1 One word ...... Kinetic Military Action

2 So war is very much like sexual intercourse. And you're not really having intercourse if you only put it a little of the ways in.

Good to know.

3 I believe the War Powers Act only applies to Republicans.

4 War consists of much more than killing people and breaking things.  A declaration of war allows you to seize enemy nationals and hold them, even though they themselves have done nothing wrong.  Ditto enemy assets within your reach.  Congress alone has the power to make this legal. 

I think that ordering troops into combat is within the CinC's power.  If the Congress disagrees with any particular action, it's a political question and they have means to deal with it.

I think that history shows this to be true whatever interpretation one makes from the powers as the Constitution spells them out.  Like International Law, what actually happens is more important than what "should" happen.

5 If he doesn't bother to get approval, bring those troops home and impeach his ass. If he can't tell the American people a good reason why the troops are in Libya, then they shouldn't be out there in harm's way.

6 I think the Constitution is absolutely clear on this. Congress must authorize going to war and no "shitty little definition" of what war is get him off the hook.

In any case, he is now illegally in the war. Too bad neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will impeach him. And that is the ONLY solution because SCOTUS will not touch this case.

What is really bad about this case is since they had enough votes to override a veto they had enough for an amendment and they chose not to go that route.

7 Yes, but is this war-war?

In general, no one seems to care enough for Osama Obama's egregious flouting of the Constitution -- in this and many other instances -- to actually say something about it, much less hold him accountable.

Thus, the strange paradox of our "historic first" Traitor-in-Chief. He bows to terrorists and other America-haters, aligns himself with third-world thugs and radical Muzzies, proclaims himself above the law, and the best we can hope for is the kind of tepid tut-tutting that Ed "Poppin' Fresh" Morrissey dishes out on occasion.

When he is re-elected next year, it won't be the sole responsibility of the brain-dead crowds that adore the Chicago Jesus. It will also be the work of thousands of cowards on the Right who lacked the balls to stand up for our country.

8 So we've gone from a War Criminal President that sought and received Congress' approval to invade Iraq becoming the devil incarnate by media standards to another 'President' (sob) that circumvents all boundaries of the law to pursue a undefined quagmire and there's a collective yawn on the left.

Does that sum it up?

9 OT, but Tami, if you are around, I read about your Kindle issue.

Call the Amazon customer service number...the one specifically for Kindle.  1-866-321-8851.  Tell them the issue you have with the Kindle.  They may offer to replace it, even if it is out of warranty.  Or, they may offer you a discount on a new Kindle.  There's a good chance you can have a replacement in your hands by the time you have surgery.  Also, when you register your new Kindle to your account, your books will automatically transfer over.

Hope this helps and if you have any other questions, let me know.

10 5 War consists of much more than killing people and breaking things.  A declaration of war allows you to seize enemy nationals and hold them, even though they themselves have done nothing wrong.  Ditto enemy assets within your reach.  Congress alone has the power to make this legal. 

I think that ordering troops into combat is within the CinC's power.  If the Congress disagrees with any particular action, it's a political question and they have means to deal with it.

I think that history shows this to be true whatever interpretation one makes from the powers as the Constitution spells them out.  Like International Law, what actually happens is more important than what "should" happen.

Posted by: toby928™ at May 22, 2011 03:08 PM (GTbGH)

Yeah, pretty much. Congress can either cut funding or pass resolutions to get the military out of the Libyan operation and make Obama veto them.

The point of all of this is the hypocrisy of the Left.  This is truly an "illegal" war by any liberal definition.

11 Hell, by the end of his first year in office he already had stacked up numerous impeachable offenses. Bill Clinton proved that you can not impeach and convict a Democrat no matter what they do.

12

 ...the President has some inherent -- unstated, but logically necessary -- power...

From my kid's government class this year, these are called implicit powers. See? They actually taught something besides marxism!!

13 So war is very much like sexual intercourse. And you're not really having intercourse if you only put it a little of the ways in.

And "just air support" is the "oral sex" of war...not really considered sex at all anymore, at least by the young people....

14 Boots on the ground is anal.

15 Congress can either cut funding or pass resolutions to get the military out of the Libyan operation and make Obama veto them.

Is anyone in the House actually working on this?

16 Didn't Obama teacher at Harvard Law, and wasn't he head of the Harvard Law Review? Obviously Obama is so intelligent that it warps the fabric of space time and makes him look like an idiot who has no experience in this sort of field.

17 Obama: I Do Not Concern Myself With Trifles Like The Law It's almost as if Obama thinks he's a member of some sort of ... I don't know - Ruling Class?

18 Who are we to question our betters, ours is to toil and try, no to wonder why? It was in justifying Iraq ( predominantly to rt he Europeans) that eventually caused Bush so many problems. Obama wants to avoid this minefield. Maybe some good can come out of this - if Susan Powers is fired, maybe Cass goes with her.

19 And "just air support" is the "oral sex" of war...not really considered sex at all anymore, at least by the young people....

My lasting contribution to American culture! 

20

But the thing is, if it's a "war", the conditions of the War Powers Act don't apply, and the President has acted illegally. The US, it's toops, and its allies were not at risk.

If it's not a "war", why is he looking for for a War Powers Act resolution?

Logically, Obama is looking for legal cover, after the fact, for a war he is inherently admitting was illegal to start.

21 Is anyone in the House actually working on this?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 22, 2011 03:19 PM (0vDuM)

I doubt it.  Not seriously.  Republicans always have the problem that they support the troops, so this would be seen as undermining them.  Politically, it'd look like they're opposing Obama just because he's a Democrat.  Plus, if it goes badly (which it is very likely to) then Obama owns it all.

22 What's badass West's position on this? Shouldn't he call for impeachment?

Bueller...

23 Logically, Obama is looking for legal cover, after the fact, for a war he is inherently admitting was illegal to start.

A crime that is never penalized is no crime at all.

24 format fail, effin pixy 1.0 comment code.

25 The WPA only applies to Republicans. Duh.

26 If Congress had intended the WPA to have any teeth, they would have tied its implementation to each appropriations bill. Thus bringing the anti-deficiency act into play if DoD employees spend anything outside of it.

27 I doubt it.  Not seriously.  Republicans always have the problem that they support the troops, so this would be seen as undermining them.  Politically, it'd look like they're opposing Obama just because he's a Democrat.  Plus, if it goes badly (which it is very likely to) then Obama owns it all.

Plus I'm sure most even support it. We're spreading democracy baby. Yeah, right.

28 A crime that is never penalized is no crime at all.

None of our sovereign class are feared by prosecution any more. We are chattel.
There is no justice.

29 Hey.  You know who's been on top of this issue from Day Freakin' One?  That's right.

30 Dude.

It is worse than this.

The Republicans are trying to draft a resolution (with the help of Dems!) to save Obama's ass.

Politi-puke, via Seattlepi:

Seeking to quell congressional opposition to U.S. involvement in the Libya campaign, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner on Friday that he backs a draft Senate resolution authorizing American participation in the NATO-led effort to oust Muammar Qadhafi.

Under the War Powers Act, Obama had 60 days to inform Congress that he had ordered U.S. forces into action. That deadline came on Friday, two months after American ships launched missile attacks on Qadhafi's air defenses March 19. Obama formally notified Congress of U.S. involvement two days later.

Lawmakers on the right and left have questioned Obama's decision to commit American forces to the Libya campaign, saying the president should have sought authorization from Congress before doing so.

