[nerkvcbtre]

I can't believe I'm actually in agreement with fishjoel for once.

[Sdinozes]

This is the post to which I'm referring. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...ml#post1916028

Oh, lol...I honestly completely forgot about that.

[drgshmcm]

I can't believe I'm actually in agreement with fishjoel for once.

I think we've agreed on some things before. This is a matter that I've actually changed on from what I would have believed just a little while ago. As mulish as I come across I do listen and I do change my beliefs if I think the argument has merit.

[Emalodoulouts]

You're still repeating this canard after abdicating on your pledge to find support for it?

War Powers Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; As you can see, the authority to declare was lies with the Congress, not the President.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. As you can see this is in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, Obama is currently in violation of the violation. So I dunno what that makes what he's doing. Do two negatives make a positive?

As to the third demand you made....I have no need to answer that as what you said contradicts itself and doesn't even make logical sense. So basically you answered that demand yourself using a logic fallacy.

Happy?

[Avaindimik]

War Powers Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, the authority to declare was lies with the Congress, not the President.

That relates to the power to declare war. You said: "Minus the War Powers Act the President can't carry out any acts of war, for any period of time, w/o Congressional approval." Mr. Obama has not declared war; that would be in contravention of the Constitution. He's ordered the military to engage in combat, which is within his purview as Commander in Chief, and anticipated by the War Powers Resolution.

Do you also think it was "illegal" when Thomas Jefferson ordered combat actions in Libya?

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see this is in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, Obama is currently in violation of the violation. So I dunno what that makes what he's doing. Do two negatives make a positive? You're now saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Please clarify.

You didn't quote any language from the War Powers Act, much less any language authorizing the President to conduct war in contravention of the Constitution.

As to the third demand you made....I have no need to answer that as what you said contradicts itself and doesn't even make logical sense. So basically you answered that demand yourself using a logic fallacy. Your argument depends on the logical fallacy. Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by statute, giving the President powers he doesn't otherwise have. Do you acknowledge that?

You claim to have developed this belief that the action in Libya is illegal based on some argument that has merit but you've yet to share it with anyone.

[Trissinas]

That relates to the power to declare war. You said: "Minus the War Powers Act the President can't carry out any acts of war, for any period of time, w/o Congressional approval." Mr. Obama has not declared war; that would be in contravention of the Constitution. He's ordered the military to engage in combat, which is within his purview as Commander in Chief, and anticipated by the War Powers Resolution.

Do you also think it was "illegal" when Thomas Jefferson ordered combat actions in Libya?

Only someone who is trying to be a shiesty lawyer and get around the law would say that carrying out acts of war as a country is not tantamount to declaring war. You're also confusing what being Commander in Chief means. It does not mean he has the right to declare war or carry out acts of war. It means that when we declare war he is the one that is responsible for how it is prosecuted.



You're now saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Please clarify.

You didn't quote any language from the War Powers Act, much less any language authorizing the President to conduct war in contravention of the Constitution. There is no such thing as the War Powers Act. There is the War Powers resolution and it is categorically unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states that the ability to declare war is solely with the Congress. Congress cannot just make up a rule that lets the president prosecute a war on his own w/o actually making an amendment to the Constitution. You see, we live under the rule of law. If you don't like the law you need to change it in the proper way, not just turn a blind eye towards it because it's convenient.


Your argument depends on the logical fallacy. Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by statute, giving the President powers he doesn't otherwise have. Do you acknowledge that? Yes, if they want to pass something that is not allowed by the Constitution then they actually have to pass an amendment. Therefore, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

You claim to have developed this belief that the action in Libya is illegal based on some argument that has merit but you've yet to share it with anyone. I did share it with you, it's called the Constitution.

[Lhiistyssdds]

Only someone who is trying to be a shiesty lawyer and get around the law would say that carrying out acts of war as a country is not tantamount to declaring war. You're also confusing what being Commander in Chief means. It does not mean he has the right to declare war or carry out acts of war. It means that when we declare war he is the one that is responsible for how it is prosecuted.

OK. Is it fair to say, then, that you believe that the reservation to Congress of the power to declare war precludes the President from giving combat orders without a Congressional declaration of war?

