http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Quote :

"President Obama is facing criticism that crosses the political divide for not seeking Congressional authorization before ordering the American military to join in attacks of Libyan air defenses and government forces. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-libya-20110322,0,7678106.story

Quote :

"Some U.S. lawmakers complain that President Obama failed to consult Congress before launching military action. The Arab League and Russia also criticize the U.S.-led airstrikes."

3/21/2011 11:05:58 PM

A previous Congress had passed a law giving Obama the power to do just what he did; now if he still has forces out there in a couple more months, he'll need to either get approval from this Congress or pull a Bu$h.

3/21/2011 11:13:35 PM

Are you talking about the War Powers Act of 1973? That gives the President the authority to order military action (in lieu of congressional approval) if the United States is in imminent danger or under direct attack. The Libyan conflict in no way meets that criteria. Sorry, but this is an illegal act of war.

3/21/2011 11:16:25 PM

ohh ok

then 'tis sad but true

same old same old applies here: GTFO as soon as practical

3/21/2011 11:21:49 PM

Should Obama be impeached?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment/index.html

3/21/2011 11:26:36 PM

a particularly fun quote from the nyt article

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,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007."

3/21/2011 11:39:32 PM

Is the US not legally bound to comply with Chapter 7 resolutions?

3/21/2011 11:42:53 PM

Quote :

"Are you talking about the War Powers Act of 1973? That gives the President the authority to order military action (in lieu of congressional approval) if the United States is in imminent danger or under direct attack."

I think the relevant sections here would be:

"SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces."

and

"SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date. "

3/22/2011 12:12:15 AM

Awwww, c'mon guys...war in the Middle east is fun!!! We're totally winning!!!

3/22/2011 12:22:37 AM

To be fair, this is the kind of war in the Middle East that we're pretty good at. Bombs, missiles, we've got that covered. We blew all his shit up lickety-split. Occupation we clearly need some work on.

3/22/2011 1:06:50 AM

in defense of obama and the interests of the united states and the UN i suggest you all read this b4 you start shitting yourselves over civilian deaths:

Quote :

"Kaddafi has threatened to use human shields to guard his assets. While Kaddafi says these are volunteers, it's more likely that civilians are being coerced to camp out near military bases and headquarters, to discourage air attack. If the smart bombs come anyway (which appears to have happened already), Kaddafi hopes to obtain pictures of dead women and children, to help get some worldwide opinion moving in his direction. By himself, Kaddafi has not got the resources to stop the air war, or resist the rebels now marching on his refuge in Tripoli. The most powerful weapon Kaddafi has is the mass media. If he can successfully manipulate it, he can survive."

3/22/2011 10:46:47 AM

^ There are already reports of government forces blowing up parts of the civil infratructure like power plants in order to blame it on coalition bombing, as well as reports of dead rebels being taken from morgues and hospitals and being dumped at bombing sites.

I heard that on the radio yesterday and don't know where to find a link for it.

3/22/2011 10:54:19 AM

I'm somewhat sure the UN authorization treaty grants the president authority to wage war on the UN's behalf until such time as congress objects.

3/22/2011 11:03:48 AM

The fact that obama is doing this makes me believe the president is just a puppet and theres someone or group running this country behind the curtain.

3/22/2011 11:37:38 AM

Jew what?

3/22/2011 11:45:11 AM

I believe Member States are required to carry out resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

Either way, I will certainly agree that Obama has handled the public discourse aspect of this intervention horribly. Within hours of the resolution's passage, I flicked on CSPAN and saw the UK's prime minister presenting the resolution, and his reasons for supporting it, to members of the House of Commons. Each MP was able to ask questions, which he answered. He also ordered his cabinet to prepare an explanation of the resolution and have it sent to Parliament for debate.

Compare that to President Obama, who remains on some kind of business trip in South America, who has said very little (and is vague when he does say anything), and who has not made a serious attempt to present the resolution to Congress for its consideration.

It's embarrassing and disheartening.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 11:46:54 AM

Quote :

"The fact that obama is doing this makes me believe the president is just a puppet and theres someone or group running this country behind the curtain."

3/22/2011 11:51:28 AM

Jewish think tanks.

3/22/2011 11:52:04 AM

^^^Well, let's think about how this would have played out if Bush, McCain, or any other neo-con had been President. We would have been very gung ho with the Libyan conflict. Undoubtedly, we would have taken a leadership role early on - Libya would have been getting bombed 3-4 weeks ago. The liberals would be crying, Europe would be crying, everyone would be upset that the United States was acting unilaterally again.

Look at how it actually played out. Obama was indecisive initially, and still kind of is. European powers didn't know how to react to that, and sat there look at us like, "aren't you going to do something?" Sarcozy took the lead, and we're coming in after the fact with military support.

