Obama: "The President does not have the power

[Zebedeo]

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."

This is an exact quote from candidate Obama in December 2007

Hillary Clinton said, in http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQA/">response to this same question: "If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so . . . "

In light of these principles, so clearly stated by both Obama and Clinton, how can the administration keep a straight face when going forward with military strikes against Libya, which no one argues is an actual or imminent threat to the United States?

[ReggieVeggie]

1. the "reasoning" is that it's a coalition effort

and, because of that, all warmongering is justified

[Zebedeo]

12. That is absurd "reasoning"

So the President can order military attacks without regard to congressional approval as long as the President can get at least one other nation to go along with the plan? So if Israel was on board, Bush could have bombed Iran without bothering to ask Congress? That dog won't hunt.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. then find a better quote, and stop comparing one country getting on board

with a vote from the UN Security Council

This was not a unilateral action and under the War Powers Act the President does not need congressional approval for 60 days.

[Better Believe It]

48. But under the Constitution the President can't go to war without a declaration by Congress.

There is nothing in the Consitution indicating the President does not need congressional approval for 60 days.

[DURHAM D]

2. Why don't you go check out posts from yesterday?

This has been done already.

i need a drink...

[virgogal]

34. I'm with you. It has been explained,and explained,and explained.

A little nightcap for me sounds good too.

[TheEuclideanOne]

43. The only thing that I can gather from this thread

is that too much DU can drive you to drink. :)

[DURHAM D]

50. I just pulled out an old bottle of Pimm's Cup No. 3.

I have a cucumber and ginger ale so I am good to go. They have not made anything other than No. l for a couple of decades but what the heck I need a beverage.

I am actually celebrating the fact that Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas are all into the next round. I have ties to all three schools. If I really need to make a choice I would pick Kansas.

Go Jayhawks.

Go Obama. Beat Gaddafi.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. this was a post from yesterday

at least it appears to be a cut an paste from something that was posted yesterday


I expect to see it again tomorrow too.

[rhett o rick]

93. Pres Obama violated the US Constitution. Bush asked Congress to go to war with Iraq. nm

[NightWatcher]

3. Rec. but the UN said so, so we MUST do it

:sarcasm:

[jpgray]

4. Yeah, they lied or never meant what they said

Support or oppose what we're doing in Libya, that's clear.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Perhaps Brazil was in imminent threat, we just don't know....

[shraby]

6. The president has 60 days to ask Congress.

Read the damn war powers act.

[Zebedeo]

16. I'm not asking how the action can be justified under the

War Powers Act. I'm asking how it can be justified in light of these quoted statements of principle by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Their statements made no qualification concerning 60 days.

[slipslidingaway]

See my earlier post to you on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=701855&mesg_id=703076

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

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat..."

Where is the attack or threat from Libya to the US?


Obama on presidential war-making powers
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/03/18/libya

"The U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing military force in Libya does not, on its face, compel U.S. involvement, but news reports (and common sense) suggest that American participation is likely. That has led to debates over whether the President is constitutionally empowered to order military action in Libya without Congressional approval, whether it be in the form of a declaration of war or at least some statutory authorization to use military force..."

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

"SEC. 2. (c)

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."

[Sonicwall]

37. * failed to invoke the War Powers Act

for the two stupid wars that should have been ended and total troop recall back to the U.S. within 60 days. Now it's been over 10 years, and we're not close to a full recall.

That is an impeachable offense. He STILL could get impeached but won't because of the Repuke House. All it needs is an introduction, it'll pass, and then will begin full trial on the Senate end; then if he's impeached, then he'll lose all post-presidential rights, which includes release of all archives that he's trying to hide, no SS protection, immediate arrest and explusion to the Hague for full war tribunal which he will be found guilty and sentenced to life in prison along with the rest of the maladministration as soon as they step out of the states.

[slipslidingaway]

54. Dems took impeachment off the table and now we need to look forward :( n/t

[global1]

70. But Watch The Repug House Move To Impeach Obama For This......

Libya thing. They won't take it off the table and focus on the future. They're looking for any excuse to remove Obama. It will be interesting to see what transpires when they get back to D.C.

[Taitertots]

36. Read it yourself, it specifically states that an attack or threat of attack against the US....

Is required for the President to send armed forced into action without congressional authorization.