To deflect that criticism, Obama now says he backs a bipartisan Senate resolution - which hasn't been formally introduced yet - supporting U.S. involvement in the drive to topple Qadhafi's regime.

"I wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators Kerry, McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Lieberman, which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government," Obama said in his Friday letter.

Obama added: "Such a Resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter. It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation, and support."

Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said the Ohio Republican had received the Obama letter, but he noted that no resolution authorizing the Libya mission has been introduced at this time. Boehner will not commit to any vote on the Libya mission until he consults with his colleagues, Steel said.

31 It's almost as if Obama thinks he's a member of some sort of ... I don't know - Ruling Class?

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at May 22, 2011 03:19 PM (KE+Ya)

Aristocracy even!

32 Where are the gutless Republicans . . . they should be all over him like flies on shit.

33
It is worse than this.

Aw crap...

34 Bush lied people died, no more wars for OIL!!!! IMPEACH him for his illegal war and war crimes!!!!

35 It is worse than this.

The Republicans are trying to draft a resolution (with the help of Dems!) to save Obama's ass.

McCain and Graham and the Dems.  Boehner made it clear that he received the letter and is giving it all due consideration (i.e., none).

36 The law is clearly wrong, wingnuts. Obama never makes mistakes!

37 When he is re-elected next year, it won't be the sole responsibility of the brain-dead crowds that adore the Chicago Jesus. It will also be the work of thousands of cowards on the Right who lacked the balls to stand up for our country.

FUCKING A RIGHT!  WE NEED MORE MEN IN THIS PARTY AND FEWER VAGINAS!  MEN WHO CAN PUNCH!  ALL!!  THE!!!  WAY!!!!  UP!!!!!  THROUGH!!!!!!  THE!!!!!!!  CEILING!!!!!!!!

38 35
It is worse than this.
Aw crap...
Posted by: Barbarian at May 22, 2011 03:35 PM (EL+OC)

No it isn't.

39 WPA is pretty clearly unconstitutional (add Beldar to the long list of those who know more than you, and be thankful for digital storage 'cause that list would kill some trees) BUT it is the law of the land until a court of competent jurisdiction rules it unconstitutional.