I mean, for Christ's sake, we've involved in two full scale wars, and European powers have drawn down their troops in those particular efforts. Why did we need to help here? And the War Powers Act simply doesn't apply. Are we not spending money on these bombs? Then Congress has to approve it! It really is that simple.

3/22/2011 12:09:15 PM

Quote :

"And the War Powers Act simply doesn't apply. Are we not spending money on these bombs?"

Hahaha, I love it.

1) Make wild claim about the act.
2) Have wild claim proven wrong.
3) "Nuh-uhn!"

The US has signed treaties that the Senate has ratified, and those treaties obligate us to act. Not for nothing does putting a treaty into effect require two branches of government, and not for nothing is it referred to as being part of "the supreme law of the land."

3/22/2011 1:49:39 PM

Who proved me wrong? You? Haha.

Quote :

""SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.""

Yes, this outlines the 60 day period after military action is taken. This in no way proves that the United States does not need to be under attack or in imminent danger.

Quote :

""SEC. 8. (b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date. ""

This doesn't override the Constitution, nor does it override the overall point of the War Powers Act.

Here's a couple of relevant sections for you:

Quote :

"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Quote :

"(a) Congressional declaration It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and 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."

Here's the deal: a no-fly zone is an act of war. I don't care about what the U.N. says. The U.N. isn't paying for these bombs, we are. We don't even know who we're supporting - you don't know who we're supporting. You think you see another bad guy to take down, and we have no idea what will replace it or what our exit strategy is. And, as expected, Obama says it'll be over within days. What a joke.

This is a good read: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/stratfor-libya-west-and-narrative-democracy

As expected, corporate media gives us a gross over-simplification of the Libyan conflict.

3/22/2011 2:32:38 PM

3/22/2011 2:35:36 PM

Chief Justice Marshall, 1829:

Quote :

"Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision."

The Senate approved the UN treaty, which is still in effect. That treaty, under certain conditions, obligates the use of military force. The Senate knew as much, and effectively authorized the use of force as required by the terms of the treaty, much as is the case with alliances. Or if the Soviets had started rolling through Western Europe, would you have had the President run to congress and say, "Sorry to call you boys here on short notice, but we're obligated by treaty to act here and I can't do it until you tell me to do the thing you already told me I could do when you OK'd NATO?

Quote :

"We don't even know who we're supporting - you don't know who we're supporting. You think you see another bad guy to take down, and we have no idea what will replace it or what our exit strategy is."

This is an argument that our action is stupid, not illegal. Right now I'm concerned with "illegal."

3/22/2011 3:21:16 PM

Speaking entirely out of curiosity, as I don't know shit in this area, what is the UN Treaty? wiki link? A google search brings up this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Treaty_Series

Quote :

"The United Nations Treaty Series is a collection of treaties and international agreements that have been registered (or filed and recorded) with and published by the Secretariat of the United Nations since 1946, pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter. The UNTS includes the texts of treaties in their authentic language(s), along with translations into English and French, as appropriate."

Your point is definitely very interesting if Obama's call for a military strike is validated by the UN Treaty.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 5:05 PM. Reason : lkj]

3/22/2011 5:05:00 PM

A treaty doesn't mean the we just get to skip over the political process (that is, determining if the act is actually constitutional). If you read more into Marshall's statements (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html), it's not at all settled upon what it means for a treaty to be "the law of the land."

In any case, you could probably conceive of some situations where a treaty required some action by the executive branch, but proceeding without Congress' approval would be inappropriate. This is one of those situations. A treaty doesn't mean we blindly follow other nations into war; a treaty may be a tentative contract between independent sovereign nations, but the military action is paid for by U.S. citizens, and as such, the house of representatives should be required to authorize force unless we're under immediate and direct threat. Is there any reason you can think of that the President couldn't have gone to the legislative branch before pursuing this course of action? Is it because he was worried that the legislative branch (and the people) would oppose it?

3/22/2011 5:15:17 PM

God damn it, I had a very long response and my computer shit the bed.

ThePeter: Read Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, it covers our obligations.

d357r0y3r: There is a widespread understanding that treaties are on equal level with constitutional law.

I think that the most likely reason he didn't ask congress is because that took time that wasn't available after the UN decree, and nothing in the constitution leads me to believe that its spirit opposes executive action when time is of the essence (as evidenced by the exclusions for an attack on us).

3/22/2011 6:30:22 PM

really? how was time of the essence, again? he already fucking waited 3 fucking weeks. were we about to be attacked? i didn't see that part... there was nothing that precluded him from coming home and saying "hey, you guys OK if we lob a couple hundred tomahawks at these bastards? yeah? ok."

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 6:34:53 PM

For three weeks we didn't have a treaty obligation, mostly.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 6:50 PM. Reason : time between UN resolution and our action was quite brief]

3/22/2011 6:50:26 PM

yes, it was brief because he didn't consult anyone. if the UN decreed that we should nuke New York, are we obligated to do so?

