Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He just lost my vote. As much as we may not like Qaddafi, we do not have any right to interfere with a military intervention.
You mean you prefer a leader who hides behind a skirtand gives their despotic leaders the benefit of the doubt? Like the kind you were accusing President Obama to be a few days ago?
Apparently Reagan, the darling of the Republicans, did not get authorization from congress before bombing Libya!!! Did Reagan set precedence for this?
In 1986, Libya engaged in a terrorist attack that killed Americans, in 2011 Libya is not a threat to the US did not kill any Americans. 0bama is not responding to threats against the US, he just does not agree with how Qaddafi is defending his country during a civil war.
But only your interpretation of it requires that wording to also be actively stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
But it is still illegal.
Moving the goalposts again?
If you want to make that case, then please do so. But as far as the thread is concerned (refresh yourself on the topic) it is pretty clear that President Obama is not violating the War Powers Resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
America was not under any immediate threat nor was attacked. That is what the ACT is about. AMERICA BEING ATTACKED and we don't have the time to go to Congress.
Your opinion on that issue is noted. But in this thread we have watched you frantically run around making false assertions in your effort to defend it. You have claimed the act said nothing about "48 hours" or "60 days" when it clearly does. You then insisted (with a blissful hypocrisy that I rarely witness in a single sentence) that the 48 hour requirement was "prior". And then you have asserted "common sense" that was neither common nor sensible to dig out from under that self refutation.
It is completely a puzzle as what you actually stand for... other than hating this particular president.
What kind of act would have such a stipulation if it would be immediately known (even with the technology available in 1973) by the press that a military action was taking place in that timeframe? That act assumed that congress lives under a rock?
Perhaps you should actually read the Resolution and get a handle on the purpose and the content of the notification. It is not to inform an unaware Congress that hostilities have commenced. It is to inform on the rationale for the action, and thus begin the process of engaging Congress's participation, review and (hopefully) consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
It's about as stupid as the interpretation that only militia should be allowed to bear arms.
The interpretation appears to be entirely original with you.
Whatever, the wording is vague. But it is still illegal. America was not under any immediate threat nor was attacked. That is what the ACT is about. AMERICA BEING ATTACKED and we don't have the time to go to Congress.
The wording is anything but vague, the receptors, on the other hand...?
But only your interpretation of it requires that wording to also be actively stupid.
Moving the goalposts again?
If you want to make that case, then please do so. But as far as the thread is concerned (refresh yourself on the topic) it is pretty clear that President Obama is not violating the War Powers Resolution.
Your opinion on that issue is noted. But in this thread we have watched you frantically run around making false assertions in your effort to defend it. You have claimed the act said nothing about "48 hours" or "60 days" when it clearly does. You then insisted (with a blissful hypocrisy that I rarely witness in a single sentence) that the 48 hour requirement was "prior". And then you have asserted "common sense" that was neither common nor sensible to dig out from under that self refutation.
It is completely a puzzle as what you actually stand for... other than hating this particular president.
Where is the "imminent threat" mentioned by the War Powers Act? Unless I'm missing something, I believe the president cannot engage US military forces unless we have been attacked or our nation is under imminent threat of an attack.
Where is the "imminent threat" mentioned by the War Powers Act? Unless I'm missing something, I believe the president cannot engage US military forces unless we have been attacked or our nation is under imminent threat of an attack.
Again... and I emphasize that this is not an accident... the phrase "imminent threat" was deliberately vague in order to protect the Resolution from an immediate challenge on grounds of it being a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers.
If Congress now concludes that there was no "imminent threat," then it can refuse to authorize the commitment of those forces beyond the 60 day period.
And in this way, the WPR is complied with perfectly by all parties.
Obama is not responding to threats against the US, he just does not agree with how Qaddafi is defending his country during a civil war.
So, what did Qaddafi do, in a matter of days, from being a despotic leader to a guy defending his country... perhaps everything with you rests on which direction President Obama takes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