[Luminous Animal]

58. The President has 60 days IF and only IF he orders military operations IF the U.S. is under attack

or serious threat.

IF the U.S. is not under attack or serious threat, the War Powers Resolution compels the President to get authorization from Congress.

The War Powers Resolution restricted a President's ability to unilaterally decide military operations. It reasserted Congressional authority to declare war but allowed some flexibility in a defensive emergency. It DID NOT grant the President the right to bypass congress and instigate offensive military operations under any circumstance.

[global1]

72. Maybe Obama Thinks This Libya Thing Will Be Over In Less Than 60 Days.......nt

[msongs]

7. when bush did it DU was aflame lol nt

[Fearless]

8. The threat is a lack of oil.

[gateley]

9. Non-flame-bait question: Does this participation constitute an act of war? Thanks. nt

[jpgray]

13. Say 126 missiles, etc., hit the US, launched by a sovereign nation

Act of war? I would guess so.

[gateley]

28. That's not what I meant - I mean technically, legally, constitutionally, does this

constitute an act of war? That's what I don't know.

[Zebedeo]

18. Yes, absolutely it is

an act of war.

[gateley]

31. I should have explained my question better -- according to the Constitution,

the Law, whatever determines these things, is it considered an Act of War? Or is it just a general "Act of War" with the interpretation left up to the powers that be? You may be telling me that, but I just want to clarify, because I'm not sure if this is a valid argument or not (legally, etc.).

[Hosnon]

110. It's up to the political branches, and by extension us, to determine that.

SCOTUS won't be defining that term any time soon.

[still_one]

10. Since congress passed the Iraq War Resolutions things are much more vague. /nt

[Teaser]

11. OH NOES, a politician told me what I want to hear...

I never expected this betrayal!!!!111!!!

[Bluebear]

115. !

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Oh, OUCH! Man...words on video....always have a way of coming back

and biting you in the ass. Damn.

Okay...spin away!

[The Magistrate]

15. This, Sir, is Enforcement Of A United Nations Security Council Resolution

That is binding international law, and as far from 'unilateral' as is possible.

[jpgray]

17. Since all UN resolutions are binding, and automatically compel our actions, no?

I seem to recall more than a few that have not done so. :)

[The Magistrate]

22. Security Council Resolutions, Sir, If Passed, Are The Dictate Of International Law

General assembly resolutions are mere air.

The usage of 'unilateral' in the excerpt referenced was to an act by a President solely on his own authority, without reference to the Congress or the United Nations.

[Zebedeo]

25. No

the term "unilaterally" meant without the consent of Congress. The United Nations had nothing to do with the question or the response.

[The Magistrate]

29. No Way In Hell, Sir, Would The U.N. Ever Authorize The U.S. To Bomb Iran On Spec

You are reaching desperately. And, of course, if he felt God had told him to do it, you would have to agree he would have no choice but to kill anyone or any number, Congress be damned....

[jpgray]

30. I refer you to the recent Security Council resolution on Gaza aid

What are our obligations for enforcement there, in your view?

[NoTimeToulouse]

49. With all due respect, Sir, U.N. resolution 242 (November 22, 1967)

states that 'Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.'

If U.N. Resolution 242 is now the dictate of international law then one would expect the international community take action against Israel until they withdraw from the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Is the difference of atrocity by virulent disease any different than one by slow malignancy?

[The Magistrate]

60. That Resolution, Sir

Also commands a comprehensive settlement among all parties, including respect for and recognition of the territorial integrity of, and cessation of violence against, Israel. It has been flouted pretty widely, by all parties concerned. For most of its history, people on either side have demanded the other go first, and have not been willing to act simultaneously.

Still, the fact that one item of law is not complied with or enforced does not render illegitimate the enforcement of some other item of law.

[NoTimeToulouse]

63. But does render such laws as hypocritical by nature.

Law is law. To implement the parts we wish while ignoring the ones we dislike is unlawful: voiding the integrity of the very body that subscribes to issue such mandates.

[The Magistrate]

65. You Have Not, Surely, Sir, Only Just Discovered Enforcement Of Law Is Steeped In Hypocrisy?

That is pretty old news in these parts. But the topic posed above was not whether use of force by the United States was hypocritical, but whether it is legal. It is quite possible for a thing to be both legal, and the height of hypocrisy.

[NoTimeToulouse]

91. An enforcer of one law that ignores another

no longer is entitled to the public trust to lead.