Presidents and Congresses haven't rushed to have the matter resolved because the ambiguity serves both.  Neither wants a court case which could permanently limit their branch's powers.  But the bottom line is the law is in effect and must be obeyed.

~~~~~~~

All this "the Constitution demands Congress declare war" crap is Ron Paul nonsense.  The Congress is granted the power, nowhere is the form required.  Previous court cases (there were suits over Vietnam, this clause isn't something some stoned Paulbot just discovered) have ruled Congress has full discretion in these matters - and that funding an "undeclared" war is a "declaration" for all intents and purposes.  So put down the bong and step slowly away, and no one gets hurt.

40 Obama rules!!! Fore more years!!!! Fuck Libya I do not even knwo where that is bomb the shit outa it!!!! Bend it over a pinball machine and have your way with it Obama you can do no wrong!!!

41

32 Seeking to quell congressional opposition to U.S. involvement in the Libya campaign, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner on Friday that he backs a draft Senate resolution authorizing American participation in the NATO-led effort to oust Muammar Qadhafi.

Um... last I heard the mission was not supposed to be about ousting Qadhafi - it was supposedly about protecting civilians from him. Then again, that was proven to be a lie, when Obama bombed Qadhafi's family compound.

42 It's good to be King.

43 "have ruled Congress has full discretion in these matters - and that funding an "undeclared" war is a "declaration" for all intents and purposes" That's fucking A right man. Because like the military has to be "fun-ded", and if it is not fun-ded then there is no fun and no ded that is for sure. I mean like those tanks can't go anywhere, and those planes, and those evil baby killing soldiers, unless they are fun-ded. If the evil ChimpyMcBushHitler had just invaded Canada, those evil Reich Wing Republicons would have been authorizing it cause they passed the last years budget. BTW I never put down my bong, who are you to judge.

44 You know who wants to perform a war power act with Ace?  It's your beloved Judy, that's who.

45 I wish you stupid cons would have complained when bush illegally invaded Iraq. AT. LEAST. ONCE.

46 when bush illegally invaded Iraq.

You realize that never actually happened, right?  Even Patches Kennedy voted for it.

47

"I don't think I buy that though. We know the Constitution plainly, plainly requires Congressional authorization for war. Beldar's position, in strong form, would render that dead-letter."

Not quite: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Art. I Sec. 10.

So too strong of a reading of the power to declare war renders that section to be dead letter. The Constitution plainly requires that the power to declare a war and the power to engage in war be at least somewhat different. The fighting grounds is "how different?"

48 He, why are you all so upset? It's not like we're BONED or anything.

I'm sure someone will enforce the law again, someday.

49 I wish you stupid cons would have complained when bush illegally invaded Iraq.

Bush had approval you retard.

50 bush lied when he manipulated intelligence and tried to convince the world Saddam had something to do with 911 and possessed WMD's. Is your version of history different than mine?

51 Bush had approval you retard.

'tis I sock I think.  "anti war faggot".  At least I hope it is...

52 Republicans always have the problem that they support the troops, so this would be seen as undermining them.

Didn't Gates and the Joint Chiefs advise against going into Libya? 

I guess it is pretty much a sure thing that he entertainment-Marxist complex will present "Republicans support the military by opposing Obama" as "Republicans throw poor psychotic killbots who joined the Army because Boooooosh destroyed the economy and left them no choice under the bus."

Dammit.

53 *cough* pink'ed *cough*

54

The thing is, isn't there a disticntion to be made between "acts of war" and "war"? Obviously, the Bin Laden mission was an act of war, so does that sort of thing need an explicit Congressional declaration of war?

I think it should go back to the "spirit of the law", in this case the Constitution. The whole idea was to check against Presidential adventurism - pursuing or starting wars on his own personal whim.

The Bin Laden raid had implicit approval from Congress. Congress oversees the activities of Special Ops, and funds it. They know what's going on, and they approve it. Plus, their actions aren't big enough to likely start a full-out war.

The Libya thing was a major attack on a foreign country, however, and clearly (I'd say) represents a textbook example of Presidential adventurism. Since it's not an all-out war (it supposedly isn't trying to topple the regime), and isn't a big enough deal to even need some Congressional funding, I would have been happy if Obama simply got some sort of informal OK from at least the Congressional leadership.

But he didn't. I haven't heard a single Congressman - even a Democrat - who said the Obama came and even talked to him about this. And Obama lied in his address to the nation saying he "consulted with Congress" when what he really did was inform the Congressional leadership an hour or two before it went down.

Presidents overstep their authority from time to time, and so I wouldn't even say that being thrown out of office is called for. But Congress shouldn't just roll over either. There should be hearings and the other kinds of stuff that lead up to an impeachment. Future Presidents (and the current one) need to be shown that this sort of thing is totally NOT OK.

Hell, this is certainly worse than what Bill Clinton was impeached for. Lying about his relationship with an employee? It just doesn't even compare!

55  Is your version of history different than mine?

Posted by: Trudy at May 22, 2011 03:53 PM (VidfH)

Reality sure is a foreign concept to you commie libtards.

56 This just demonstrates that the only power that matters is control of the media. If the media were constantly screaming about his illegal activities, he would have been impeached a long time ago. On the other hand, had they been doing that from the beginning he would never have been elected.

57 Posted by: Vic at May 22, 2011 03:52 PM (M9Ie6)

Need help getting the hook out of your mouth?

58

No sitting President has found the War Powers Act consitutional.

Pretty much agree with 49. It's not very clear-cut and is a confusing, muddled area.

That said, Congress can end the military action whenever it so chooses. That's why I ultimately have no problem with a CnC acting unilaterally, because it ultimately requires Congress to fund the action, which it doesn't have to do. They have the ultimate power if they so choose to excersize it.

59 Why are we boned?  Here's why:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he doesn't know if the president violated the War Powers Act, and finds the administration's actions "a bit confusing now."

(From Fox)

He is a gutless squishy puke.

60 Posted by: toby928™ at May 22, 2011 03:54 PM (GTbGH)

The "troll" is using a pink lure to catch unsuspecting morons.

61 No it is NOT confusing. It is plain as the damn English it is written in. People like to say it is confusing because Presidents in both Parties have ignored it since WWII.

Look, we either live by the Constitution or we don't. So far we don't.

62 Posted by: Adjoran at May 22, 2011 03:39 PM (VfmLu)

I would say you are correct except it doesn't make WPA  unconstitutional.
It is not an accident that the power to Declare War and the Power of the Purse are both reserved to Congress. The problem arises because a standing army of the size and scope we currently have was not envisioned at the time. The power of the President as CIC would certainly entail  the ability to deploy as he saw fit BUT anything he did would necessarily have to be done on funds already appropriated. In the past that would have limited him greatly. Certainly less than 60 days. In the modern era a President could wage war on a petty large scale for a decent amount of time using what's already available. The WPA seeks to to force the President to acknowledge that we are indeed at war and seek the approval of Congress in a reasonable amount of time for the funds needed to prosecute it. A declaration of war means we are committed to spending whatever funds are needed to win such a war. Such a declaration is not within the power of the President and that is essentially what Obama seeks to do in Libya. He started this process within the assurance that it would be days, not weeks, which really meant bargain basement cheap. Well, it turns out he bought a lemon and now wants Congress to expend the funds needed to get it road worthy. The WPA says that decision rests with us and not the idiot who bought the lemon. If Congress decides it's not worth the investment then the President must walk away.

63

The problem is, as you all probably know, that the Democrats are afraid to question Obama, while the Republicans simply like seeing missiles flying towards Qaddafi's military. As long as none of our troops are harmed it's all good!

So the irony here is that if Obama had sought Congressional approval, he might well have received it - from Republicans!!

He might have had to adopted a policy to go after Qaddafi, though. So an additional layer of irony is that Obama wouldn't have been OK with that stipulation, but has since gone after Qaddafi anyway!

64 Nuance by the “greatest orator of our time” ...

WASHINGTON — Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means the two sides will “negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”

I wouldnÂ’t want this guy to negotiate a deal on a dog house.

65 Posted by: Rocks at May 22, 2011 04:00 PM (th0op)

You have a great point there, but still there was no justification nor authority for Obama doing what he is in Libya

66 The War Powers Resolution (as all Presidents have rightly called it) is totally unconstitutional.  "War" is a rather more drastic state than just exchanging bullets.

Congress is, as always, free to cut funding.

67 1. Are all military actions, by definition, acts of war?

