mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
IIRC the POTUS has 60 days before Congress can tell him to shove it when it comes to ordering a military action, doesn't he?
Libya
- Thread starter mcantar18c
- Start date
mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-likely-to-keep-combat-role-in-libya-shift.html?ESRC=eb.nl
International Community: "Fawk you America. Stop getting involved in everybody's stuff. You're not the world's policemen."
US: "Sounds good, you can handle the Libya crap, I don't wanna deal with it."
IC: "Uh.... wait a minute. We don't want to do that. Come handle it for us cause we don't know what the fawk to do now."
International Community: "Fawk you America. Stop getting involved in everybody's stuff. You're not the world's policemen."
US: "Sounds good, you can handle the Libya crap, I don't wanna deal with it."
IC: "Uh.... wait a minute. We don't want to do that. Come handle it for us cause we don't know what the fawk to do now."
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
Exactly what I was going to say. We've tried this before, there are reasons export controls are in place. Willingly giving the same tech away is a recipe for future disaster.
:roflmao:
Gotta love international politics.
Here I am thinking we should let libya figure out its own problems. We are in fact not the world's policemen... rather, we shouldn't be. Enough problems here at home without going looking for others, but the US government looks at the economy/healthcare issues vs foreign wars the same way I used to look at homework vs video games.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
March 23, 2011
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have read your letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011 concerning your order that United States Armed Forces attack the nation of Libya. You cite the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and your “constitutional
authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”
http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/03/2299814109_d7369dc8af_o.jpg
The Constitution clearly and unmistakably vests Congress with the sole prerogative “to declare war.” Your letter fails to explain how a resolution of the United Nations Security Council is necessary to commit this nation to war but that an act of Congress is not.
The United Nations Participation Act expressly withholds authorization for the President to commit United States Armed Forces to combat in pursuit of United Nations directives without specific Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution states that the President’s power to engage United States Armed Forces in hostilities “shall not be inferred . . .from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities…”
The War Powers Resolution unambiguously defines three circumstances under which the President as Commander in Chief may order United States Armed Forces into hostile action: “(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.” Your letter cites none of these conditions.
Nor can the power to order an act of war be inferred from the President’s authority as “Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”
The Constitution’s Framers were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton draws a sharp distinction between the President’s authority as Commander in Chief as “nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces” and the authority of the British king “which extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies ~ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
With all due respect, I can only conclude that your order to United States Armed Forces to attack the nation of Libya on March 19, 2011 is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution and constitutes a usurpation of Constitutional powers clearly and solely vested in the United States Congress and is accordingly unlawful and unconstitutional.
Sincerely,
Tom McClintock
Member of Congress
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have read your letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011 concerning your order that United States Armed Forces attack the nation of Libya. You cite the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and your “constitutional
authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”
http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/03/2299814109_d7369dc8af_o.jpg
The Constitution clearly and unmistakably vests Congress with the sole prerogative “to declare war.” Your letter fails to explain how a resolution of the United Nations Security Council is necessary to commit this nation to war but that an act of Congress is not.
The United Nations Participation Act expressly withholds authorization for the President to commit United States Armed Forces to combat in pursuit of United Nations directives without specific Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution states that the President’s power to engage United States Armed Forces in hostilities “shall not be inferred . . .from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities…”
The War Powers Resolution unambiguously defines three circumstances under which the President as Commander in Chief may order United States Armed Forces into hostile action: “(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.” Your letter cites none of these conditions.
Nor can the power to order an act of war be inferred from the President’s authority as “Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”
The Constitution’s Framers were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton draws a sharp distinction between the President’s authority as Commander in Chief as “nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces” and the authority of the British king “which extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies ~ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
With all due respect, I can only conclude that your order to United States Armed Forces to attack the nation of Libya on March 19, 2011 is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution and constitutes a usurpation of Constitutional powers clearly and solely vested in the United States Congress and is accordingly unlawful and unconstitutional.
Sincerely,
Tom McClintock
Member of Congress
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Obama's proved once again last night that he's a great public speaker.......and doesn't let the truth get in the way of his delivery.
OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.
___
OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”
THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. “Clearly they‘re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said “we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people,” but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
___
OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”
THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
“The president does not have the 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,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”
___
OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”
THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”
Only small numbers of Gadhafi’s troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. “It is not a very robust organization,” he said. “So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.”
___
OBAMA: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily “without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands.”
He questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”
-AP-
OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.
___
OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”
THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. “Clearly they‘re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said “we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people,” but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
___
OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”
THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
“The president does not have the 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,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”
___
OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”
THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”
Only small numbers of Gadhafi’s troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. “It is not a very robust organization,” he said. “So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.”
___
OBAMA: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily “without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands.”
He questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”
-AP-
A few words from the great "el rushbo"......
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-is-in-libya-to-protect-european-energy/#
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-libya-speech-nothing-more-than-2012-campaign-speech/#
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-is-in-libya-to-protect-european-energy/#
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-libya-speech-nothing-more-than-2012-campaign-speech/#
mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
$550mill in just a few days. Lovely.
http://www.military.com/news/article/dod-libya-mission-has-cost-us-550m-so-far.html?ESRC=eb.nl
http://www.military.com/news/article/dod-libya-mission-has-cost-us-550m-so-far.html?ESRC=eb.nl
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Interesting read that connects the dots as to why Obama engaged Libya and where things go from there.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...etmasters-behind-the-military-action-in-libya
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...etmasters-behind-the-military-action-in-libya
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
while that site lists many of the same "sources" I have come to know and laugh at, I have to agree with it... why are we going into Libya?
Also, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden (VP), among MANY others, are against this... you know it's gonna be interesting when a whole lot of people who don't normally agree on something or usually agree with the President are all agreeing he's wrong.
I still want to see a Paul/Kucinich ticket in 2012.
Also, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden (VP), among MANY others, are against this... you know it's gonna be interesting when a whole lot of people who don't normally agree on something or usually agree with the President are all agreeing he's wrong.
I still want to see a Paul/Kucinich ticket in 2012.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
The wheels are coming off the Obama wagon, many of his supporters are realizing what his promises of Hope and Change really mean....
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330
I wonder if we are giving them Stinger missiles or something even more fun? Apparently the Iran Contra affair, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq have taught this President nothing... aside from that he should put us in even more countries instead of pulling out like he campaigned on.
All politicians are the same lying sacks of crap, the only difference is whether they are smelly crap or really smelly crap.
I wonder if we are giving them Stinger missiles or something even more fun? Apparently the Iran Contra affair, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq have taught this President nothing... aside from that he should put us in even more countries instead of pulling out like he campaigned on.
All politicians are the same lying sacks of crap, the only difference is whether they are smelly crap or really smelly crap.
mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
Care to elaborate?
Iraq was all Bush's fault but Obama holds no responsibility for Libya, right?
mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
Well no chit, I know what you're saying, but this time he is. Had Obummer gone through Congress before throwing us into this mess, that'd be different, but....
Similar threads