3/22/2011 6:58:11 PM

Well, we get to veto UN decisions. So for the United States, at least (as well as Russia, Britain, France, and China), that's stupid as hell.

Perhaps I should have said that the time between UN resolution and UN action was brief.

3/22/2011 7:02:50 PM

yet, not brief enough to keep England from getting consent... hmmm... It's OK, Obama has never really shown any love for the Constitution anyway, lol

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 7:09 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 7:09:12 PM

I've no idea how much we were involved in the international decision making process. But I'm pretty confident that he could have gotten support if he asked for it, which means there's no political reason for him not to ask.

3/22/2011 7:11:14 PM

its almost like some of you never took civics in high school

3/22/2011 8:24:14 PM

^ stop being an asshole

...

i didn't know the UN treaty angle

it's strange, but I guess it's a justification

...

still the Executive Branch has way too much power

it would be great if that could be curtailed

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2011 10:23:46 PM

Yea, congress cant do anything, might as well make all the branches limp noodles

3/22/2011 10:32:55 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: There is a widespread understanding that treaties are on equal level with constitutional law."

So yes, we should follow "allies" into war blindly, resting solely on the President's judgment.

Quote :

"I think that the most likely reason he didn't ask congress is because that took time that wasn't available after the UN decree, and nothing in the constitution leads me to believe that its spirit opposes executive action when time is of the essence (as evidenced by the exclusions for an attack on us)."

Yeah, right. They were talking about a no-fly zone (and of course, we knew this meant bombing - how else do you keep planes from flying) at least two weeks ago. There was plenty of time to consult with Congress, Obama just didn't feel like going through the trouble.

It seems like some of you think war, in general, is good. It's awful. I mean, someone clear up the confusion: what "side" are we supporting? Do you have any idea at all? The Libyan population has not "risen up" like was the case in Egypt. Many tribes still support Gaddafi. Other tribes oppose Gaddafi but are hostile to each other. This was an extremely reckless move by Europe and the United States; China and Russia have already said as much.


[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 10:44:03 PM

Obama was probably worried that a Republican congress would grandstand against him and not agree to the invasion, even though we should have killed this fucktard about 30 years ago.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 11:47 PM. Reason : at least we get to remind the world about our military capabilities once again.]

3/22/2011 11:46:23 PM

The United States has successfully invaded and occupied two countries in the past decade. We spend more than anyone else on military, except maybe China, who doesn't try to police the world. I don't think anyone's forgotten how good we are destroying shit and telling people how to live.

In any case, let's just keep stirring the hornet's nest in the Muslim world. All they end up seeing on TV is U.S. and European planes dropping bombs on Muslim countries. I'm sure there never will be, or ever has been, any blow back from these allegedly good intentioned interventions. We need a serious reversal in foreign policy.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ]

3/23/2011 12:31:20 AM

"successfully"

3/23/2011 1:18:44 AM

Quote :

"So yes, we should follow "allies" into war blindly, resting solely on the President's judgment."

Strictly speaking...well, yeah. My original long answer that got deleted had a reference to NATO. If the Russkis had started bombing Paris and London, would you want the President to go to congress and say, "Hey guys, sorry to get you together on such short notice, but would you please authorize me to do this thing that you already authorized me to do a while ago?"

The UN agreement -- which the Senate approved as per the constitutions requirements on treaties -- is in effect. It has at least the same weight as a legislative decision, no matter your interpretation of the "law of the land" argument. As such, military action is constitutionally approved when required by our treaty obligations.

Quote :

"Yeah, right. They were talking about a no-fly zone (and of course, we knew this meant bombing - how else do you keep planes from flying) at least two weeks ago."

They were talking a while back. There wasn't a resolution until a few days ago. Would it have been smart for Obama to get congressional approval earlier? Maybe. It would have legitimized the action in the eyes of some (though certainly not you, who takes everything the government does as a crime), but it would have demonstrated a certain degree of "malice aforethought" to the rest of the world, including Libya; that is to say, it would have indicated that our action was imminent (which it wasn't, until shortly after the resolution) and therefore may have precipitated even more terrible actions on behalf of Khadaffi (or suicidal actions on behalf of the resistance, if they thought our action imminent when it wasn't).

Quote :

"It seems like some of you think war, in general, is good. It's awful."

I agree that it is awful. I do not believe it is the most awful of all things. Wanton slaughter of noncombatants springs to mind as more awful.

Quote :

"Many tribes still support Gaddafi. Other tribes oppose Gaddafi but are hostile to each other."

This is viable -- to a point. So far we're not on any faction's side so much as we're preventing the massacre of people who can't defend themselves. Possibly Libya will end up more fucked than it already is. Possibly it will end up semi-stable and pseudo-democratic. I don't know. But again, this line of reasoning boils down to "Is the action smart or dumb?" and not "Is the action legal?"

