UN votes for air strikes on Libya as Gaddafi warns of reprisals if West attacks

[TheOrangeCat]

bottom line is countries cannot continue to afford these illegal wars when there are so many problems within their own countries and as the US dollar continues to devalue into oblivion, more americans will continue to wake up to the fact that the US is borrowing billions of dollars to continue these illegal wars while the quality of life at home continues to diminish and at some point the system will have to collapse and reset, its just sad that so many people still believe that wars solve anything, all wars do is make the banksters richer and the average person poorer

Good points, but this 'war' - for once - is not illegal. Unless you dispute the legal legitimacy of UN resolutions.:dunno:

 

[Master Roshi]

um at least for the US it is because by Obama bypassing congress and taking his order straight from the UN, the US Constitution deems this military action illegal and calls for the impeachment of any president who commits this act so yes I dispute it

 

[FrostyBoy]

um at least for the US it is because by Obama bypassing congress and taking his order straight from the UN, the US Constitution deems this military action illegal and calls for the impeachment of any president who commits this act so yes I dispute it

Oh Bullshit. If you're not going to actually read the Constitution, don't invoke it.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

um at least for the US it is because by Obama bypassing congress and taking his order straight from the UN, the US Constitution deems this military action illegal and calls for the impeachment of any president who commits this act so yes I dispute it

(shamelessly stealing a law professor's writings, but ...)

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution vests in the president both the power and the duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and Article VI affirms that treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land."

So, when Congress overwhelmingly approved the 1945 U.N. Participation Act (UNPA), the unanimous House report explained that the ratification of the U.N. Charter "resulted in the vesting in the executive branch of the power and obligation to fulfill the commitments assumed by the United States thereunder."

He doesn't need Congressional approval to act on a UN resolution, as unpalatable as that might be.

 

[Master Roshi]

actually frosty and orange I have read the US Constitution and you don't have to steal anything or be a genius to understand that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that the power and obligation to declare war resides solely in the US Congress.

 

[Master Roshi]

and yes if you follow the 1945 U.N. Participation Act to a tee, the president technically does not need the US congress' approval to go to war but it is highly inadvisable to not consult with the US congress and the fact that Obama did not even attempt to shows us where he stands but like I said as the US goes bankrupt and the hyperinflation kicks in americans will unfortunately and painfully start to understand the results of all this defense spending

 

[TheOrangeCat]

actually frosty and orange I have read the US Constitution and you don't have to steal anything or be a genius to understand that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that the power and obligation to declare war resides solely in the US Congress.

I'm not and never have questioned your knowledge.

But article 1, s8 specifies 'to declare war', a legally specific action and process. It's also been superseded - although not formally challenged - by the War Powers Resolution (although that does not apply in Libya's case)

The current enforcement of the UN's resolution does not come even close to drawing the US towards a declaration of war. So while, yes, war needs congressional approval, this isn't war. It simply isn't.

 

[Master Roshi]

ok Orange, so what exactly do you call it?

 

[TheOrangeCat]

ok Orange, so what exactly do you call it?

An enforcement, an armed attack, an UN Mission, an operation: take your pick.

Lookit, I'm not saying I agree with what's going on, but if we (I'm using a global 'we' here) are going to have laws, and we are going to obey them, and we are going to be judged by them, then we also need to be clear about what exactly those laws codify, qualify and permit .... and the US - as defined by its own Constitutional law - is NOT at war.

So, again as defined by its own Constitutional law - the Pres did not need Congressional approval to ensure that the US stayed within its legal commitments to support the UN.

 

[Master Roshi]

and so do you also agree that it was right for him to not even consult the congress on his action?

 

[Master Roshi]

and orange I am curious, what do you think is the purpose of this armed mission on Libya?

 

[Trident1]

Mission creep and blowback. Without a doubt there are members of the rebels who are Islamists.

 

[Stephen1956]

IMHO, if the United States, France, England, and other countires want to be the "policeman" of the world, they should behave like the police do in our large cities in the United States....wait until the gunfire stops...then go to the scene of the crime...and pick up the bodies.
Instead of dropping bombs, just isolate the areas of strife, and DON'T SELL THEM ARMS!
/end of rant

 

[TheOrangeCat]

and so do you also agree that it was right for him to not even consult the congress on his action?

