U.S. Action in Libya - Presidential Authority

[Vanquish]

Presidents take us into armed conflicts using the War Powers Act...then Congress falls in line...every time. It's a total giveaway that the Founding Fathers never would have wanted. They didn't want the President to have the power he has now.

Barry Oblammy is doing all the same old crap the Republicans did. Was he a plant?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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'.

Hey, tell that to the people in the direct line of fire of Cruise Missles... you can call it a cantaloupe if you want... it's still an attack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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'.

We fired over a hundred cruise missiles into Libya, how is that not an attack?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Could it be because tanks, trucks, and buildings rarely present a threat to aircraft?

BTW, under international law if you fly an armed aircraft, or even an unarmed one, into the sovereign airspace of a foreign country without permission, it is an act of war.

 

[BrianH]

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?

Why do you assume this is one sided? Is it any different than all of the Democrats voting FOR the war in Iraq and then spending the next 6 years crying about Bush and how we shouldn't be there? Each side tries to trip up the other side, simple as that.

 

[Charles_Main]

Presidents take us into armed conflicts using the War Powers Act...then Congress falls in line...every time. It's a total giveaway that the Founding Fathers never would have wanted. They didn't want the President to have the power he has now.

To be fair, the founders lived in a different time. A time when you usually had months of warning leading up to a war.

In todays world as part of his job Defending this nation and it's interests. the President is often presented with Time Sensitive Issues. It is not practical to expect him to get approval from the Full Congress before acting all the time. Sometimes if you do not act now, you might as well not act at all.

Now that said, Obama had 3 weeks leading up to this attack on Libya in which it was becoming more and more clear we might have to act. Why he did not go to congress until Friday night is beyond me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Presidents take us into armed conflicts using the War Powers Act...then Congress falls in line...every time. It's a total giveaway that the Founding Fathers never would have wanted. They didn't want the President to have the power he has now.

To be fair, the founders lived in a different time. A time when you usually had months of warning leading up to a war.

In todays world as part of his job Defending this nation and it's interests. the President is often presented with Time Sensitive Issues. It is not practical to expect him to get approval from the Full Congress before acting all the time. Sometimes if you do not act now, you might as well not act at all.

Now that said, Obama had 3 weeks leading up to this attack on Libya in which it was becoming more and more clear we might have to act. Why he did not go to congress until Friday night is beyond me.

I am more than willing to be fair, but there is no way Obama can say he did not see this coming. Even if the vote on the resolution had been a total surprise to him, which is very hard to believe since I knew about it before it happened, he did not need to jump right into a war without notifying Congress.

 

[Toome]

We exercised our God-given rights to launch these Tomahawks into the air over international airspace. The Libyan Government interfered with the freedom of flight by placing buildings, air defense radar systems, communications nodes and intelligence collection platforms into the direct path of these innocent little rockets.

How long are we going to tolerate Gadhafi's despicable contempt for freedom of flight?

Get a rope!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is a great example of how people start with a conclusion and try to fit an argument around it.

Dropping bombs and lobbing missiles at civilian an/dor military targets inside a soverign state are acts of war.

Enforcing a 'no fly zone' inside the airspace of a soverign state is a blockade; a blockade is an act of war.

There's no way to soundly argue that Libya has not been attacked - it's embarassing that you would even try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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!

Except that He did it after stating, openly, willingly and plainly, that the Constitution does not give Him the power to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I don't understand is that BO is doing nothing much different than what other president did over the last 40....

Except that He did it after stating, openly, willingly and plainly, that the Constitution does not give Him the power to do it.

 

[del]

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.

you should work for DoD-you even seem to really believe this horseshit.

 

[Trajan]

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.

they are strafing and launching missiles at troop columns CG.

 

[Trajan]

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:

read the entire original article GC, he also has contradicted himself ala Rendition too.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

So basically we are puppets of the U.N. I think that is worse than obamaturd doing it on his own.

 

[Trajan]

Presidents take us into armed conflicts using the War Powers Act...then Congress falls in line...every time. It's a total giveaway that the Founding Fathers never would have wanted. They didn't want the President to have the power he has now.

To be fair, the founders lived in a different time. A time when you usually had months of warning leading up to a war.

In todays world as part of his job Defending this nation and it's interests. the President is often presented with Time Sensitive Issues. It is not practical to expect him to get approval from the Full Congress before acting all the time. Sometimes if you do not act now, you might as well not act at all.

Now that said, Obama had 3 weeks leading up to this attack on Libya in which it was becoming more and more clear we might have to act. Why he did not go to congress until Friday night is beyond me.

I am more than willing to be fair, but there is no way Obama can say he did not see this coming. Even if the vote on the resolution had been a total surprise to him, which is very hard to believe since I knew about it before it happened, he did not need to jump right into a war without notifying Congress.

he knew Feb 25th when he issued the exec. order ( see below) and he had plenty of time to consult with congress and provide a starting date based on a coalition agreement etc...but thats if he was organized, which it appears they aren't.


get a load of this;

snip-

The foregoing circumstances, the prolonged attacks, and the increased numbers of Libyans seeking refuge in other countries from the attacks, have caused a deterioration in the security of Libya and pose a serious risk to its stability, thereby constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Executive Order--Libya | The White House

 

[Avorysuds]

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'.

lolz!

 

[Zander]

This is how Obambi rolls. He's cool and detached and clueless.

 

[jgarden]

If there was a Republican president in the White House, is there any doubt that our conservative friends would be placing an entirely different "spin" on how the US should be dealing with Gaddafi?

 

[Zander]

If there was a Republican president in the White House, is there any doubt that our conservative friends would be placing an entirely different "spin" on how the US should be dealing with Gaddafi?

Do tell....