T1B

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:I don't see the problem at all. The Arab League is now on record against tyranny, and the French are finally pitching in their fair share. These are scenarios that would have been unthinkable during any prior administration.

Amazing how short some memories are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

At least that war ^^^ was to expel an invader from a UN member country.

BSmack wrote:...and the French are finally pitching in their fair share.

BSmack wrote:I don't see the problem at all.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (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.

mvscal wrote:.. attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

BSmack wrote: The Arab League is now on record against tyranny

The Seer wrote:

BSmack wrote: The Arab League is now on record against tyranny

..............

Mace wrote:We're involved in enforcing U.N. sanctions.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) - 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Mace wrote:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) - 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

I'm pretty sure Congress has been notified.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

--Ospearchucker 2002

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) - 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

I'm pretty sure Congress has been notified.

Who gives a fuck if they have? Did they pass a specific statutory authorization for this action and is it really appropriate to "notify" Congress that US forces have already been committed to war (after the fact) by breaking off a phone call from your vacation in Brazil?

Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?

Mace wrote:He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (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.

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.

WRONG

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/arch ... tion.shtml

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:He has 48 hours to notify Congress and can keep the forces deployed for 60 days, and another 30 days for withdrawal....without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. It's called the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read it again and then STFU.

WRONG

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (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.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/arch ... tion.shtml

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

poptart wrote:You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c).

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.


We have a president, not a king.

poptart wrote:You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c) being present.

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.


We have a president, not a king.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Mace wrote:

poptart wrote:You're completely out to lunch, Mace.

The reporting protocol you cite is used in such cases as U.S. forces have been put into action due to one of the conditions which mvscal cited (sec 2c) being present.

None of the three conditions in sec 2c exist.

It's a complete fabrication and a president simply does NOT have any authorization to take the actions he's taken.


We have a president, not a king.

If what you're saying were true, there would be no need for this:

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: He's complaining aboout the U.S. war machine being deployed?

88 wrote:I'm pretty sure Reagan didn't obtain Congressional approval before bombing Libya in 1986.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: He's complaining aboout the U.S. war machine being deployed?

In the absence of any clear American interest, you're goddamn right.

poptart wrote:2007


Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Barry: 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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

War Wagon wrote:But that's different because those are our 'allies' in the war against terrorism.

Martyred wrote:

War Wagon wrote:But that's different because those are our 'allies' in the war against terrorism.

So was Gadhafi, allegedly.

To our son, the honorable Barack Hussein Obama,

As I have said before, even if, God forbid, there were a war between Libya and America, you would remain my son and I would still love you. I do not want to change the image I have of you. All of the Libyan people are with me, ready to die, even the women and children. We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaida in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It's an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali. ... If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?"

War Wagon wrote:Seems to me the Congress was informed and consented.

BSmack wrote:The Arab League is now on record against tyranny, and the French are finally pitching in their fair share.

Arab League criticizes West's strikes on Libya

TRIPOLI (Reuters) – Western forces pounded Libya's air defenses and patrolled its skies Sunday, but their day-old intervention hit a diplomatic setback as the Arab League chief condemned the "bombardment of civilians."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110320/wl_nm/us_libya