U.S. Action in Libya - Presidential Authority

[George Costanza]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

 

[California Girl]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

It's not an 'attack'.

 

[ekrem]

It's not an 'attack'.

The B-2 Bombers and F-15 drop flowers and food.

 

[WillowTree]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

It's not an 'attack'.

Crazy Talk.

 

[WillowTree]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

How many times must you be told "when his lips move, he's lying"?

 

[GHook93]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya, who are no doubt going to be terrorist supporting, antiAmericans like the Kuwaitis and the Fictious people of Kosovo!

Obama:

Very true, but the precedence has been set back with Ike in Korea and every President since then has used it in one capacity or another.

I am not on the boat that he is doing anything illegally. Rather I think this is a poor decision to help the Libyan people!

 

[del]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya, who are no doubt going to be terrorist supporting, antiAmericans like the Kuwaitis and the Fictious people of Kosovo!

Obama:

Very true, but the precedence has been set back with Ike in Korea and every President since then has used it in one capacity or another.

I am not on the boat that he is doing anything illegally. Rather I think this is a poor decision to help the Libyan people!

truman was president when u.s. advisers in korea were attacked.

 

[del]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

It's not an 'attack'.

please

 

[California Girl]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:



An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

It's not an 'attack'.

please

We aren't 'attacking' them. We're implementing a 'no fly zone' as requested by the UN. Can't implement a 'no fly zone' without removing the threats to the 'no fly zone'. I don't know why that's hard to understand.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

It's not an 'attack'.

A rose by any other name.

We are killing people in a foreign country that has done nothing to us since Reagan and the "Line of Death".

If we were going in specifically to bring gadaffi to justice? I'd be all in on getting some of that.
But we, the US, have orders not to taget him.

So we are killing people in tanks and trucks cuz they joined their military hoping for a better life and are following orders.

 

[yota5]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

It's not an 'attack'.

Really? Let me see if I understand you. US Cruise missiles, and war planes are pounding Libyan military assets. Things are blowing up, and people are dying. What pray tell is this if not an attack?

Maybe this will help. Attack - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATTACK
transitive verb
1
: to set upon or work against forcefully
2
: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3
: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously <plants attacked by aphids>
4
: to set to work on <attack a problem>
5
: to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
intransitive verb
: to make an attack
— at·tack·er noun
See attack defined for English-language learners »
Examples of ATTACK

1. He attacked the guard with a knife.
2. Troops attacked the fortress at dawn.
3. The troops attacked at dawn.
4. People are attacking the mayor for breaking campaign promises.
5. The professor has been widely attacked for her position on the issue.
6. Did you see the way the kids attacked that pizza?

Origin of ATTACK
Middle French attaquer, from Old Italian *estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
First Known Use: 1562
Related to ATTACK
Synonyms: assail, assault, beset, bushwhack, charge, descend (on or upon), go in (on), jump (on), pounce (on or upon), raid, rush, set on, sic (also sick), storm, strike, trash, turn (on), beat up on, fly at, go at, light into, pitch into, round on, set at, set upon, tear into, beat up on, light into, sail into, tie into, go at, have at, light into, pitch into, sail into, tear into
Related Words: bum-rush, gang up (on), mob, swarm; mug, rob; ambuscade, ambush, surprise (also surprize), waylay; blitz, bomb, bombard, nuke; barrage, cannon, cannonade; bang away (at), batter, buffet, plaster; beleaguer, besiege, press; harry, loot, pillage, plunder, ravage, sack; foray, invade, overrun; envelop, flank
Near Antonyms: cover, defend, guard, protect, secure, shield
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
Synonym Discussion of ATTACK
attack, assail, assault, bombard, storm mean to make an onslaught upon. attack implies taking the initiative in a struggle <plan to attack the town at dawn>. assail implies attempting to break down resistance by repeated blows or shots <assailed the enemy with artillery fire>. assault suggests a direct attempt to overpower by suddenness and violence of onslaught <commandos assaulted the building from all sides>. bombard applies to attacking with bombs or shells <bombarded the city nightly>. storm implies attempting to break into a defended position <preparing to storm the fortress>.

 

[Robert]

Come to Find out the UN has no idea who's actually in charge of not attacking a sovereign Nation seeing as how Obama is on Vacation and is only somewhat aware of what's going on. I wonder if those ground targets that were decimated were aware there weren't attacked.

 

[yota5]

Come to Find out the UN has no idea who's actually in charge of not attacking a sovereign Nation seeing as how Obama is on Vacation and is only somewhat aware of what's going on. I wonder if those ground targets that were decimated were aware there weren't attacked.

Right on Robert. Obama, is staying consistent. He will stay out of town until he perceives that the heat is off. Once again he is demonstrating just what a poor leader he is. Do you feel safe yet?

 

[Vanquish]

As usual, Cali Girl has no clue what she's talking about...as evidenced by the attempt to make what we're doing sound innocuous. Yes, it's instituting a no-fly zone...even one that's had broad international agreement as necessary.

It's still a military action, adverse to the state

I happened to have written a law review article regarding War Powers & The Executive Branch, comparing the U.S. executive branch to the Russian executive branch via a constitutional lens. ("Inter Arma Silent Leges: A Comparison of U.S. and Russian Executive War Powers)

Instituting a no-fly zone isn't done with words - it's done with bombs. You have to make it safe for U.S. and other Allied Forces planes to fly over...which requires taking out surface to air missiles, for one thing. Congress heard from the top names in the U.S. Military who told them unequivocally that this would be a war.