2. Must an act of war by Congress use the phrase, "we declare war," or is a simple vote to extend support to the President to use military action sufficient?

68

No it isn't.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 22, 2011 03:39 PM (73tyQ)

Boehner will give in.  Even if he doesn't, this will give the {resident the cove rhe needs, even if it doesn't pass.  The media will spin it as, the Rs don't care about our troops.  They want an evil dictator to keep his power!!!11!!!1!1

It isn't about what actually happens, it is all about how the media can spin it.

69 Trudy, you ignorant slut, why don't you go Google that rabid right-winger Hillary Clinton and her position on WMD's, even nukes, in Iraq.

70 #69:

(1) No.
(2) Courts have held that a WPR authorization functions as a declaration of war for the various things that triggers.

71
You have a great point there, but still there was no justification nor authority for Obama doing what he is in Libya

Posted by: beedubya at May 22, 2011 04:05 PM (AnTyA)

We gave up the rule of law when we let this guy run for the office. Horse, Barn door, etc.

72 Ok, Vic, if you would like to live by the exact letter of the Constitution then lets. No where does it mention a President seeking any sort of resolution or approval from Congress. It says Congress shall declare War. That's it. It doesn't list the circumstances in which a President can actually deploy without a declaration of war, so then we must assume the only time a President can deploy troops is when Congress actually makes a declaration of War.

73 OT:  Mitch is out???  Mitch is out???

http://on.wsj.com/iVqznp

74 BTW

Obama is golfing today and leaves for Ireland, England, France and Poland tonight.

75 I love these 4 more years douchbags. So they want Obama to serve until 5/22/2015? How's that gonna work?

76 L'État, c'est moitherfucker.

77 Is your version of history different than mine?

Posted by: Trudy at May 22, 2011 03:53 PM (VidfH)

Yeah, mine's based in reality.

78 People on the left and the Right oppose the war powers act because it was intended to both limit the President's power to wage war without Congressional approval and allow the President _to_ wage war without Congress having to Declare War.

79 Bronis³aw Komorowski  -  Prime Minister Donald TuskWhat are the odds that Obama gifts Bronislaw Komorowski with a book of 1,001 Polish jokes? Bronis³aw Komorowski  -  Prime Minister Donald Tusk

80 Personally, I wish congress would just grow a set and defund the thing.

81 Wow. I tried to cut / paste that stuff from Wiki, but it never showed up in the comment box. Anyway, cool name for the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk.

82 47 I wish you stupid cons would have complained when bush illegally invaded Iraq.

AT. LEAST. ONCE. Posted by: Trudy at May 22, 2011 03:47 PM

Why bother, you were doing it 24/7 with full coverage and sympathy from the MBM and Hollywood

83 Trudy, how in the hell did Bush deceive the vast amount of nations that went to war in Iraq? It wasn't just the United States Intelligence, but the Intelligence services of many other countries that believed WMDs were in Iraq.

84 "Obviously, the Bin Laden mission was an act of war"

No it wasn't.  Not in the least, in fact.

"I think it should go back to the "spirit of the law", in this case the Constitution. The whole idea was to check against Presidential adventurism"

No it wasn't.  In fact, one of the big points of the Constitution was to provide the strong executive the Articles of Confederacy didn't.  Foreign policy and war was and is the biggest thing you need one hand -- not a committee -- for.   Hence the CiC clause and a long, long list of precedent (both in action and judicial decision) about the President's control of who we shoot at.  (Hint:  if the Russians had launched their nukes, the President wouldn't have needed to get a declaration to nuke the shit out of them.)  Congress gets to reject treaties and give/cut off money -- the long view.

The WPR only exists because Nixon put the Presidency at its weakest point ever and Congress realized they could get uppity.  The only reason it hasn't been declared unconstitutional decades ago is that such intra-branch disputes are generally non justiciable.  Every President since has rightly noted its unconstitutionality:  all reports to Congress are made "consistent with, but not pursuant to" the WPR.

85 There was an AUMF as required under the WPR dor Iraq II Electric Boogaloo. Try again!

86 Trudy is my twin, and we're brilliant powerful intellects who would squash you cons like bugs with our MINDS!!

Damn, Trudy, did you run the batteries down again? Sorry, have to run to Walmart now

87 The WPA is Unconstitutional, Originalist have held this view since the Liberal congress first passed it against a Nixon Veto

Checkout the Federalist Society for more

88 It says Congress shall declare War.

It lists the Power to declare war as one of congress's powers. It does not give the President power to declare war. The President is CIC and commands the military. The military may act in self defense only because any thing else IS declaring war by action.

Bombing someone's troops is an act of war. Committing an aggressive act of war against another nation-state is defacto declaring war.

But as I said earlier, congress had all the votes it needed to make the WPA an Amendment and they chose not to.  That was STUPID.

89 And let's not forget that (perfectly "legal" I'm sure) Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that ultimately led to Saddam's demise and Iraq's (attempted) transition to the 21st century. You don't want to be invaded, don't invade anyone else. Pretty simple rule, even a Libtard should be able to get a grip on it.

90 Mark Levin covered this fully, the WPA is a leftist/Paulnut document, it is not Constitutional.

We have gone to War many many, most times without "Congressional Authorization pre-1973(and post sometimes to make a point against WPA).

Congress has the constitutional power to defund, any day they so choose.

91 Trudy and Judy, the e-mailer, have to be the same person, right?

92 "It doesn't list the circumstances in which a President can actually deploy without a declaration of war, so then we must assume the only time a President can deploy troops is when Congress actually makes a declaration of War."

If you're historically illiterate, sure.

Not to mention practically illiterate.  We have bases all over the world.  They didn't need specific Congressional authorization to build.  Nor does the President need a Congressional declaration to shoot back if any of them are attacked.

93 Google Originalist Scholar and UVA Law professor, "Robert Turner" and the War Powers Resolution

94 Funny thing is Ace wrote several blog post about "Declarations of War", which is completely opposite of what he's saying here, in 2006/2007 against Leftist and Paultard attacks

95 What most of the Prsidents since WWII have based their actions on has been war by treaty. Truman started that one. It was his theory that our treaty with the U.N. was the equivalent to an Amendment to the Constitution.

That if we went to war in support of our treaty then that treaty, having been ratified by the Senate, superseded the original Constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war. The liberals have always been glad to apply that "treaty as an Amendment" theory when destroying the Constitution.

Of course that is pure bull shit.

But here OBama goes them even one better since this was not a defensive action for NATO. He is saying bombing and killing another nations troops on their sovereign territory is not war which is simply outrageous bull shit.

But he will get away with, just like he gets away with everything else.

96 If Ron Paul were President we wouldn't be helping the Frogs and teh Eye-Ties fight a bunch of sand fleas.  Ron Paul would require the Congress to authorize his strikes. That way we wouldn't be sucked into wars about the Jews.  Which is .why we support Ron Paul

97 clean up aisle 99.

98 The language of "Declarations of War" became Null and Void at end of WW2 when we signed with rest of world a stupid treaty the Outlaws War, so the old language isn't going to be used for obvious legal issues.

that said, Declarations have only been issued a total of around 5 times in our history, most of them in WW2.  The Founders didn't do it in their wars, though they did in War of 1812

99 Satire of Storm Front

100 BAD MAMMOTH. NAUGHTY BAD.

101 Unleash the Ban-hammer! 

102 RON PAUL!!  He'll end the nasty JOOOO domination of American foreign policy!!! 

103 also, the Founders never intended that language to apply to Outlaw regimes, it was meant as the language of the 18th century among First world nations. 

and it was intended for examples such as War of 1812

104
Obama is golfing today and leaves for Ireland, England, France and Poland tonight.

Posted by: momma at May 22, 2011 04:14 PM (penCf)

I haven't played golf all year because my "golf" money has been going into my gas tank.  Fuck Obama.

105 Ebola is testing how far he can go and not get stopped. A full-on invasion of Libya would produce a very different result. He really did put in just the tip. No American captives or casualties, and NATO tags on everything. He is slithering under the door.

106 Trudy , You must have missed the Iraq Liberation Document brought about By the Clinton Administration touting why Saddam removal became an American policy in 1998 , Why you ask? because of weapons of mass destruction they Said and the killing of Iranians, Kurds etc...

107 Sorry, it was too good to pass up in this context.

108 Fuck McConnell and Boehner and the rest of these worthless sacks of shit. They have had more than 60 days of political cover under the WPA to waffle and avoid this issue along with the piece of shit in the WH, who they constantly cowtoe to. Time's up. Leadership is called for. If you can't manage it in a clear cut case like this, then resign and let someone with a spine and common sense take your place.

109

I haven't played golf all year because my "golf" money has been going into my gas tank. Fuck Obama.

Well, chump, maybe you should think about buying a new car with better mileage.  I recommend the Chevy Volt.  It's a steal at $42,000 MSRP.

110 Trudy has missed a lot of stuff throughout her life.

