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.
Apparently Reagan, the darling of the Republicans, did not get authorization from congress before bombing Libya!!! Did Reagan set precedence for this?
No truman id in modern times but its was doen many times before that without congresss decalrig war.I don't even think Obama is i rouble for that. Its his not consulting congress ;not telling the truth on justwhat or aim is and the total involvement of our forces. Comparitively Bush was up front with teh aim and consulted the congress with cogressional leaders having the intelligecne reports whether they admit they understood or not.We can even clear say what the rebels aim is and who leads them.
I would contend that imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances does not mean, hey, the president really, really wants to attack this guy, even though he offers zero threat to our nation our our citizens, cuz he disagrees with his policies.
I would contend that it means
1. we declare war
2. our President goes to congress and gets authorization (statutory authority)
3. America gets attacked....
any of those three are qualifications according to the law.
"hey, the president really, really wants to attack this guy, even though he offers zero threat to our nation our our citizens, cuz he disagrees with his policies" actually falls under the second option above....
and can be done quite easily.
however, it does not fall under option 3 which is the option Obama has used to do this.... bad form... against the law... unconstitutional...et al.... and needs to be cleaned up by congress....
I still say we are right to be there, it is good the French are going to be 'in charge' and no American Troops will be "In-country".
And Congress has the next 60 days to either give him authorization or require him to stop.
your ignoring me HD... and not exactly.
He has to stop if congress does nothing in 60 days. Congress can order him to stop at any time. congress can conversly give him statutory cover.
Congress could at this point (but they wont and I dont think they should) bring articles of impeachement...
Comparitively Bush was up front with teh aim and consulted the congress with cogressional leaders having the intelligecne reports whether they admit they understood or not.We can even clear say what the rebels aim is and who leads them.
Not to burst your bubble on W... but how about when he committed American forces to:
Macedonia (against Albanian Rebels) in 2001
The Philippines (combat missions against Abu Sayyaf in the Sulu Archipelago) in 2002
Colombia (to protect an oil pipeline against rebels) in 2003
Liberia (during the civil war there) in 2003
Haiti (during the ouster of Aristide) in 2004-5
Pakistan (a large number of covert operations) beginning in 2005
Somalia (missile strikes and AC-130 gunships) in 2006
Syria (special forces raid) in 2008
Actually... I'm not ignoring you. I'm just on a number of different threads.
I disagree with you on three grounds.
First... the WPR is deliberately ambiguous and problematic in terms of defining the specific circumstances in which the president can act. I know you disagree... but I would ask you to note the following:
Twice the act specifies that it applies to "situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated." Certainly... imminent hostilities cannot require that an attack on the US have already taken place. In fact as I recall (correct me if I am wrong) the Bush Doctrine was explicitly dependent on the legitimacy of preemptive commision of US military forces even when no actual attack had yet taken place.
Secondly, I would ask you to consider what are the different sort of actions that might qualify as "an attack." Might a cyber attack justify the use of such force? An attack on foreign soil or foreign assets such as the Disco Bombing in Germany or the Lockerbee attack? How about an attack on foreign assets that interrupt our economic interests, such as our supply of oil? What exactly are the US interests that must be "attacked" to justify such an intervention?
And third... what exactly are the relevant treaty obligations between us and the British? The French? The UN? I would suggest that cover could be conceivably be found in any number of different treaty obligations... explicit or implied.
And of course, none of this addresses the simple possibility that the WPR could be unconstitutional on its face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
He has to stop if congress does nothing in 60 days. Congress can order him to stop at any time. congress can conversly give him statutory cover.
Congress could at this point (but they wont and I dont think they should) bring articles of impeachement...
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Along with the other criteria, it is crystal clear.
Actually... I'm not ignoring you. I'm just on a number of different threads.
I disagree with you on three grounds.
First... the WPR is deliberately ambiguous and problematic in terms of defining the specific circumstances in which the president can act. I know you disagree... but I would ask you to note the following:
Twice the act specifies that it applies to "situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated." Certainly... imminent hostilities cannot require that an attack on the US have already taken place. In fact as I recall (correct me if I am wrong) the Bush Doctrine was explicitly dependent on the legitimacy of preemptive commision of US military forces even when no actual attack had yet taken place.
Secondly, I would ask you to consider what are the different sort of actions that might qualify as "an attack." Might a cyber attack justify the use of such force? An attack on foreign soil or foreign assets such as the Disco Bombing in Germany or the Lockerbee attack? How about an attack on foreign assets that interrupt our economic interests, such as our supply of oil? What exactly are the US interests that must be "attacked" to justify such an intervention?
And third... what exactly are the relevant treaty obligations between us and the British? The French? The UN? I would suggest that cover could be conceivably be found in any number of different treaty obligations... explicit or implied.
And of course, none of this addresses the simple possibility that the WPR could be unconstitutional on its face.
All agreed.
I hope this conversation moves forward... its rare that an actual intelegent discussion breaks out on C-D....or any forum for that matter... hee hee...
Im enjoying this one!
Starting at the bottom, all I can really say is that the WPR has been in place for a lot of years and has never been ruled unconstitutional... dont know if it has been challenged in court but until the SCOTUS rules it so, it is the law of the land. I can live with that.
Now I will look at the act again for: "situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated."
you may have a point... however, i still think the hurdel remains in the first section (1541) that lays out when a president can act. according to that section, only in the case of attack (you make good points on what constitutes an attack) can a president act.
Not to burst your bubble on W... but how about when he committed American forces to:
Macedonia (against Albanian Rebels) in 2001
The Philippines (combat missions against Abu Sayyaf in the Sulu Archipelago) in 2002
Colombia (to protect an oil pipeline against rebels) in 2003
Liberia (during the civil war there) in 2003
Haiti (during the ouster of Aristide) in 2004-5
Pakistan (a large number of covert operations) beginning in 2005
Somalia (missile strikes and AC-130 gunships) in 2006
Syria (special forces raid) in 2008
I personally don't give Bush a pass and neither do I Obama Clinton Reagan carter LBJ Nixon JFK IKE.....
This is a kicker... We were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. We go hit the shores of Normandy. What had Germany done to us at that point.
OK, what's the specific statutory authorization that Obama has?
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.