There is the War Powers resolution and it is categorically unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states that the ability to declare war is solely with the Congress. Congress cannot just make up a rule that lets the president prosecute a war on his own w/o actually making an amendment to the Constitution. Can you cite the language in the resolution that purportedly grants to the President the power to prosecute a war?

I did share it with you, it's called the Constitution. And this is something new you've discovered?

[tabcdyop]

I don't know what you are saying. The President does not have the legal authority to have enacted this war.

Aren't we more or less just assisting NATO on this one though? I mean we were a pretty significant part of the initiation of hostilities, but as long as it's ultimately a NATO action that we're supporting, I don't know if the war powers act comes into play.

[Drysnyaty]

Aren't we more or less just assisting NATO on this one though? I mean we were a pretty significant part of the initiation of hostilities, but as long as it's ultimately a NATO action that we're supporting, I don't know if the war powers act comes into play.

There is no War Powers Act. There is the War Powers Clause, that's in the Constitution, and there is the War Powers Resolution.

Regardless of that, we have committed acts of war against Libya. We seized $33 billion dollars belonging to Libya. If another country seized $33 billion US dollars would you consider that an act of war? How about the hundreds of tomohawk missiles we've launch? If another country's government carried out attacks on US soil launching hundreds of missiles in tactical strikes on the US would you consider that an act of war?

I seriously don't understand the viewpoint that the US is not at war with Libya. Just because we have not prosecuted the war in an all-out manner does not mean it's any less of a war.

[Gymngatagaica]

OK. Is it fair to say, then, that you believe that the reservation to Congress of the power to declare war precludes the President from giving combat orders without a Congressional declaration of war?

The way your worded this statement gives an ambiguous connotation. I'm saying that the President cannot, initially, give "combat orders" (orders where we actually attack or strike another country) w/o the Congress declaring war. Once war is declared the President runs the show as he sees fit. He does not have to go to Congress and ask permission for each and every operation or mission that is carried out.


Can you cite the language in the resolution that purportedly grants to the President the power to prosecute a war? "Resolution"? I assume you are then talking about the War Powers Resolution. I've already quoted it. If you want, you can scroll up and read it again.

And this is something new you've discovered? Not particularly, I'm just paying attention more to what our government is doing and I'm not writing it off anymore because ignoring the law leads to tyranny and we are seeing the process of tyranny creeping across our nation as our personal liberties and dignity are being stripped away. I'm no longer willing to accept how things are currently being run because it's all a giant smoke-screen of bullshit. This is all about money.

Now, I've answered many of your questions and will not answer a single one more until you answer mine.

Why have we not gone into the Sudan yet?

Why are we not going into Yemen?

Why are we trade partners with China?

Why have we not gone into the Congo?

[Chubrehege]

The way your worded this statement gives an ambiguous connotation. I'm saying that the President cannot, initially, give "combat orders" (orders where we actually attack or strike another country) w/o the Congress declaring war. Once war is declared the President runs the show as he sees fit. He does not have to go to Congress and ask permission for each and every operation or mission that is carried out.

All right. So, then you also believe that it was illegal when Thomas Jefferson sent men into combat in the region of Libya? And the numerous times it's been done since without a declaration of war?

Would you refuse to obey an order to deploy to the Libyan theater to assist in the Nato operation there because (in your view) it's illegal?

"Resolution"? I assume you are then talking about the War Powers Resolution. I've already quoted it. If you want, you can scroll up and read it again. You didn't quote any language from the resolution, much less any language purporting to give the President authority to go to war at his own behest. I've asked you several times to cite the specific language that supposedly does this; I'm going to assume at this point that you cannot because it doesn't exist and/or you have not read it.

The truth of the matter is this -- if one reads the law -- It assumes the President has authority on his own behalf to initiate combat actions but purports to require him to report to Congress on the state of the engagement.

Why have we not gone into the Sudan yet?

Why are we not going into Yemen?

Why are we trade partners with China?

Why have we not gone into the Congo? None of these questions have anything to do with the topic we're discussing -- Presidential authority to initiate armed hostilities without a Congressional declaration of war. As such, they're off topic diversions. Keep in mind: I opposed the Libyan intervention and am unimpressed by the stated needs for the action. Do you have any questions pertaining to the actual subject we're discussing?