111 always amazed why Dems that voted to go to war because of the History and Threat to many with Saddam seemed to have misplaced their collective memories AFTER Bush went in.
not really i already realized they are lying liars.

112 114 Trudy has missed a lot of stuff throughout her life.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2011 04:38 PM (qUHCW)

Like say, brains, a thought process, deductive reasoning, cognitive skills...

113

 Trudy has missed a lot of stuff throughout her life.

Like grades 9-12.

114

87 No it wasn't.  Not in the least, in fact.

Are you high? I'm pretty sure that sending your military onto another country's soil, blowing stuff up, killing people, and seizing property, is an act of war. Duh.

As to the rest of your lecture, none of it made any sense at all, especially since it is inconsistent with the Constitution reserving the power to declare war to the Congress.

115 112 Fuck McConnell and Boehner and the rest of these worthless sacks of shit. They have had more than 60 days of political cover under the WPA to waffle and avoid this issue along with the piece of shit in the WH, who they constantly cowtoe to.

Time's up. Leadership is called for. If you can't manage it in a clear cut case like this, then resign and let someone with a spine and common sense take your place.

Posted by: Damiano at May 22, 2011 04:37 PM (3nrx7)

I still think you guys are getting it wrong, it's not about leadership. The reason Boehner, McConnell and the vast majority of Republicans don't care about this is because they agree with Obama on this use of force. It's this "winning hearts and minds" run amok.

116 Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime Â… He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation Â… And now he is miscalculating AmericaÂ’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction Â… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is realÂ…"    – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

117 >>>A full-on invasion of Libya would produce a very different result. Really? So what constitutes a full on invasion? Our planes, flown by our pilots have already bombed the shit out of Kadaffy's houses & killed a couple of his sons. I'm not trying to attack you on your overall point, but I think that creative definitions of what "is" is need to stop. There are American troops in a foreign land, targeting a foreign leader, and blowing up foreign stuff with weapons and equipment paid for by American two dollars. If that does not require authorization of the American public via our elected representatives, then I don't know what does. If our elected representatives are incapable or unwilling to perform their responsibilities related to this action, then they need to resign or be removed.

118 – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by IraqÂ’s weapons of mass destruction program.

119 Is Trudy an actual troll, or some spin-off of Judy (a sock).

What's everybody drinking?

120 The administration did not seek a congressional resolution for a simple reason: They would have had to explain their intent, rationale, and mission.  No one in the administration could explain it then and they can't now.

121 110 Trudy , You must have missed the Iraq Liberation Document brought about By the Clinton Administration touting why Saddam removal became an American policy in 1998 , Why you ask? because of weapons of mass destruction they Said and the killing of Iranians, Kurds etc...

Posted by: willow at May 22, 2011 04:37 PM (h+qn

Heh.  Not to mention the whole "he violated his surrender agreement" and should have been removed 30 days after signing it argument.

122 @119 You're probably right. Still, I think that the point remains valid. If McConnell, Boehner, etc. agree with Obama on this action, it is their responsibility to go on record with that position. Instead, they are waffling and doing nothing while the media convenient ignores everything.

123 What's everybody drinking?

Gatorade.

124

98 ...  It was his theory that our treaty with the U.N. was the equivalent to an Amendment to the Constitution. ...

Exactly. Obviously, the problem being that an Amendment requires certain things to become an Amendment, and the UN Treaty did not meet those requirements. Congress can't amend the Constitution on it's own, for what should be obvious reasons.

But this seems to lie at the heart of the matter, so let's say it explicitly:

Liberals believe a legitimate war requires the approval of the UN, while conservatives believe it requires the approval of Congress.

This is why liberals call Bush's wars illegal (even thought they enforced UN resolutions), but have no problem this time 'round. This is why Obama sought approval from the former, and not the latter. Funny thing is, the Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land, and sides with the latter view.

125 hot chamomile tea

126 123, Crystal light Ice Tea.

127 Ace,

The first few "Undeclared Wars" were during the lives of the Founding Fathers and the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and long predate the War Powers Resolution.  Attempting to curtail the Powers of the Presidency (especially when it runs against more than a hundred years of precedent) via legislation is highly suspect.

The fact that said legislation was passed by a Congress controlled by one party over Presidential Veto, and that two subsequent Presidents of the same party have ignored it, further undermine the Constitutional legitimacy of the measure.

It also makes it very clear that the Democrats are far more concerned with controlling the levers of power by whatever means they consider expedient rather than ensuring the security of the Nation and defending the Constitution.

128 What's everybody drinking?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 22, 2011 04:47 PM (UOM4

Scope.

129

The Key most are missing... is that War starts when someone commits an Act of War.  These Acts were pretty well defined at the time of the Founders...

Invasion? Act of War.

Bombing? Act of War.

Taking over an Embassy (which is an invasion)? Act of War.

Defending your own troops? NOT an Act of War.

Defending your OWN territory? NOT an Act of War.

 

Its clear to me the Founders intended for the President to be able to Defend, but Not attack, without Congress's approval... And the current War Powers Act, REFLECTS that sentiment.

Obama has commited multiple Acts of War, commiting the US to a de facto War, without Congress's approval.

130 Well, I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to speak to constitutionality or lack thereof.

However, Congress needs to get up on its hind legs, insist that the administration - at an absolute minimum - explain what, exactly, we hope to accomplish in Libya, then vote to either support or end this nasty little muddle.

I still have no clue what, exactly, Sarkozy et al intended when they started this "kinetic military action", or whatever it's being called this week. I am certain that Obama doesn't know, either, and I want some sort of formulated war aim, now. Not in two years, now.

131

Liberals believe a legitimate war requires the approval of the UN, while conservatives believe it requires the approval of Congress.

This is why liberals call Bush's wars illegal (even thought they enforced UN resolutions), but have no problem this time 'round. This is why Obama sought approval from the former, and not the latter. Funny thing is, the Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land, and sides with the latter view.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 22, 2011 04:52 PM (F56VB)

That does seem to be the truth of the matter, They don't consider America  It's own sovereign country , but they work at the will instead of the world community

132 132 What's everybody drinking?

Pepsi Max. 

133 or themselves as Americas representatives,

134 I think the only thing Obama Cares about is destabilizing the region by removing leaders whether they are good or bad. This creates a vacuum and opens the door for Radical Islam to take control and set Israel up for the war to end all wars in the Middle East. He gives two shits about the constitution and what passes for GOP leadership on Capitol Hill is shameful.

135 Instead, they are waffling and doing nothing while the media convenient ignores everything.

Posted by: Damiano at May 22, 2011 04:49 PM (3nrx7)

Well if no one is calling them on it they got great political cover.

136 Dianna,

Why ever would you believe the 0bama gives a rat's ass about what the American People want?

137 Posted by: Damiano at May 22, 2011 04:46 PM (3nrx7) My point is size matters.

138

91 ... Committing an aggressive act of war against another nation-state is defacto declaring war. ...

Is sending troops into a country without their permission, destroying property, killing people, seizing property, and then leaving an "aggressive act of war"?

I'd say so, but we do that stuff all the time (I'm thinking specifically of the Bin Laden raid). The term "war" seems to imply a prolonged, or at least large-scale conflict. I wouldn't say that every "act of war" is "defacto declaring war", although it certainly risks causing a war to break out.

That being said, (as I said earlier on) the spirit of the Constitution suggests that the President should have at least an informal approval for acts of war. The idea is that he can't just use the military as his own personal army to do with as he pleases.

139 Drinking corona before I fire up the grill. Then on to whiskey i think.

140 The GOP is letting this ride because they know the Dems will use going after Ebola against them. They likely figure it could blow up in their faces like the Clinton impeachment exercise did. All the politicians are extremely nervous about 2012 because they know the shit is inches from the fan and none of them can gauge what the public will do. Also, the GOP has put all its money on one horse: "It's the Economy, Stupid"

141 Optimizer - I read somewhere that the point is rather when one takes notice of an act of war.

I'm pretty sure the Bin Laden raid was an act of war, but Pakistan's government, sensibly, is not treating it as one.