[The Magistrate]

98. But Still Can Make An Arrest Or Press A Prosecution, Sir, Whether You Trust It Or No

[NoTimeToulouse]

101. Which makes it no less corrupted.

[provis99]

51. the dictate of international law?

So if the UN declared war on us, the US air force would have to bomb the U.S.?

The logic is weak with you...

[The Magistrate]

61. The United Nations Does Not Declare War, Sir

The Security Council directs actions, and its directives are international law. The United states holds a veto on the Security Council, and could be relied on to veto any sanctions against itself....

[provis99]

92. you didn't answer my point.

Misdirection is a logical fallacy.

[The Magistrate]

99. You Made No Point, Sir; You Conjured A Preposterous Hypothetical

[rhett o rick]

95. That doesnt trump the US Constitution. nm

[Hosnon]

103. I don't think there's any such distinction between Security Council Resolutions

and General Assembly Resolutions (certainly not one that is so stark).

I'll dust off the old IL book and get back to you.

[Zebedeo]

24. "Unilateral" in Mr. Obama's answer was referring to

the President, without approval of Congress, not, as you suggest, to the United States, without the participation of other nations.

And Ms. Clinton did not use the term "unilateral" at all in her response to the question.

To put the answers in context, here is the question posed to both of them:

"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?)"

Since the question concerns whether the president would have constitutional authority to launch a military strike "without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress," the term "unilaterally" in Mr. Obama's response clearly means the President, without approval of Congress.

[The Magistrate]

27. Again, Sir, This Is Not What The Present Situation Is

This is acting as the enforcement arm of the United Nations, in accord with international humanitarian law.

[Zebedeo]

33. So your position is that

there is some hidden exception to the US Constitution whereby congressional authorization is not needed for acts of war that are taken by the executive branch at the behest the UN Security Council? Where in the Constitution does this exception appear?

[NoTimeToulouse]

53. An excellent point.

Suppose for a moment that a security pact was formed between Britain, France, Germany, America and 28 states. Let's call it something like North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Would such an organization also have unilateral authority to act outside of their National constitutional interests to act unilaterally against another nation?

So this treaty, ratified by...let's say our elected leaders, but not ratified by the states is somehow invalid and unconstitutional?

[Zebedeo]

57. You are all over the map on this one.

I never said that a treaty has to be "ratified by the states" or that a treaty is "somehow invalid and unconstitutional." I criticized the suggestion by another poster that no congressional authorization is needed for the President to commit the nation's forces to a war when the war is undertaken at the behest of the UN. I don't think there is any "UN exception" to the limitation on the powers of the executive. Nor do I think it would be any different if the international entity were NATO rather than the UN.

[NoTimeToulouse]

59. That was my point as well.

[The Magistrate]

62. You Are Invited, Sir, To Examine The History Of Armed Force Employed By the United States

You will find that throughout our history, uses of military force on a minor scale have been engaged in by Executive authority, absent consultation with Congress, on numerous occasions. One fairly recent one was President Wilson's despatch of Navy forces to occupy Vera Cruz, carried out before Congressional sanction was obtained; even more recent was President Johnson's ordering an invasion of the Dominican Republic, without any vote in Congress. Many more could be cited, were it of sufficient interest to me to employ more of my time on the matter.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Thus the enactment War Powers Resolution in an attempt to curb illegal military adventures.

[The Magistrate]

67. Which It Has Not Succeeded In Doing, Ma'am, And Will Not Succeed In Doing

Not all use of a country's military forces constitutes war; the assigning to Congress of the sole power to declare war does not restrict to the Congress the sole power to employ the armed forces of the United States. The tension was present from the start, and probably deliberately so. Certainly employment of U.S. military forces in combat without Congressional action commenced within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, and one must assume the statesmen of that generation knew what they had written and ratified.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

78. A few more examples

Panama twice (Roosevelt, Bush); Lebanon twice (Johnson & Reagan), WW II (Reuben James, etc.), Granada, Mayaguez, Iran hostage rescue, Pancho Villa/1914, Yemen, Somalia, Libya (Jefferson, Reagan), etc.

L-

[rhett o rick]

96. I agree that there are many. BUT THEY ALL ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION.......sir. nm

[The Magistrate]

100. And Have Been Engaged In For Just About As Long As The Constitution Has Existed, Sir

Which rather deprives the claim of any force....