[tramadolwithall]

All right. So, then you also believe that it was illegal when Thomas Jefferson sent men into combat in the region of Libya? And the numerous times it's been done since without a declaration of war?

Would you refuse to obey an order to deploy to the Libyan theater to assist in the Nato operation there because (in your view) it's illegal?



You didn't quote any language from the resolution, much less any language purporting to give the President authority to go to war at his own behest. I've asked you several times to cite the specific language that supposedly does this; I'm going to assume at this point that you cannot because it doesn't exist and/or you have not read it.

The truth of the matter is this -- if one reads the law -- It assumes the President has authority on his own behalf to initiate combat actions but purports to require him to report to Congress on the state of the engagement.



None of these questions have anything to do with the topic we're discussing -- Presidential authority to initiate armed hostilities without a Congressional declaration of war. As such, they're off topic diversions. Keep in mind: I opposed the Libyan intervention and am unimpressed by the stated needs for the action. Do you have any questions pertaining to the actual subject we're discussing?

IMO Our Congress has given the power to the president to wage war at his discretion, and more Much more ! Our real most important war is the one with ourselves. "We are poor little sheep who have lost our way Doomed from here to eternity. May the lord have mercy on such as we "Rudy Valley" .

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

All right. So, then you also believe that it was illegal when Thomas Jefferson sent men into combat in the region of Libya? And the numerous times it's been done since without a declaration of war?

Would you refuse to obey an order to deploy to the Libyan theater to assist in the Nato operation there because (in your view) it's illegal?



You didn't quote any language from the resolution, much less any language purporting to give the President authority to go to war at his own behest. I've asked you several times to cite the specific language that supposedly does this; I'm going to assume at this point that you cannot because it doesn't exist and/or you have not read it.

The truth of the matter is this -- if one reads the law -- It assumes the President has authority on his own behalf to initiate combat actions but purports to require him to report to Congress on the state of the engagement.



None of these questions have anything to do with the topic we're discussing -- Presidential authority to initiate armed hostilities without a Congressional declaration of war. As such, they're off topic diversions. Keep in mind: I opposed the Libyan intervention and am unimpressed by the stated needs for the action. Do you have any questions pertaining to the actual subject we're discussing?

I don't really feel the need to answer anymore questions because you are unwilling to reciprocate. If you did you would have had to admit that this war in Libya is about money for the elite and that's it. As such, it should be no surprise to anyone that it is being carried out in an illegal manner.

I also think it's funny that you believe that certain past historical figures are above violating the rule of law. Lincoln very well might be the biggest violator of the Constitution we've ever had while FDR runs a solid second place. There is a reason why they say, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[ticskebasse]

I don't really feel the need to answer anymore questions because you are unwilling to reciprocate.

Total cop out. I certainly would reciprocate if you asked me questions germane to the topic we're discussing and for which I had the answers. Your questions should be directed to Mr. Obama and/or Ms. Clinton. You chose to trot them out here as off topic diversions because you couldn't defend your own position and statements.

If you did you would have had to admit that this war in Libya is about money for the elite and that's it. Whether it's about "money for the elite" has no bearing on whether the President has Constitutional authority to order troops into combat. I"ll certainly "admit" that it's an adventure we should not have gotten involved in. I'm against U.S. involvement, but I'm not going to run around hyseterically declaring that it's "illegal."

I also think it's funny that you believe that certain past historical figures are above violating the rule of law. Lincoln very well might be the biggest violator of the Constitution we've ever had while FDR runs a solid second place. There is a reason why they say, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I certainly don't think they're above "violating the rule of law." However, it's very noteworthy that neither President Jefferson nor his successor, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution"), thought they needed a Congressional declaration of war to commit U.S. forces to armed hostilities in Libya. From the early days, the Constitution was not given the interpretation you seek to impose upon it now even by the man who authored it. And Congress -- which one would expect to jealously guard its war-making power if it were indeed solely given to them -- has not agreed with your position either. These historical facts ought to give you pause.