I think he had no legal reason or obligation to do so and, given the stated need for urgent intervention combined with the Congressional clusterfuck it would have turned into had he gone to them, I think he did what any President would do, and used his legal authority.

and orange I am curious, what do you think is the purpose of this armed mission on Libya?

I think it has many purposes and agendas. It's not possible or credible to simply say 'it's being done for THIS reason or THAT reason' .... events such as those unfolding in Libya can't be boiled down to an X+Y=Z rationale.

I think there are as many good reasons as there are bad; as many genuine concerns as there are false; as many honest intentions as there are mendacious.

Why is the US getting involved .. ? If I had to pick some reasons: because it believes Gaddafi is no longer capable of maintaining stable political and military governance of Libya; because of Libya's strategic and economic importance; and because of the U.S's preference to deal with individuals it views as more moderate.

None of which are any different from the motives of any of the countries now supporting the UN resolution.:2 cents:

 

[Master Roshi]

a quote from then Senator Obama in 2007

"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."

 

[emceeemcee]

Since the advent of NATO strikes against Gaddafi, America has found itself with some unlikely allies on the ground. Babak Dehghanpisheh reports from Libya.

Not so many years ago, Abdul Hakim Hasadi, a Libyan, trained at military camps in Afghanistan and narrowly escaped American bombs

Today, Hasadi, a stocky man with a well-trimmed black beard, commands a group of roughly 200 rebel fighters in eastern Libya who are among the ragtag force pushing to oust Muammar Gaddafi.

Devout Islamists are only a small part of the overall rebel army but the presence of men like Hasadi, who received military training at camps in Afghanistan over a period of five years, has raised pointed questions about the background of the fighters. One of the rebel fighters who was in Afghanistan with Hasadi is Sufian Bin Qumu, a fellow Libyan who worked for one of Osama bin Laden’s trucking companies in Sudan. Bin Qumu was detained after fleeing Afghanistan and spent six years in Guantanamo. He now helps train and command rebel recruits, too. In recent congressional testimony, U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s operations commander, said “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda,” among the opposition forces. But he also noted, “The leadership that I’m seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gaddafi.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-09/americas-islamist-allies-in-libya/#

this should go well....

 

[emceeemcee]

As NATO and its backers contemplate their End Game they may want to consider some excerpts from the Libyan Tribal Council’s manifesto issued on July 26. Speaking for Libya’s 2000 tribes, the Council issued a Proclamation signed by scores of tribal leaders from eastern Libya.

“By this letter to the extraordinary African Summit, convening in Addis Ababa, the notables of the Eastern tribes of the Great Jamahiriya confirm their complete rejection of what is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi which hasn't been nominated nor elected by Tribal representatives but rather imposed by NATO.”

"What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb08022011.html

 

[Ulysses31]

Whatever you think about Gaddafi, desecrating a dead girls bedroom/shrine is despicable, makes me wonder if some of these people could only be ruled with an iron fist like many of those nutters that emerged in Iraq following the fall of Saddam


Gaddafi's Neverland: Fairground rides, a zoo and a shrine to his dead daughter... inside the tyrant's bizarre lair

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nside-tyrants-bizarre-lair.html#ixzz1W2QeIykf


Smashed: These glass cases protected the bed of Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hana, whose bedroom was a shrine following her death during a 1986 U.S. air strike

 

[Ulysses31]

'I love her very much': Photographs found in Gaddafi lair of Condoleezza Rice, the tyrant's 'darling black African woman'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ling-Condoleezza-Rice-lair.html#ixzz1W4u3pB2E


Rebels show off the album featuring former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, found in Colonel Gaddafi's residence, Bab Al Aziziya. The pair met in Tripoli on September 5, 2008 - an occasion thought at the time to have signified reconciliation with the former enemy state


Gaddafi filled page after page with pictures of the former Secretary of State

 

[monicasilver]

'I love her very much': Photographs found in Gaddafi lair of Condoleezza Rice, the tyrant's 'darling black African woman'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ling-Condoleezza-Rice-lair.html#ixzz1W4u3pB2E


Rebels show off the album featuring former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, found in Colonel Gaddafi's residence, Bab Al Aziziya. The pair met in Tripoli on September 5, 2008 - an occasion thought at the time to have signified reconciliation with the former enemy state


Gaddafi filled page after page with pictures of the former Secretary of State

She is a classy lady.

Makes your skin crawl.