The business in Libya is quite definitely an open act of war, and a sustained one, what with no fly zones becoming no float zones and no driving zones, and "Oh, we just feel like bombing the hell out of that particular building - no particular reason - oh, damn, we killed a Gaddafi family member, what rotten luck for him" zones....

An objective, a war aim, a purpose, would be ever so nice to have.

142 Martin v. Mott unquestionably establishes the President as CiC of the military, to use as he sees fit.  The act of Declaring war allows the government actions beyond military.  Congress controls the purse strings, if they don't like the the President's actions they can cut the funds/

Those are three, distinct actions that people seem to think are the same thing.

The President has the right to send the military wherever he wants whenever he wants as long as there is money to do so. There are things that the President can not do in a conflict that does require a Declaration of War (which congress avoided in Iraq by granting those powers to the president for that conflict) by Congress.

143

Posted by: Rod Graves at May 22, 2011 05:01 PM (mKMj1)

The two computer household?

144 133 Its clear to me the Founders intended for the President to be able to Defend, but Not attack, without Congress's approval... And the current War Powers Act, REFLECTS that sentiment.

Obama has commited multiple Acts of War, commiting the US to a de facto War, without Congress's approval.

That actually seems like a really good, simple way to put it. I don't see why anybody is even talking about the War Powers Act - the action in Libya clearly does not fit within its parameters. It's not even debatable.

I've been generous as far as not going full out and calling it a "war", but I'm having second thoughts, and even without calling it a "war" I'm saying the spirit of the Constitution suggests that Congress should approve, if only informally.

The thing is, there is clearly a civil war going on in Libya, and we are helping out one of the sides in a very substantail manner. Yeah, we may not be in an all-out quest to take out the other guy (at least we're not saying we are), but we're in a war, nonetheless. (Dope-slaps self.)

145 #147 - Quilly!

Yep. Rod and Dianna. You once commented, "So the devil does have a soul!"

How's things?

146 @49

Not quite: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Art. I Sec. 10.

I know this is farcical, but I was just thinking about Arizona as I reread this. "Hey, we're being invaded. So we're engaging in war. Bite me Feds."

147 The Republicans are trying to draft a resolution (with the help of Dems!) to save Obama's ass.

^  ^
*  *
  0

What's everybody drinking?

Hemlock cocktails.

148 Wait, are we showing up with the same hash? I know we're using the same connection (duh), but don't our machines show up as different?

149

Posted by: Optimizer at May 22, 2011 05:04 PM (F56VB)

the Raid to get Osama was covered by legislation... the WOT specificly stated we'd go into any country to prosecute action against Al Q and such...

Libya? No such Congressional cover... there is no Congresional document saying we can bomb Libya Government assets....

So.... apples and oranges... yes, they were both Acts of War, but the Osama raid was authorized by Congres (which gives Obama cover under the War Powers Act)... bombing the Libyan Army however, was not authorized by congress, and is against the Base rules of the United Nations (which specify that outsiders cannot get involved in 'internal matters').

150 "The song became the biggest hit of the 1970s spending ten consecutive weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 — longer than any other song in Hot 100 history to that point."

Yikes.

151 Dammit, to may tabs open.

152 Some of you have said that Presidents went to war without congressional approval during our founders time. That is simply not true. Even if you consider the actions against the pirates as a "war" (which I don't) they still has congressional authorization.

CRS study on war powers

It has only been in modern times since WWII that we have done this war making without congress, beginning with the Korean "police action".

One other thing that may be a good topic for discussion is "why haven't we had more formal declarations of war"? Why have we had these mealy-mouthed congressional authorizations for the "use of force"? After all, they amount to virtually the same thing.

It is my belief that Congress will never issue another declaration of war. The problem as they see it is that if they do formally declare war the President automatically assumes a broad range of almost dictatorial powers. Look at all the stuff FDR did in WWII.  Congress does not ever want to give up that much power again.

153 149 #147 - Quilly!

Pretty good, having a 4 year old son at my age keeps me on my toes.

154

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 22, 2011 05:09 PM (oYzxe)

So, by your definitions, Patreaus, as a Troop Commander, could invade a sovereign nation? And it would not be a War?

Command of troops does not give you Carte blanche to do with them as you please... and even the CIC is bound by Law... somthing which the current CIC has chosed to ignore.

155

145  I read somewhere that the point is rather when one takes notice of an act of war.

I'd say that's sort of right, but poorly put. The bottom line is that an act of war can provoke a war, and so the two are not one and the same. It's that simple.

One example I keep thinking back to is a story I heard once about Special Ops, or somebody, training on some Alaskan Island in the Bering Strait, a short distance from Russia. They said they would find discarded Russian supplies there on occasion, which implied that Russian troops had been there. Now that's a violation of our boundaries, and therefore an act of war, but were we in a direct war with the Russkies at that time? Clearly not.

Sometimes it takes a single act of war to get a war started ("Remember the Maine!"), but most of the time they just result in a bunch of diplomats shouting at each other over the phone.

An objective, a war aim, a purpose, would be ever so nice to have.

But there actually is one, this time: To stop Qaddafi's genocide against part of his population. It's apparently a lie, since we bombed his family compound, but that's the stated objective. Personally, I think that's an inadequate reason, and impractical to achieve, but it was the reason given, nonetheless.

156 But, Vic, it seems that presidents just assume vast powers anyway - or at least Obama is acting (even more than any of the last 5 presidents) that he can go his merry way, and Congress can whistle.

157 We know the Constitution requires and foresees a president seeking authorization for war in some circumstances (most likely most, or close to all); we know, or think we know, the President has some inherent -- unstated, but logically necessary -- power to order troops to action in some limited circumstances.

I disagree that the President has an inherent power to order troops into action, even if they are attacked.

The founders did not want a standing army. Although they did not expressly prohibit it, they went out of their way to make it difficult (they thought) to bring about. They thought that a standing army could potentially become the President's army. That's part of what the 2nd amendment is about: keeping the citizen militias as the center of the nations defense. They also limited the funding of armies to two years, and gave the legislature the power to regulate the militias.

Without a standing army, there is no concern about how long it would take to get Congress together to do something in case the army is attacked.

Not that I'm advocating that the US do without a standing army. We have to have one. And, if we are to have a standing army, they obviously need to be able to respond if attacked. And the President, as CiC, has to be able to command them.

However, the constitution should have been amended long ago to deal with that reality. Starting with renegade judges who rule that what is written in the constitution does not mean what it says, because "the constitution is not a suicide pact", it has become all too common for all branches of the national government to "reinterpret" the constitution to mean what they want it to mean instead of what it says in black and white. The relief valve for undesirable constitutional outcomes is not for politicians to make up new rules; is is for the amendment process to be used to correct any shortcomings.

158 Even the 60 days thus far were illegal. The War Powers Act only allows 60 days of combat if certain conditions are met. Those conditions were never met. Read it yourself, it's not that long. So it was already an illegal war.

The WPA itself already granted the President more war-making powers than were intended by the founders.

159 Quilly, it would, but I'm sure it also keeps you young.

I won't interrupt the debate any longer. Take care!

160 @142 >>>I'd say so, but we do that stuff all the time (I'm thinking specifically of the Bin Laden raid) I disagree. The Bin Laden raid had been authorized for nearly 10 years and everyone and their cousin is on record about it. Plus, Bin Laden was responsible for several direct attacks on the US and it's interests. Up until a few months ago, we were playing nice with Gadaffi. Bush lifted sanction on Libya in exchange for Gadaffi ditching is nuclear programs, Obama and the UK worked to release the Lockerbie bomber, etc. Then Obama unilaterally decides to send planes over and start stoping bombs on his house. I despise Gadaffi and would celebrate if he ended up sleeping with the fishes next to Bin Laden, but the fact is that our actions there are in direct opposition to all other actions over the past several years and he presented absolutely no threat to US interests. There is absolutely no case, IMO, to justify a defensive military action in Libya by unilateral executive decision (or otherwise). If we are committing US lives and resources to this "problem", then it demands that a case be made to the American public and we have the opportunity to vote on it through our elected representatives. If Obama wanted to go take out dictators, then he needs to clearly state the case why it is worth the risk of lives and expenditure of resources BEFORE anyone went there. Instead, he waffled on it for over a month, then sent our troops and resources into harms way because France decided to go. There is no stated goal, no defined leadership of acceptability, we are footing the bill, the action was launched long after it would have had a chance of having any effect, and there is not and never has been a threat to US interests.