[insightmike]

And Congress -- which one would expect to jealously guard its war-making power if it were indeed solely given to them -- has not agreed with your position either. These historical facts ought to give you pause.

No, Congress does not want that responsibility because they are cowards and do not want to have a record that people can hold them accountable to.

[JeremyBalll]

You chose to trot them out here as off topic diversions because you couldn't defend your own position and statements

I already defended it. I gave to the Constitution. I'm sorry that piece of paper is not a good enough reason for you. For me, though, I need quote nothing else. It's in plan English. If you can figure out how the President can declare war, constitutionally w/o Congress, when the Constitution says the sole power to declare war lies with the Congress then you can explain it to me. Since I don't seem to understand English properly I'll let you explain to me what the War Powers Cause means.

[shashaffff]

I seriously don't understand the viewpoint that the US is not at war with Libya. Just because we have not prosecuted the war in an all-out manner does not mean it's any less of a war.

On a basic level I agree with you. The trouble is that we're arguing the legality of said war. This brings the legal definition into play.

[Fausqueuego]

I already defended it. I gave to the Constitution. I'm sorry that piece of paper is not a good enough reason for you. For me, though, I need quote nothing else. It's in plan English. If you can figure out how the President can declare war, constitutionally w/o Congress, when the Constitution says the sole power to declare war lies with the Congress then you can explain it to me. Since I don't seem to understand English properly I'll let you explain to me what the War Powers Cause means.

You're free to believe what you like, of course. You've become very much like the folks who screamed "No War for Oil" in opposition to the Iraq war and, therefore, declared the war illegal simply because they disagreed with it. Making accusations of illegality for political reasons cheapens the term. It's all a bit like the boy who cried wolf.

I hope you don't take this to the next step and refuse to obey deployment orders.

Vaya con dios, my brother.

[nd90t3sf]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic.

What I dont understand is why the west considered Gaddafi an ally (or semi ally) before the revolution started. He nicely fell in their good books and they accepted him as a member of the family. But once his people found the balls to resist dictatorship, the west came running to find its interest in the whole situation (ahem oil), so they are now playing their cards so they support the opposition in power and in return oil contracts are being signed as I type this.

Why is the west still considering dictators in the Arab world today, as allies, in countries where those people didnt yet protest against those dictators, i,e morocco, saudi and jordan.

Why isnt the Syrian president Bashar Al Assad attacked by Nato. Did you guys watch the Youtube videos of what he is doing to kids? Head shots by snipers ... and tortured and then killed.

Also, the time it takes to send help is toooooooooo long... this gave gaddafi and other dictators enough time to kill more of their people.

Anyway there is a historic change in the middle east and for the first time, this change came from within, from the people, peacefully,.... and if those dictators dont go, they will go forcefully by the people which is very democratic to me.

Breaking News: Nato will target Gaddafi directly!

WS.

[Qdcqxffs]

You're free to believe what you like, of course. You've become very much like the folks who screamed "No War for Oil" in opposition to the Iraq war and, therefore, declared the war illegal simply because they disagreed with it. Making accusations of illegality for political reasons cheapens the term. It's all a bit like the boy who cried wolf.

No, now you are throwing up a smoke-screen. I asked you to explain to me what the War Powers Clause means if not to put the decision to go to war solely in the hands of the Congress. Everything else I've talked about are just the motivators for going into Libya. This does not negate my original point on it not being legal.

I'll wait for you to explain to me what the Constitution means in regards to war.

I hope you don't take this to the next step and refuse to obey deployment orders.

Vaya con dios, my brother. It's not my place to defy civilian policy. I can only keep myself from carrying out individual acts of lawlessness. If I was ordered to execute children in a village I could easily refuse that order.

The military exists under civilian authority and is there to protect our nation. Obviously, not all wars are for national security purposes but that does not negate the fact that just the existence of our military keeps us safe. If the military did not obey civilian authority then we would have a military state.

I will now await your explanation on how our country can prosecute a war w/o it being a declaration of war and how that is keeping with the plain English of the Constitution. You've yet to actually do that. I've responded to your many inquiries and have yet to have any of my questions answered directly.