[rhett o rick]

108. That does not make it right. I want the president to ask Congress before military intervention..sir

[ohheckyeah]

74. I'd like an answer to that question

as well.

[PurityOfEssence]

68. Participation is not required, and even if it did, national law takes precedence

Are you serious about this? If the United Nations says it's perfectly fine for you to make religious tests necessary for government employment, that would not allow our politicians to do so in violation of the Constitution.

There is nothing "binding" about this resolution; it ALLOWS nations to voluntarily perform various tasks, that's all, PERIOD.

[The Magistrate]

71. It Is Binding International Law, Sir

It would be impossible, for instance, for Libya to bring complaint it was an object of aggression, and in theory, at any rate, it is illegal for its armed forces to resist the actions taken under U.N. auspices. There can be no question, under international law, that this use of force against Libya is legal.

The United States is not required to put its armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council, though having voted for military action against Libya, and being pretty much the sole possessor of certain military equipments that make such action far more likely of success, it is certainly under some moral obligation.

An employment of military force short of full engagement of war, in co-operation with a Security Council resolution, is not the sort of 'unilateral' Executive action envisioned in the quote cited, and is within Constitutional bounds of Executive authority.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

113. No. The Constitution supersedes Treaties; a Congressional Declaration or Authorization is necessary

This has been reiterated all over the place, but in short:

The War Powers Act requires a Congressional Authorization or Declaration unless we're attacked, which we weren't. The language of what constitutes action in question is clear, and the Supreme Court has consistently determined Treaties to be superseded by the Constitution when in conflict.

[Bluebear]

114. +

[rhett o rick]

94. It still is in violation of the US Constitution. nm

[Tx4obama]

19. It is explained on the DU link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x699861#699906

p.s. And regarding what it said on the link above - I think Obama doesn't even have to do what because the USA has not gone to war... it is a UN mission.

p.s.s. And besides that go back to our founding fathers...
In 1801 Pres Thomas Jefferson sent naval vessels to Libya, starting the First Barbary War. Congress never declared war.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. The First and Second Barbary Wars were BOTH authorized by Congress

There was no declaration of war either time, but both Jefferson and Madison went to Congress and got their authorization for military deployment and action, even though they didn't go all the way and declare war.

So, this is a bit high-handed, to say the least.

[The Magistrate]

73. Not, Sir, Until Well After Naval Forces had Been Dispatched With Orders To Engage

[PurityOfEssence]

80. Yes, but this was after the Pasha of Tripoli declared war

This, viewed through the prism of the 1973 War Powers Act, is akin to being attacked and retaliating, rather than initiating an action of one's own volition.

Jefferson consulted with his cabinet to determine whether he needed to consult Congress, and when Gallatin said he did, he did so and got their approval. Yes, this was after they had sailed, but this was in the early days of the Republic, when things were much less clear in such situations.

Our interests had been attacked, a tribute demanded, and then war was declared upon us. He sent 4 ships to defend our interests, then consulted assessed the need to consult and did so when informed he should.

The instance at hand is much more voluntary and is an act of violating national sovereignty in a situation where we had not been attacked or threatened in any way.

Thanks for the correction on this; I had not been aware of the dynamic, and Jefferson definitely got a bit ahead of things there, but that shouldn't serve as justification for the current bit of adventurism.

It's an ironic bit of numerology that we're discussing Resolution 1973 and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, eh? Still, it's quite clear in the language there that Congress is to be consulted at all times, and this does not seem to have happened. The law is VERY well understood, and he's a constitutional scholar, so this is quite a bit of an overstepping.

More than anything, it's the misrepresentation and the substitution of "armed combatants" for "doe-eyed innocents" that offends and worries me, and being played like this isn't cricket. It's cynical manipulation, selective outrage and flat-out deception to achieve a grander goal that maybe couldn't be gotten with candor. That can help propel us down the scofflaw's pike to ruin and fritter away what's left of any moral authority we may be able to still claim. I don't like that. I don't like out and out deception; it's corrosive to civilization.

[The Magistrate]

81. To Me, Sir, It Seems A Step Forward That The U.N. Accepts Preventing Atrocity As Grounds For Action

This was a hurdle that could not be crossed not so long ago in the late Balkan killings, when President Clinton finally acted without assent from the United Nations at a time when many considered it no matter at all for international law what a sovereign state did to its citizens. That this episode is certainly marked with selective outrage does not alter the value of the precedent: it will not in future be possible for a government to argue its abuse of its citizens is nobody else's business, and something no one has a right to interfere with. It will be valuable in future that this has been established.

