U.S. Action in Libya - Presidential Authority

[KissMy]

According to polls & Ed Schultz of MSNBC

73% of Democrats approve of Obama's handling of Libya.

68% of Democrats approve of Obama's No-Fly Zone in Libya.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I thought the insistence that we were not at war was stupid, but the idea that we are not attacking Libya makes that look intelligent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Just like you would?

 

[mudwhistle]

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"?

Speaking of lips, what causes his to look purple???

Maybe from drinking the Kool-aid???

 

[Vanquish]

The War Powers Act - giving the president authority to commit forces - has arguments for and against it's constitutionality. I personally think it's unconstitutional and waaay too expansive. For right now, it's been deemed constitutional by our SCOTUS.

That being said, selective hatred of Barry Oblammy is a bit hypocritical.

Anyone saying this is "not an attack" is currently either under heavy medication, painfully stupid, or willfully lying.

 

[mudwhistle]

The War Powers Act - giving the president authority to commit forces - has arguments for and against it's constitutionality. I personally think it's unconstitutional and waaay too expansive. For right now, it's been deemed constitutional by our SCOTUS.

That being said, selective hatred of Barry Oblammy is a bit hypocritical.

Anyone saying this is "not an attack" is currently either under heavy medication, painfully stupid, or willfully lying.

First time I've heard a bombing called a non-military humanitarian mission.

Only a Democrat can say that with a straight face.

 

[KGB]

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.

those threats were military equipment which was destroyed by our military equipment. That involves mission planning, violation of their airspace & involvement of our forces. You can word semantic it all you want, it is an attack....

 

[KGB]

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.

the President can act upon imminent threats per his role as Commander-in-Chief. This was not imminent & it was provoked by us. Plus, I do not like the fact he went to the UN before going to our Congress. That is a snub on our soverignty.....

 

[Vanquish]

Iraq wasn't really immanent. Bush stated he never called it immanent, but he did

linkie with citations

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Well then - if this is "good enough" for the liberals, they have absolutely no standing to complain about GWB and Iraq.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

You miss - or, perhaps, avoid - the point.
The Obama stated, openly, willingly and plainly, that the Constitution does not give Him the power to do what He is doing in Libya.

 

[mudwhistle]

Iraq wasn't really immanent. Bush stated he never called it immanent, but he did

linkie with citations

Didn't have to be imminent in Iraq.

He got approval from Congress first, then the UN.