161 The, uh, Constitution give me an, uh, explicit right to take unilateral military action when, uh, I don't have any idea what else to do.

162 It has only been in modern times since WWII that we have done this war making without congress, beginning with the Korean "police action".

Well, except for the first time we went into Libya...the Barbary War...Jefferson sent Congress a letter.  Later Congress would do what they did for Iraq. 

163 Well, except for the first time we went into Libya...the Barbary War...Jefferson sent Congress a letter. Later Congress would do what they did for Iraq.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 22, 2011 05:27 PM (oYzxe)

Ah.... but the Barbary PIRATES (note, not nation State) were a different case than a UN member Nation.

Pirates were considered outside the Law, and it was standard ops to take out their shore bases, not just their ships.  Thus, the Marines in Libya were a punishment raid against Pirates, not an attempt to overthrow a Nation State.

164 Oh yeah, vic, the action that Congress took?  " An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers""...was used in 1815 to spank the Dey's of Algeria.  Shall I keep going?

165 "But there actually is one, this time: To stop Qaddafi's genocide against part of his population". Posted by: Optimizer

As you said, this is a lie - but I heard "R2P" invoked, without much real justification, particularly given the hideous behavior and questionable ties of the "rebels"; I heard "protection of civilians" - which does not seem to be effectively happening; but I do not recall hearing the word "genocide" from Obama (why am I trying desperately to avoid typing the word "President" in connection with his name? Three months ago, I could do it) when he was giving his speech about our involvement.

Genocide is a powerful argument. I would really have to check to make sure he uttered it. Of course, given his weirdly relativistic use of the English language, he may have redefined "genocide" on the fly.

166 But congress did authorize it.

167 And the reason I don't consider taking out pirates as "war" is because pirates are not a sovereign nation and in the 18th century suppression of piracy was considered under the auspices of "Jus Justinian".  Pirates were considered beyond protection of the law and it was considered the duty of all nations to kill them as they found them.

Too bad we are too civilized for that now.

168 153  So.... apples and oranges... yes, they were both Acts of War, but the Osama raid was authorized by Congres (which gives Obama cover under the War Powers Act)... bombing the Libyan Army however, was not authorized by congress, and is against the Base rules of the United Nations (which specify that outsiders cannot get involved in 'internal matters').

I hope I didn't sound like I was disagreeing with anything you're saying. I was simply trying to make a distinction between "acts of war" and "war". There's legitimate debate to be had as far as Presidential authority for "acts of war" vs. "war", and I'm taking the stance that Congress should give at least informal approval for even "acts of war".

The authorization you cite for the Bin Ladin raid seems like a good example of Congress giving authority, while not explicitly authorizing an individual act of war. I was happy with Congress funding and having oversight over Special Ops, but your citation is better.

I totally agree that Libya is a textbook example of Presidential military adventurism, which the Constitution specifically set out to prohibit. He didn't even consult with anybody in Congress, the way I heard it - not even the Democrats.

It's funny to see liberals complain about Libya because of the money spent. I suppose it's a sort of denial - they're really angry about more weighty subjects, but since he's "the first black president" (even though he isn't) they desperately want to see him succeed - even if he doesn't. Their complaint is the equivalent of complaining about the Bin Laden raid because of the cost of the helicopter lost.

169 Sock off.

170

So, by your definitions, Patreaus, as a Troop Commander, could invade a sovereign nation? And it would not be a War?

Command of troops does not give you Carte blanche to do with them as you please... and even the CIC is bound by Law... somthing which the current CIC has chosed to ignore.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 22, 2011 05:23 PM (NtXW4)

No, Patreaus cannot do that as he is not, as of yet, Commander in Chief aka The President.  Nice strawman though, work harder.

171 Posted by: Your Betters on the Indiana Supreme Court at May 22, 2011 05:24 PM (tOcj3)

Uhmmm..the Constitution _does_ require a standing NAVY...your point is then?

172 I regard this as the perfect time to deploy one of my favorite Constitutional Convention quotes:

A standing army is like a standing member: a wonderful guarantee of domestic tranquility, but a terrible temptation to foreign adventure.

 - I'm blanking on who said it, just now. Sorry. It's a great quote, though.

173 A standing Navy, at the time of the writing of the constitution, was nothing compared to what they have become today. Any president would have a difficult time making war on another nation with a navy alone.

Was my point really that difficult for you to understand? Do you need it stated more slowly?

174 #177 - Really?

Someone needed to tell Great Britain about that.

175 Congress does not ever want to give up that much power again.

Posted by: Vic at May 22, 2011 05:21 PM (M9Ie6)

Interesting point, but of course because congress tends to be populated with retards, they handed the president power before the fact. Amazing. They think they are the best and the brightest, and my 16-year old can out-think them.

By the way, Vic's point about pirates is valid to this day. The president acted quickly and broadly against terrorists after 9/11 because he was not declaring war against a sovereign nation. He slowed down when he decided to attack Iraq.

176 Ah.... but the Barbary PIRATES (note, not nation State) were a different case than a UN member Nation.

You win a prize for the stupidest comment of the day. The Babary Pirates were what they called the city-states who's navies demanded tribute from ships plying the Med or face capture of their ships. Recognized states that euro nations had treaties with.

You really ought to not comment about things you're fucking clueless about.

177

164 >>>I'd say so, but we do that stuff all the time (I'm thinking specifically of the Bin Laden raid)

I disagree. The Bin Laden raid had been authorized for nearly 10 years and everyone and their cousin is on record about it. Plus, Bin Laden was responsible for several direct attacks on the US and it's interests.

OK, you're not following what I'm saying, apparently. I brought up the Bin Laden raid as an example of how "acts of war" are not the same thing as "war". I didn't (and wouldn't) state or imply that there was anything illegal (or even inappropriate) about the Bin Laden raid. Hell, I give it two thumbs up! I'm wishing they'd come out with yet another version of the story for me to enjoy! I love them all, as long as they end the same!!

And I'm saying I think even "acts of war" should have some level of approval by Congress (which Libya obviously didn't have).

178 You really ought to not comment about things you're fucking clueless about.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 22, 2011 05:47 PM (oYzxe)

"The Barbary pirates" is a catch-all phrase to describe the pirates active in the Med and to a lesser extent in the Atlantic. Some were state-sponsored; some were state-sheltered; and some were acting privately.

179

169 Genocide is a powerful argument. I would really have to check to make sure he uttered it. Of course, given his weirdly relativistic use of the English language, he may have redefined "genocide" on the fly.

Whoa! Didn't mean to get anybody excited by using the term "genocide". The idea was that Qaddafi threatened to go in and kill everybody in certain rebel areas. Perhaps I was speaking too loosely, but you see where I'm coming from.

I remember Obama, in his speech (the one that was 9 days late, even though he normally gives speeches practically every day), making it sound like 700,000 people would have been killed had he not acted. I presume he's full of it, and that a more reasonable estimate would be, maybe a few thosusand. Either way, it's one of those things that can't be proven either way at this point.

All that is outside any argument as far as a legal justification for his acting, however.

180 Uhmmm..the Constitution _does_ require a standing NAVY...your point is then?

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 22, 2011 05:41 PM (oYzxe)

There is a huge difference between a standing army and a navy. The founders were well aware of that difference. And even the navy was a bone of contention for many years.

181 171 And the reason I don't consider taking out pirates as "war" is because pirates are not a sovereign nation and in the 18th century suppression of piracy was considered under the auspices of "Jus Justinian".  Pirates were considered beyond protection of the law and it was considered the duty of all nations to kill them as they found them.

Too bad we are too civilized for that now.

Posted by: Vic at May 22, 2011 05:37 PM (M9Ie6)

Seriously?  You too?  Okay, kids, history lesson time.

The Barbary Pirates was the name our _MEDIA_ of the time called the city-states that ran from modern Tunisia to Modern Algeria. They had armies and navies.  They were recognized states with histories going back _thousands_ of years.

They made their money by demanding payment from non-Muslims to ship in the Med. (Sound familiar, kids?)

WE had a treaty with them, they demanded more money. Jefferson told them to pound sand.

Then he sent in the Navy and the Marines who killed people, broke things and demanded the surrender of the Bashaw of Tripoli.  In fact, we got all those little kings to sign off on it.