[PurityOfEssence]

104. Agreed, but the threshold should be quite, quite high, or it's prone to abuse

It's very easy to say that one is systematically oppressing people and use it to justify armed incursion. I personally think Sharia law, especially as it pertains to women, is atrocious, but I wouldn't want that to be the justification to lay waste to a sovereign country.

This is beside the point of the thread, though, and that's what the the laws of this country are in this situation, and Obama seems fairly clearly in violation. To recap, here's an excerpt from the War Powers Act of 1973 which shows two things: the President MUST CONSULT with Congress, not inform them via a high-handed letter, and the issue at hand needs to be something that literally threatens this country. The latter is not there at all. The former is an insulting bit of imperial arrogance.

He knows better, as shown by the thread starter.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement 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 indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
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.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

[Tx4obama]

75. Here is the full quote from another website

What would Thomas Jefferson do?
What would the founding critters do?

Apparently, conduct war in North Africa without a declaration of war from Congress.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent naval vessels to Libya, starting the First Barbary War. Congress never declared war, although they did eventually pass an Iraq-style resolution.

The conflict escalated, finally leading to boots on the ground, and the battle commemorated in the Marines' Hymn..."to the shores of Tripoli."

-----------
Goodnight :)

[Tx4obama]

76. And another interesting comment quote ...

From tmess2 at DCW

There was no declaration of war in Korea, Vietnam, either Gulf War, Somalia, Afghanistan, or any of the smaller actions.

The last time that the US declared war was against Italy and Germany in World War II.

A "declaration of war" has always been a legal term of art for a specific diplomatic communication. In the 1800s, it was accepted diplomatic nicety that you did not begin a military campaign against another country without a formal declaration of war. Today, a declaration of war is considered to be bad form. Which is why Congress adopted the War Powers Act realizing that, since the US would never again declare war, the provision in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war was no longer a check on executive power.

[yourout]

20. Obama the "Candidate" was replaced with a pod version to be Obama the "President"

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. LOL!

Pod version....:rofl: That's funnnnny! :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

21. He's right

The Libya no-fly zone is a U.N. action so the President did not "unilaterally authorize a military attack."

Bush got Congressional approval and still managed to defy Congress by lying in his report to Congress.

Does anyone believe that the Iraq war was legal simply because an AUMF was approved?

The President still has to abide by the terms of the authorization.

[WatsonT]

26. He has to earn the Nobel somehow

[Sonicwall]

32. So what?

* ignored that rule, and declared himself above the law. That is why he's still unable to travel outside of US in fear of being arrested and sent to the Hague for war crimes which he *WILL* be convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

[Zebedeo]

35. Bush asked for and received the Iraq War Resolution from

Congress. IIRC, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton voted in favor of the same.

In any event, "bushdidit" is not a satisfactory justification for constitutional violations, in my book.

On edit - Mr. Obama was not a Senator at the time of the IWR, but he voted for continued funding of the war.

[Sonicwall]

38. But he did not ask for the invocation of the war powers act

which is an impeachable offense because he failed to do it within 60 days.

I would personally sue the BFEE for the entire amount that was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan to date and request that the monies are returned to the U.S. Treasury - that means freezing all known associates and accounts of the entire Bush Family Evil Empire, and they are worth trillions of stolen dollars.

[Zebedeo]

46. Uh, I think your history and math are not right

IIRC, the IWR occurred before the invasion of Iraq. And the BFEE couldn't possibly have "trillions" of stolen dollars. Do you know what a trillion is?

[Sonicwall]

52. Yes, I know what a trillion is

You have to look at the theft of Iraq, Afghanistan material wealth. That includes the new found trillion dollar mine in Afghanistan. Guess who owns it? One of the BFEE cronies.

[Sonicwall]

41. Are you a Chimp guy?

Seriously?

Re-read the Iraq War resolution - it did not specifically invoke the WPA.

It only proclaims that if Hussein wouldn't let the WMD inspectors in to finish the job, then action will be taken.

Action != war.

War is war.