I voted for BO, in part, because he said he'd get us out of wars like these. He has certainly tried so hard to make conservatives like him that he's failed to live up to the promises he made.

 

[GHook93]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:



An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya, who are no doubt going to be terrorist supporting, antiAmericans like the Kuwaitis and the Fictious people of Kosovo!

Obama:

Very true, but the precedence has been set back with Ike in Korea and every President since then has used it in one capacity or another.

I am not on the boat that he is doing anything illegally. Rather I think this is a poor decision to help the Libyan people!

truman was president when u.s. advisers in korea were attacked.

Thanks for the correction, but the point stands. Obama isn't doing anything that other President over the last 60-70 years haven't done!

 

[George Costanza]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“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,”

An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

How many times must you be told "when his lips move, he's lying"?

I don't agree with that. I do, however, hate double standards and hypocrisy, regardless of the source.

 

[mnbasketball]

What I don't understand is that BO is doing nothing much different than what other president did over the last 40 years which seem to be overwhelmingly approved of by Republicans if under the thumb of a republican president, yet when under a Democratic president they seem to change their minds as to if its a good thing.

Is there a reason for this?

 

[KissMy]

It has recently come to my attention (thanks to The Daily Show) that, in December of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:



An interesting statement, in light of recent events in Libya.

Obama:

How many times must you be told "when his lips move, he's lying"?

I don't agree with that. I do, however, hate double standards and hypocrisy, regardless of the source.

Yeah right. You know you just can't wait to vote for Obama in 2012. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What I don't understand is that BO is doing nothing much different than what other president did over the last 40 years which seem to be overwhelmingly approved of by Republicans if under the thumb of a republican president, yet when under a Democratic president they seem to change their minds as to if its a good thing.

Is there a reason for this?

Every pol wants to get re-elected.

Please list the wars Reps got us into w/o a declaration of war by Congress.

 

[OneOfMany]

The events occurring in the world have moved me to share a truth. Gadaffi is not an enemy, and we're handling him all wrong. He is our brother. I have seen such an innocent face as Gadaffi; he is only a child. ("Age" has no influence on that.) Gadaffi is not evil, or stupid, and surely not uneducated. You see, us humans are born of two principles. Of innocence and confusion. The innocence is who you are and the confusion is who you become. I believe Gadaffi is only innocent and confused. At the same time you might be thinking, "But he's done such evil things", I look not at that, but ask why. There's a reason for it all. And I do not label Gadaffi's actions as evil, or malice. His life was influenced greatly. His experiences made him who he is. He must have experienced so much hate, and for that i sympathize with him. He grew more and more confused as he experienced more and more hate. Everyone on this planet can relate. We are all just like him. And do not take that statement out of context. "We are all just like him." We all have endured emotions along with the experiences we dealt with. We all have an reaction to an action. And a cause for every effect we make. He is only doing what in his mind is right. So we cannot preach any more hate for this pour soul. Hate breeds more hate. We cannot destroy anything he has. We must preach him good, wise actions. We must set a wise example for him because he surely hasn't experienced one. We must love this man; show this man we are not afraid of him, and that we accept who he is. Accept he is only human. We need to let him know he must learn from his actions. If you stop him by force of destruction, that will be all he sees. And he will learn from it, destruction. These thoughts have led me to develop a theory.


People are programmed in various way, there is physics behind our behavior. Physics is the science of matter and it's motion. And our brains are always in motion --physically, no -- but through our thoughts. Thoughts are very much in this world, matter. Though matter pertains to physical objects which contain atoms, thoughts are matter. Because soon those thoughts become matter. It's all around us, every invention we made, every house we've built, all people, were created by thought.
Matter exists, and all matter has a force. The world contains our forces and the forces act upon their purpose; their influence. Different influences collide and breed an effect, similar as that of the forces influence, but now with a reaction. The reaction however is dependent on the second force I'm certain all of the world's mysteries can be answered by this theory; That all matter has a force and all forces have an influence, which breeds an effect and a reaction. Or simply, when there is a force, it has an action; the action has an effect which sparks a reaction. Every reaction of the world was, is, and always will be dependent of a forces' will. And this innocent world is filled with many different kinds of forces. And that is why everything is what it is now.
We humans are an exception to laws of physics. The mystery remains of why we can have such incredible force. We have both physical and mental force in this world and we should put it to good use. Each of us are an all powerful being, are forces are great, but everyday there are restrictions to our mental force which can thus alter our physical force, and vice versa. People we need to know this. We have the ability to create a pefect society. We are all better than this. We allow so much destrution. So much sadness. And so much inprisonment of the potential of mankind. We are gods in a sense, descendants of great beings. And the future depends on how you use your force: for the extinction, or for the creation. We must trust, respect, appreciate, help, and love the fact that each of us are the same, no matter the race, gender, or any variation of the human imprisonment. We are all brothers and sisters here, in the least corniest way possible. It is true; we bleed through similar veins. We all think with similar brains. And everyone must simply accept we are superior beings, with none being more superior than the other.