Quote :

"This was an extremely reckless move by Europe and the United States; China and Russia have already said as much."

For a second I thought you had to be a troll, but if you are, you're quite convincing. China and Russia aren't going to sway anybody. Russia thought it was a good idea to invade Georgia. China's oppressive as hell and about as far from your big-L libertarian point of view as it comes. At least you could have gone with Germany here.

Quote :

"We spend more than anyone else on military, except maybe China"

We spend vastly more on the military than China overall, both in absolute terms and relative to GDP. It took me fifteen seconds to verify that, and my internet connection is fucking up.

3/23/2011 2:20:01 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure there never will be, or ever has been, any blow back from these allegedly good intentioned interventions. We need a serious reversal in foreign policy."

Muslims get stirred up when a single hack in Florida burns the Koran...caring about whether they get pissed off at any action we take is falling down on my list of concerns. I'm beginning to be of the opinion that we could get out of all foreign wars and they'd still find reasons to control their people and have them suicide bomb shit.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 7:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2011 7:11:21 AM

Quote :

"We spend more than anyone else on military, except maybe China, who doesn't try to police the world."

You act like that is some honorable thing they do. The reason they don't so much as criticize even the most blatantly corrupt and violent regimes is because they've decided that doing business in those countries is a higher priority. This does not put them on some kind of moral high ground.

3/23/2011 8:57:14 AM

open and continued trade is the most practical and sustainable path to peace.

3/23/2011 9:45:26 AM

Continued trade between authoritarian governments is the surest path to peace... for authoritarian governments.

3/23/2011 9:47:53 AM

Restricted trade has worked wonders keeping Cuba authoritarian.

3/23/2011 9:51:15 AM

see also: iran and north korea

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 9:59 AM. Reason : a]

3/23/2011 9:59:02 AM

The Castro regime's historical ability to do business with fellow communist regimes is, in fact, one of the main reasons it has been able to hang around.

^

see also: oil deposits and China.

You guys are making a totally fatuous argument. The Chinese government doesn't even pretend to conduct its foreign policy with an eye toward "peace;" that is, if peace is understood to entail freedom, democracy, and human rights. Its stated policy is that the internal affairs of other countries are of no concern to them, so long as the country is stable enough to make a buck off of. To the extend that a few countries are able to take advantage of this and use the income to build more civilized societies, great. But that's hardly to be credited to Chinese morality, given that the balance of their foreign policy has been to enable despots the world round.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 10:11 AM. Reason : ]

3/23/2011 10:02:08 AM

trade leads to communitcation and the spread of ideas. if people get ideas from us about democracy and do care for it then why is that our problem? Choose not to do business with them if you dont like.

The worst thing you can do is put someone in the dark and then bomb them because you dont like the way they live.

China is slowly moving to democracy. They may never be a real republic or anything, but their people will certainly demand more and more freedoms. Why? Because trade with the US has made them so much better off.

meanwhile north koreans dont know what the hell goes on outside their country because no one will talk to them. that makes them way easy to brain wash.

I mean all these countries in the middle east getting all uppity are all ones we do trade with. they've seen whats possible in other countries and they want some of that shit. The only reasons any of them are mad at us is because we're the ones that have been propping up their leaders, not through trade, but through direct monetary and military support.

They would be more than happy to trade with us. What they dont want is us interfering in their politics.

3/23/2011 10:10:38 AM

Quote :

"meanwhile north koreans dont know what the hell goes on outside their country because no one will talk to them."

How ignorant are you? The subjects of the North Korean regime don't know what's going on because their government won't allow them to have things like radios.

Trade can in many cases be used to promote democracy and human rights when used as an incentive for reform (as has been the case, to some degree, in China). But unrestricted trade with despots only enables them. It is not the inability to trade with the US that allows corrupt and authoritarian regimes to persist. It is the willingness of less scrupulous (and often equally despotic) regimes to do business with them that keeps them in power.

If the US traded with Cuba, the Castro regime would still exist. It would just be stronger. Like Saudi Arabia. Especially if we took the no-strings-attached stance the Chinese take. On the other hand, had the Castro regime not had the Soviet Union and other like-minded countries to prop it up for so long, it probably would have collapsed a long time ago. In fact, now that the Soviets are gone, and their replacement, Venezuela, faces similar trade restrictions, the grumblings of both economic and political liberalization in Cuba are finally starting to sound genuine.

As for the Middle East and North Africa, I agree. We should not be propping up dictators with financial and military assistance. But that is exactly what trade is when you're dealing with corrupt governments that have their hands in virtually every financial transaction of significance.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 10:43 AM. Reason : ]

3/23/2011 10:32:13 AM

set up page two for discussion...

3/23/2011 11:40:14 AM