It is past time to end it, and indict * for high treason and have him EXECUTED. He loves EXECUTION and should love getting the lethal injection.

Karma's a bitch.

[Zebedeo]

56. You sound a bit bloodthirsty

wanting your political opponents to be executed. That is not the kind of country we live in. There are many countries like that in the world, where when one party comes into power, members of the other party have to flee the country or be killed. I prefer our system.

In any event, if you are in favor of Bush being executed for treason for going to war in Iraq without congressional authorization, are you in favor of Obama being executed for going to war against the sovereign nation of Libya without congressional authorization? Seems a bit extreme to me.

[Sonicwall]

107. I want a purge of corporatists. And I don't care how it's done

They need to remove Republican-lites OUT of the Democratic Party and go hard left. Big time. I'm about ready to reregister as an independent and ally myself with the Democratic Socialist of America.

That's how bad it is right now.

[Taverner]

39. Yay! Three wars going on at once!!

Think we'll add a fourth? And a fifth?

What's the fucking point anymore anyway????

[Amonester]

79. In reality, it's just ONE big war for one thing.

OIL

Because OIL is a depleting resource. It's so OBVIOUS.

And pretty soon, a second big war will follow and it will be for one thing: CLEAN WATER

Believe me, we ain't seen nothing yet.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

[tcaudilllg]

87. This isn't about oil. It really is about freedom.

But it doesn't seem that nations like these can make good use of it, so why should they have it?

[Taverner]

90. That's what has been predicted

Good chance of happening too - although we are running out of oil and we'll be headed for one hell of a wake up call

[Motown_Johnny]

40. "unilaterally"

"unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally""unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally" "unilaterally"




This action was not unilateral

[Zebedeo]

47. "unilaterally"

referred to the President acting without congressional authorization, not the US acting without UN involvement.

And Clinton's position statement did not have the term "unilaterally" in it.

[RickFromMN]

42. Yes...oil. We fight wars because of oil.

What would happen if we didn't send our troops to fight wars because of oil?

Should the oil companies have their own troops, their own armies?

Before pooh-poohing this idea completely, consider history....

Google search: Dutch East India Company army

Google search: Dutch West India Company army

Google search: British East India Company army

Companies had private armies, in the past. Why not in the future?

May I support this idea, tongue-in-cheek,
by suggesting the cost of an oil company army would be paid from the sale of oil,
and would be reflected in the price of oil,
rather than paid by taxpayers and the blood of our young men and women.

I know this idea is silly.

Our government fighting a war because of oil is also short-sighted, dare I say silly.
It provides a temporary breathing space, at best, and our dependence on oil only grows.

[Blue-Jay]

55. "unilateral"

[Toucano]

66. That was SENATOR Barack Obama...This is PRESIDENT Barack Obama

They're two totally different people, apparently.

Or maybe success really does spoil people.

[Hosnon]

77. He's probably not right. The minutes of the Constitutional Convention

make it clear that there is a difference between "making" war and "declaring" war. The President has the authority to make war, to the extent that it does not include declaring war.

At the time of the founding, there was a clear distinction between war and non-war action. If this is not war, the President is authorized to take action.

[tcaudilllg]

86. You don't seem to understand the concept of war.

Here's a definition for you: a conflict between states.

[jefferson_dem]

88. Bollocks. Not every "conflict between states" is war.

Not even close.

[Hosnon]

102. +1. Very well put. nt.

[McCamy Taylor]

82. "Do as I say not as I do" seems to be the motto of this administration.

[tcaudilllg]

83. Impeach him by his own words?

[jefferson_dem]

89. Nonsense. Two points:

1. This is not a unilateral operation.
2. All presidents have the authority, as commander-in-chief (see Article II), to initiate military operations such as these without initial consultation of Congress. Google "War Powers Resolution" and highlight this qualifiers: "in every possible instance".

[rhett o rick]

97. Has this been tested against the US Constitution? nm

[Abq_Sarah]

105. From the text:

(c) 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.

I'm not seeing where those conditions are met.

[JuniperLea]

106. Why does everyone forget that this isn't against Libya...

It's against a tyranical leader who is causing death and destruction to the people of Libya... I hate war, but I hate killing thousands of innocent people a lot more.

[treestar]

109. Nothing inconsistent here

this is not a unilateral act.

[Liquorice]

111. He must have forgotten Poland. nt

[Bluebear]

112. !