Eh, yes and no. We didn’t veto or abstain from UNSC 1973, which clears invokes Chapter VII and Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. At that point is does become part of our ‘job’.
I agree but NATO has been the UN sheriff for quite awhile. It’s up to the President to know who he is backing and quantify what is involved with the use of military force.
My goodness, that does sound ominous!
Ah, Kinetic Diplomacy, Mattel’s poorly received attempt to combine Risk and Nerf guns.
No. It was that quote, but he wasn’t Senator Obama criticizing Bush. He was presidential candidate Obama doing a Q&A with a reporter from the Boston Globe. AFAIK, the constitution hasn’t changed since Dec 2007.
You’re the one who said he knew something about the Constitution. If you think he doesn’t, and you want to change your mind, that’s fine.
Look. I don’t expect presidential candidates to keep every campaign promise they make. But I don’t expect them to tell us the constitution means one thing when they’re a candidate and that it means the opposite when they’re in office. It’s not like this is some groundbreaking new situation-- we’ve been there many, many times before.
It sounds like double speak by a President who has not defined anything about the [del]war[/del] use of military equipment to bomb another nation. There is no ownership of what is going on with no set goals. We don’t know who we’re supporting or to what extent we’re willing to extend that support.
Oh, the President said that! Well, that’s very different. I thought it sounded like some guy on a message board trying to imply something dark and threatening, but without any actual basis.
It will end badly for the sub-saharan immigrants.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story
I’m sure you’re right, that document hasn’t changed since the last time it was amended. Intperpretations of that document have continued right along, yes?
Well, you got me there, I don’t actually know that, I’m just going by his resume. Maybe he was like that gym teacher in high school, who taught a class in Health or Remedial Reading, but, really, he was just the Coach.
Perhaps the top five nearly identical examples could prove convincing. Out of the “many, many” examples at your fingertips.
I don’t know why reasonably bright adults are still pursuing this silliness.
Candidate Obama’s remarks were about a hypothetical Bush-ordered unilateral attack on Iran - and by unilateral it was not meant “on the POTUS’ exclusive say-so”, it was meant “the US acting without cover of international treaty compliance or alliances” and candidate O’s constitutional evaluation was further qualified by the assumption that no hypothetical acts of war or Congress had occurred to prompt the attack.
In the case of Libya, the POTUS had UN and NATO cover, and had consulted with Congress for a month prior to taking limited actions in support of an international effort.
Not the same morally, practically or constitutionally.
We, to start with, “reasonably bright adults” get the facts straight.
Biden’s remarks were about a hypothetical attack by Bush on Iran. But I don’t really care about that. He answered in the general, not in the specific.
Obama’s comments were in response to of a Boston Globe interview which was attempting to outline his views on a variety of issues concerning presidnenial authority. This wasn’t about Bush. This was about what Obama would do.
The idea that “unilateral”, in that context, meant the US by itself is laughable. He’s talking about getting authorization by Congress, as is crystal clear from the next paragraph in the quote:
In the lat 3 1/2 years, regarding the presidential authority to use military force? No.
Cambodia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Iraq (prior to Bush’s little adventure there)
Rwanda
That’s just off the top of my head. And I didn’t say “nearly identical”. I’m talking about the specter (or actual incident) of large numbers of civilians being killed-- ie, the situation in Libya. In two of those instances, we did interfere militarily w/o Congressional approval. I have the sneaking suspicion that Obama was aware of that when he gave his answer.
Just to clarify, you’re saying that a question about what authorization the POTUS would need to attack Iran, asked of a presidential candidate during a period when bellicose statements toward Iran were coming daily from members of the Bush administration had nothing to do with Bush and was a general question about Obama’s understanding of the Presidential role?
Well, you may have me there, you clever adult you; I was remembering Biden’s rant to Chris Matthews. I will note that Obama made a point to frame his answer in terms of the success of the military mission and the “informed consent” of Congress, rather than about the requirement for an AUMF, but I will also note that I was wrong about his meaning of “unilateral” in that quote, and you were right about his use of that word.
Since we’re setting the facts straight about this, shall we say facile inconsistency you see in the President’s constitutional understanding, doesn’t the argument hinge on whether one sees a substantial situational difference between the hypothetical which candidate and constitutional law professor Obama was asked to consider politically in 2007, and the real international controversy current President and constitutional law professor Obama was required to deal with substantively in 2011? And wouldn’t you say that Obama at least actually sees those situations as fundamentally different, particularly considering the next paragraph in his response to the Boston Globe, shown below?
I quoted the President’s position regarding an undeclared war with Libya. Run you mouth all you want but he hasn’t stated an exit strategy or who we’re supporting in this war. Congress got a closed door briefing so his once-promised transparency can be added to the list of his failings as President.
re: authorization for President to use the military. I can see three different authorizations for the President: (1) Constitutional, (2) Congressional Authorization, (3) UN Resolution. The first two are clearly adequate (formal declaration of war qualms aside). The first two clearly did not happen with Libya.
So my question is, and John Mace and I were discussing this earlier, is why is a UN Resolution not adequate legal authority for the President to rely on. The UN Charter was passed by a treaty. A properly ratified US Treaty has the same effect as a US Statute. So in a sense, the UN Resolution has the same effect as US law, and the President has a duty to uphold US law (“take care that laws be faithfully executed”).
I understand it usurps Congressional control over the military, but that’s what was ratified. Congress can always recall the troops at anytime per the War Power Resolution and/or they can always choose to not fund it. Plus you can always veto the resolution (UN ambassador is confirmed by Senate). So there’s still enough checks in place (for me). If anyone knows if this is wrong logic or just too basic logic, fill me in…
Also, I did cite the Statute that executed the UN Charter “treaty.” It seemed to clearly state that when force is used under Art. 42 of the UN Charter (as is the case with Libya), the President is not required to get Congressional approval.
I think the issue is easily resolved when you consider that a UNSC resolution to use military force does not require that the US participate in said force. So no, the UNSC resolution does not have the same effect as treaty obligation. We can vote “yes” and not participate.
And I thought we already decided that the actions covered by your last paragraph were only those grandfathered in-- not to new potential actions after the WPR was passed.
xenophon14: I strongly disagree with the characterization of it being a “facile inconsistency”. We’re talking about how we decide to go to war or not. That’s the most important decision a government can make. There is nothing “facile” about war.
Obama turned it over to NATO who said they will enforce the “no fly zone”.
Way to twist and shout, John. A facile inconsistency is another way of saying “hypocrisy”. It was meant to describe the shift you’re alleging in Obama’s constitutional emphasis, which I’d call facilely self serving. Obviously, I didn’t use the phrase to describe the military operation. But don’t let that stop your amphiboly. Maybe you can throw equivocation into your next rebuttal for a hat trick.
Thats going too far. I’ve never seen anything from John to suggest any other than an ordinary, natural, and non-perverted interest in frogs, newts, and axolotyls.