed to, morality. Dick and George’s Excellent Military Adventure was legal, but amoral, cynical, and destructive. Not to mention stupid. Reagan’s invasion of Grenada could be dressed up in legal clothes, since he was addressing a clear and present danger, the massive buildup of Soviet military force on the island of Grenada. (I swear, I am not making this up!) Such a determination on his part was within his purview, legalisticly speaking, even as it was an utterly flagrant lie, the kind of lie that would insult the intelligence of a chicken.

If Obama has broken the law, the appropriate steps may be taken. I have little doubt the knew this, because he’s smarter than me. He made a choice.

If breaking the law will save thousands of innocent lives, I hope I would have the decency to break the law. I would get up early in the morning to break the law, I would videotape me breaking the law and post in on YouTube. With a legend on the image: “This is me, elucidator, breaking the law. Do your worst.”

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
If Obama has broken the law, the appropriate steps may be taken. I have little doubt the knew this, because he’s smarter than me. He made a choice.
[/QUOTE]

What law is he supposed to have broken???

-XT

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

• E.M. Forster

Now, this quote doesn’t directly apply, but it leans in the direction I want to illustrate. Issues of legality as compared to, and often opposed to, morality. Dick and George’s Excellent Military Adventure was legal, but amoral, cynical, and destructive. Not to mention stupid. Reagan’s invasion of Grenada could be dressed up in legal clothes, since he was addressing a clear and present danger, the massive buildup of Soviet military force on the island of Grenada. (I swear, I am not making this up!) Such a determination on his part was within his purview, legalisticly speaking, even as it was an utterly flagrant lie, the kind of lie that would insult the intelligence of a chicken.

If Obama has broken the law, the appropriate steps may be taken. I have little doubt the knew this, because he’s smarter than me. He made a choice.

If breaking the law will save thousands of innocent lives, I hope I would have the decency to break the law. I would get up early in the morning to break the law, I would videotape me breaking the law and post in on YouTube. With a legend on the image: “This is me, elucidator, breaking the law. Do your worst.”

You offer a false dichotomy. I don’t see any reason to believe Congress would have prevented him from doing this. He could have called an emergency session. This is, after all, an emergency. No?

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

What law is he supposed to have broken???

-XT

Did you read this page of the thread? Look at my post 253.

[elucidator]

@Lobohan

…without being a sniveling moron like Nadir here?.. .

I rise in protest! The poster is an abrasive, obnoxious, self-righteous Dickorsaurus Rex. There is no element of “sniveling”. That is unfair. In the tradition of liberals everywhere, I demand a retraction, if that’s OK with you.

[XT]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Did you read this page of the thread? Look at my post 253.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t, John…thanks for giving the post number. I was under the impression that the President could act in a limited way using our military without consulting the Congress at his discretion. I don’t recall Reagan getting authorization to have the Navy blow the crap out of a few Libyan fighters, or Clinton getting authorization to toss a few tomahawks. Perhaps this is pushing that scope, but I don’t see how it’s illegal in any meaningful sense of the word. Of course, since I’m just talking out of my ass here and actually have no idea, it should probably be taken with a huge grain of salt.

-XT

[Lobohan]

@elucidator

I rise in protest! The poster is an abrasive, obnoxious, self-righteous Dickorsaurus Rex. There is no element of “sniveling”. That is unfair. In the tradition of liberals everywhere, I demand a retraction, if that’s OK with you.

Yeah, well, you know… I was… really… I shouldn’t have… sorry. [Runs off stage]

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

I didn’t, John…thanks for giving the post number. I was under the impression that the President could act in a limited way using our military without consulting the Congress at his discretion. I don’t recall Reagan getting authorization to have the Navy blow the crap out of a few Libyan fighters, or Clinton getting authorization to toss a few tomahawks. Perhaps this is pushing that scope, but I don’t see how it’s illegal in any meaningful sense of the word. Of course, since I’m just talking out of my ass here and actually have no idea, it should probably be taken with a huge grain of salt.

-XT

I doesn’t matter what previous presidents may or may not have done. The War Powers Resolution is clear: the circumstances must meet one of the 3 criteria listed. This action meets none of those.

[XT]

Yeah, I got that from your previous post (I didn’t know it before, so thanks again). What are the potential and realistic ramifications for acting without meeting any of those criteria? Do you know off hand?

-XT

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

You offer a false dichotomy. I don’t see any reason to believe Congress would have prevented him from doing this. He could have called an emergency session. This is, after all, an emergency. No?

You mean, given the universal approval and adoration of the Republican Party in Congress?

Have you skipped your coffee this morning?

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

Yeah, I got that from your previous post (I didn’t know it before, so thanks again). What are the potential and realistic ramifications for acting without meeting any of those criteria? Do you know off hand?

-XT

Theoretically, Congress could move to impeach and remove him from office. Realistically, I think nothing will happen. Congress could vote to require Obama to pull the military out, or could try to defund it, but I doubt that will happen.

[XT]

That’s sort of what I figured. Even if they impeach him, it doesn’t really rise to the level of ‘illegal’, since they could theoretically impeach him for just about anything.

I’m glad you pointed out that the War Powers Resolution has narrowed the scope that a president can ‘unilaterally’ commit US forces though…saves me making yet another horses ass out of myself in the GD thread on this subject.

-XT

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

You mean, given the universal approval and adoration of the Republican Party in Congress?

Many Republicans in Congress have wanted him to do this even earlier. I do think it would have passed.

Have you skipped your coffee this morning?

No.

But to make your analogy work, Obama would have had to have tried to get authorization, failed, but acted anyway. As it is, he just said he didn’t need no stinkin’ baches!