Later, the Deys of the several Algerian cities went back to their ways and Decatur and his boys stomped a mudhole in them.

182 Optimizer - No problem, and I wasn't excited.

I follow your argument, and I think we are on the same page. That speech did not - to me - give a clear justification for action, and I'm still waiting. I do not believe our involvement in Lybia is legal, either.

At this point, I'm waiting for congress to get its act together. It's wildly unlikely the Senate will do so, as long as no American service members get killed.

Another willful abdication of responsibility.

183

"The Barbary pirates" is a catch-all phrase to describe the pirates active in the Med and to a lesser extent in the Atlantic. Some were state-sponsored; some were state-sheltered; and some were acting privately.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 22, 2011 05:53 PM (LH6ir)

And they were handled differently.  The "Halls of Tripoli" specifically refers to a military action against the state of Tripoli and it's ruler the Bashaw. There is _zero_ diffence between what Jefferson did there and what Obama is doing now.

184 Shores of Tripoli

185 And they were handled differently.  The "Halls of Tripoli" specifically refers to a military action against the state of Tripoli and it's ruler the Bashaw. There is _zero_ diffence between what Jefferson did there and what Obama is doing now.

Oh, so Libya is attacking and taking our merchant ships and demanding tribute?  The action against the Barbary pirates was defensive in nature since they attacked us first.  

186 The real way to use this politically is to let it fester in his base - then draw them into a series of hearings to explain their decision making process on this.

187 Oh, so Libya is attacking and taking our merchant ships and demanding tribute?  The action against the Barbary pirates was defensive in nature since they attacked us first.  

Posted by: Vic at May 22, 2011 06:10 PM (M9Ie6)

The reason for the war is different. Actions are not. Which is why Congress funded Jefferson's actions and Boner should defund this one.

188 One other thing that may be a good topic for discussion is "why haven't we had more formal declarations of war"?

That's a very good question.  A Declaration of War doesn't necessarily mean that we invade or start bombin immediately.  It simply means that a state of hostilities exists and that the normal rules of relations between states are suspended.

I wish we had declared war against Iran in 1980.  We could have blockaded the Persian Gulf or intercepted their tankers carrying Iranian oil anytime we felt like it, and all legit.

189 The WPA is a side issue. Per the Constitution, the President doesn't have the power to pick and choose which country he'd like to whack. Back in the day, it was illegal for the Sovereign/Executive to just whack people. That's what the Magna Carta was ultimately about. That's why drone attacks on American citizens like Al-Awlaki (no matter how rotten a character he is), are grossly illegal. If the President can act as Prosecutor, Jury, Judge, and Executioner, there's no reason he can't just whack you. Go check Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution if you don't believe me.

Or would you rather live in a dictatorship where the President can just take us to war on his own discretion? Because that's what you war-mongers are advocating. Perhaps the daily dose of fake violence on TV, movies, and the internet have desensitized you to the incredible suffering that war brings. There is NO justification for blowing up and maiming people, making widows and orphans, destroying property and years of accumulated wealth, unless it is a vital national interest. Libya doesn't even come close. In fact, NATO's intervention has probably prolonged the suffering and made it worse than if Gadhafi had just crushed the rebellion weeks ago.

Attacking another country that we made a deal with in 2003 NOT to attack is without a doubt making war.  It clearly requires Congressional authorization, but our cowardly Congresscritters are more than happy to let Obama own this.

As a side note, allowing Oloser to get away with an undeclared war is not only bad precedent, it's bad strategy. Stabbing Gadhafi in the back may be emotionally satisfying, but now every dictator and leader of every two-bit country with aggressive ambitions has learned two important lessons:
1. Never make a deal with the U.S.
2. Never, ever, give up your nukes.

Brilliant foreign policy, Olamebrain. And you Congressional enablers as well.

190 Quilly @

More than 2 in the living room...

191 Dianna @ 152 asks:

<blockquote>Wait, are we showing up with the same hash? I know we're using the same connection (duh), but don't our machines show up as different? </blockquote>

The system obviously keys on public IP, which is the same for all of the systems behind the primary firewall.

192 You really ought to not comment about things you're fucking clueless about.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 22, 2011 05:47 PM (oYzxe)

Hmmmm... really?

Sooo... Jefferson did NOT commit the Navy to this act under the auspices of Fighting Piracy?  He specificly went in to Change the Governments of the Area???

Perhaps, YOU should think, before calling others either stupid, or unknowledgable...

The Navy was sent to suppress Piracy, not invade, but the on scene commander was following the standard operating procedures of the day, and taking out the Land Bases of the Pirates... which just happened to be in certain Kingdoms in the area.

Sophistry perhaps, but is was perfectly legal in that era to perform that type of operation.

193

Oh, and for the record... going in to take out the current Pirate bases in Africa???? could once again be done as combating Piracy... no War Powers Act involvement needed, as the US Navy under the UCMJ is tasked with combating Piracy.

Bombing Libya? with no Cassus Belli? IMO would need Congressional Approval...

194

Another arrogant ruling twit, Marie Antoinette said Let them eat cake.

The Bamster, aka The Clueless Won says Let them eat shit and die.  Laws are for little people, not for dudes like me that can stop the ocean's rise.

195

186 ...That speech did not - to me - give a clear justification for action, and I'm still waiting. ...

I could be that the reason it [Obama's reason for the Libya action] didn't seem clear to you is that it was simply a really crappy reason.

He was clearly saying that countless thousands of people (he tried to make it sound like 700,000, which can only be wildly exaggerated) would have been slaughtered if the US had not acted, and he claimed that it was in the interest of the United States that we act (because if we just stood idly by it would make us look bad).

I read between the lines and assumed that he was afraid that some major carnage would show up on TV screens all over the world, and people would blame him. (This explains why he has not responded similarly elsewhere - no TV cameras). So my take is that this was a pre-emptive war to avoid bad TV coverage.

Either way, I think it was a crappy reason - but a reason was given. Beyond the idea that putting our troops at risk for the sake of foriegners who are not necessarily our allies is a bad idea, there's the problem of "when - and how - does it end"?

One of the things that seems to confuse people is that while he said, "Qaddafi needs to go", this was unrelated to the military action, which was supposedly just humanitarian. That phrase, BTW, was uttered back when it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Qaddafi was out (hey, it sounded macho when he did something similar with Egypt, right?) - he never intended to actually follow up on that.

196 Vic @ 156,

I will grant active involvement of the Congress (but still short of a declaration of war) in the early Federal period.  I believe we're agreed that all fell well short of formal declarations.  Can we further agree that the whole "no active military operations without a Declaration of War" thing is a non-starter?

Certainly there was much more collaboration between the Executive and the Legislative Branches in the early Federal Period.

The U. S. Incursion into Russia following the Russian Revolution is missing from that study, as is the Yangtze River patrol in interwar China (though I grant both are well after the era of the Founders).

Also missing are the various campaigns against various American Indian tribes, going back to Andrew Jackson.  Since we were concluding treaties with various of those tribes, it would be hard to argue that we were treating the matters as wholly internal.

Had the War Powers Resolution been treated as a Constitutional Amendment, I would question the wisdom but have no argument as to the Constitutionality.  As it stands, attempting to limit the powers of the Executive via Legislation seems a rather large reach.

197 Optimizer @ 159,

When a Nation Sate becomes aware that an act of war has been perpetrated against them, they have a range of options to seek redress.  The offended Nation State has the sole say as to whether the cassus bellum is sufficient to justify an immediate declaration of war or to pursue lesser options in remedy.

198

201

Well, there ya go!

199 Ace, many thanks for the link and discussion. As I've said in an update, I think you're wrong about the 30 additional days, though. Re constitutionality, I'm not just concerned about overbreadth or "as applied." Congress can pass whatever resolutions it wants to explain its views on what the Constitution means by terms like "war." Those don't bind the POTUS, though; as a co-equal branch, the Executive has its own right to its own views, and no legislation can trump that. If Congress wants to bind the POTUS, it would have to get the Resolution re-passed as a constitutional amendment, and that ain't gonna happen. Congress has other ways to push back, of course, through de-funding or ultimately impeachment. But it can't re-write the system of checks and balances to suit itself.

200

Like all tyrants OBAMA sneers his snout up at the law but as was said in STAR TREK VI THE UNDISCOVRED COUNTRY was THIS PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW