RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why?

RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 11:25:50 PM)
quote: They weren't involved in the matter at all. Thus, no authority to exercise military actions on their own. They needed some other plausible reason, and that was given by the UN. Article 1 doesn't have anything to do with the exercising of military power, it commits the signatories to attempting to find a peaceful resolution to conflicts they are involved in. As you pointed out, they weren't directly involved so Article 1 doesn't enter into it. The NATO Charter doesn't authorize or unauthorize military action, under any circumstances, that's not within its scope. It sets out certain circumstances under which the signatories are required to help each other. Beyond that NATO is free to act in any manner the member nations wish. The UN charter does, under certain specific circumstances authorize the use of military force, and it was under that authorization that NATO, in conjunction with France, decided to act. The fact that Obama notified Congress in compliance with the War Powers Resolution doesn't mean that the action was taken under the authority of that law. It was taken under the authority of another US law. One passed long before the WMR (on July 28, 1945); namely the United Nations Treaty. quote: Regardless of what NATO or the UN says, for the US, their treaties and resolutions are secondary to the US Constitution and US laws. Not quite accurate. The treaties ARE US law, that's what you keep seeming to miss. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 11:34:44 PM)
quote: So what's the story here, Lorebook? You were just skimming my posts with no retention until you found an error in a citation? Our actions in Libya were the declaration. Without any Congressional authority, President Obama waged a military campaign to bring down a foreign government, including a series of targeted attacks on their head of state.. No they weren't. There was no declaration of war. The military action was taken under the authority of a UN security council resolution, which makes it legal under both US and international law. Congress gave its approval back in 1945. I don't know any other way to say it, so I'll just say it: You are wrong. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 4:35:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Okely-dokely then. Precendents are being set by this administration. A "remote control" exception to the War Powers Act should be a troubling development. I'm sure it will be troubling to some of those now fully supportive, or unwilling to be seen out of step, when the political winds shift, and the Obama Doctrine is in the hands of a President with the wrong letter by his or her name. A lot of assumptions in that speech. You are troubled by the D by this president's name. I am troubled by the increasing willingness to embrace war since Reagan, with the exception of Clinton, and horrified by the "pre-emptive invasion" philosophy that set the stage for Bush Lite policies in the current administration (along with the "war on the cheap" Rumsfeld Doctrine that still prevails).

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:30:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Yeah, it was an incredibly stupid thing for Noriega to do. I caught it on CNN in the dayroom, and thought it was funnier than hell. I should have checked the alert roster, before laughing, and heading back to the room to wrap presents for my much anticipated first Christmas with family in a few years. I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi?

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:36:20 AM)
Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 10:20:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: They weren't involved in the matter at all. Thus, no authority to exercise military actions on their own. They needed some other plausible reason, and that was given by the UN. quote: Article 1 doesn't have anything to do with the exercising of military power, it commits the signatories to attempting to find a peaceful resolution to conflicts they are involved in. As you pointed out, they weren't directly involved so Article 1 doesn't enter into it. Article absolutely enters into it because we can't just indiscriminately involve ourselves in something that we (NATO members) have no "skin in the game." quote: The NATO Charter doesn't authorize or unauthorize military action, under any circumstances, that's not within its scope. It sets out certain circumstances under which the signatories are required to help each other. Beyond that NATO is free to act in any manner the member nations wish. If that is true, NATO is worthless in this instance. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. We do not have to join in any NATO action that isn't actually putting a NATO country in danger. quote: The UN charter does, under certain specific circumstances authorize the use of military force, and it was under that authorization that NATO, in conjunction with France, decided to act. So, the UN authorized NATO to act. Okay, but NATO did not have to act because none of the members were in any danger. Or, was NATO forced to undertake military action via the UN Resolution? quote: The fact that Obama notified Congress in compliance with the War Powers Resolution doesn't mean that the action was taken under the authority of that law. It was taken under the authority of another US law. One passed long before the WMR (on July 28, 1945); namely the United Nations Treaty. quote: Regardless of what NATO or the UN says, for the US, their treaties and resolutions are secondary to the US Constitution and US laws. Not quite accurate. The treaties ARE US law, that's what you keep seeming to miss. That does not put us in subordination to the UN. We are a sovereign country. We follow the US Constitution, first and foremost. If something does not follow our Constitution, it is null and void as far as we are concerned. The UN authorized NATO to use force in Libya. NATO agreed, meaning that NATO member countries decided to use force in Libya under the guise of authority of a UN Resolution. That wasn't even a Resolution that we had to follow if we didn't want to. Obama decided to join the attack. Now, we were authorized by the UN and NATO, but we weren't beholden to either. This was a choice made by President Obama and his advisers without consult from Congress. This falls under the War Powers Resolution since we had nothing forcing us to act. Obama didn't have authority under the WPR to conduct the actions he conducted. The military actions in Libya were not as a response to an attack or endangering of the US, any US territory, the US military or US Citizens. Obama had zero authority. Yes, he was told it was okay to go in, but that doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. He has to follow all the rules, not just the ones he thinks are legit. If there are laws that aren't legit, they need to be repealed, revoked, or in some other manner taken out of the books.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 10:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time. You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it. You have been called out.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 10:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time. You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it. You have been called out. I dont understand, I have repeatedly shown how it applied to libya and uganda, as well as it did to iraq and afghanistan. And I have asked you how it doesnt apply, no answer from you, other than to keep yakking about constitution and war powers act, none of which you have read, or understand. so call your own self out. But tell you what, you been wrong on the constitution, the war powers act, so lets make this a trifecta; here is the first of 2 specifics to the law: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons *he determines* planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. We're fucked if we ever get a woman president, hah? That is still law, no sunset, no recension, no deprecation, no repeal, no superseding.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 2:11:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time. You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it. You have been called out. I dont understand, I have repeatedly shown how it applied to libya and uganda, as well as it did to iraq and afghanistan. And I have asked you how it doesnt apply, no answer from you, other than to keep yakking about constitution and war powers act, none of which you have read, or understand. so call your own self out. But tell you what, you been wrong on the constitution, the war powers act, so lets make this a trifecta; here is the first of 2 specifics to the law: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons *he determines* planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. We're fucked if we ever get a woman president, hah? That is still law, no sunset, no recension, no deprecation, no repeal, no superseding. OMG!!! He actually explained himself!! Woo Hoo!! This is the first time I've seen any sort of explanation on how Libya or Uganda situations apply to 107-40. So, what did President Obama determine Uganda did? Did Uganda plan, authorize, commit or aid the terrorists in the attacks on 9/11? Are they harboring such organizations or persons that were involved in the 9/11 attacks? I have yet to see anything where the President has stated his determinations to that effect. 107-40 does not apply unless he actually has made that determination. I'm not going to type it all out, but 107-40 has nothing to do with our Libyan military actions either. Now, you can stop referring to 107-40 with regards to Libya and Uganda. It does not apply. And, I have read the US Constitution. I have read the War Powers Resolution. I have read the Federalist Papers. I'm still working on getting my very own copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers so I can read those, too.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 2:54:41 PM)
Well, hold on there uganda is not on the table at the moment, you conflated the two and have since your first response to me. And you are one of the only people on the planet earth that does not know that Khaddafi has continuously funded and trained terrorists within the organizations that attacked us 9/11. I have said and I will say again, there was a document of notification sent to the congress on uganda, which is within the directives in the war powers act. So far, I have proof, and all you have is an unsupported, and untutored opinion that hasn't emitted a fact.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 3:12:45 PM)
Oh God, I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. I'll give it one last try. Point by point. quote: Article absolutely enters into it because we can't just indiscriminately involve ourselves in something that we (NATO members) have no "skin in the game." Yes we can, the NATO charter does NOT limit NATO's ability to act in any way other than that members have to try to resolve things peacefully first, which they did. quote: If that is true, NATO is worthless in this instance. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. We do not have to join in any NATO action that isn't actually putting a NATO country in danger. We don't have to even then. Go back and read it again, it says we have to "help", up to and including the use of force, but not necessarily so. quote: So, the UN authorized NATO to act. Okay, but NATO did not have to act because none of the members were in any danger. Or, was NATO forced to undertake military action via the UN Resolution? Of course it was by choice, UN resolutions do not force anybody to act. I don't see a valid point here, we weren't forced into military action against Spain, or Mexico, or Canada or Guatamala or Granada or any of the many other place we have, so why is this any different? quote: That does not put us in subordination to the UN. We are a sovereign country. We follow the US Constitution, first and foremost. If something does not follow our Constitution, it is null and void as far as we are concerned. Not quite, it is only null and void if the SCOTUS rules it is, until then as long as it was passed properly it is valid, so the UN charter is valid US law. And furthermore, nothing in this situation -- or Uganda is violating anything in the Constitution. You keep saying it does, but you have yet to show us how it does. quote: This was a choice made by President Obama and his advisers without consult from Congress. Because he isn't required to consult with Congress. quote: This falls under the War Powers Resolution since we had nothing forcing us to act. No, it falls under the UN treaty. The WPR has nothing to do with being forced or not, it spells out the procedure for the President to follow when initiating military action not otherwise authorized. This action was otherwise authorized so the WPR has no bearing. quote: Obama didn't have authority under the WPR to conduct the actions he conducted. The military actions in Libya were not as a response to an attack or endangering of the US, any US territory, the US military or US Citizens. You're 100% correct, he didn't have the authority under the WPR for those exact reasons. But he didn't need authority under the WPR, he had authority under the UN treaty. quote: Obama had zero authority. For the umpteenth time, yes he did. I have showed you over and over exactly where he derived that authority. Repeatedly denying it when iy has been shown you are wrong doesn't make you right. You are beginning to make me think of this smiley: [sm=lalala.gif]. quote: He has to follow all the rules, not just the ones he thinks are legit. He did, which law did he fail to follow, and don't say the WPR because it doesn't apply. quote: If there are laws that aren't legit, they need to be repealed, revoked, or in some other manner taken out of the books. Exactly. And since the UN treaty hasn't been abrogated, it is still the law, and under that law the President was fully authorized to act in the manner he did. I'm pretty sure you'll just ignore everything I wrote and I'm tired of repeating myself, so this is the last time I'll address this issue with you. If you haven't understood it by now, it will serve no purpose to continue, you never will understand it. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 3:25:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time. You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it. You have been called out. I dont understand, I have repeatedly shown how it applied to libya and uganda, as well as it did to iraq and afghanistan. And I have asked you how it doesnt apply, no answer from you, other than to keep yakking about constitution and war powers act, none of which you have read, or understand. so call your own self out. But tell you what, you been wrong on the constitution, the war powers act, so lets make this a trifecta; here is the first of 2 specifics to the law: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons *he determines* planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. We're fucked if we ever get a woman president, hah? That is still law, no sunset, no recension, no deprecation, no repeal, no superseding. OMG!!! He actually explained himself!! Woo Hoo!! This is the first time I've seen any sort of explanation on how Libya or Uganda situations apply to 107-40. So, what did President Obama determine Uganda did? Did Uganda plan, authorize, commit or aid the terrorists in the attacks on 9/11? Are they harboring such organizations or persons that were involved in the 9/11 attacks? I have yet to see anything where the President has stated his determinations to that effect. 107-40 does not apply unless he actually has made that determination. I'm not going to type it all out, but 107-40 has nothing to do with our Libyan military actions either. Now, you can stop referring to 107-40 with regards to Libya and Uganda. It does not apply. And, I have read the US Constitution. I have read the War Powers Resolution. I have read the Federalist Papers. I'm still working on getting my very own copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers so I can read those, too. Ok, now you explain how this document relates to Iraq since we have proof that they did not have a thing to do with 9/11 nor did they harbor or organize or train any group associated with it. And knew that none of those things were true at the time of the documents signing. you have been called out for at least the 3rd time.

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 5:28:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time. You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it. You have been called out. I dont understand, I have repeatedly shown how it applied to libya and uganda, as well as it did to iraq and afghanistan. And I have asked you how it doesnt apply, no answer from you, other than to keep yakking about constitution and war powers act, none of which you have read, or understand. so call your own self out. But tell you what, you been wrong on the constitution, the war powers act, so lets make this a trifecta; here is the first of 2 specifics to the law: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons *he determines* planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. We're fucked if we ever get a woman president, hah? That is still law, no sunset, no recension, no deprecation, no repeal, no superseding. OMG!!! He actually explained himself!! Woo Hoo!! This is the first time I've seen any sort of explanation on how Libya or Uganda situations apply to 107-40. So, what did President Obama determine Uganda did? Did Uganda plan, authorize, commit or aid the terrorists in the attacks on 9/11? Are they harboring such organizations or persons that were involved in the 9/11 attacks? I have yet to see anything where the President has stated his determinations to that effect. 107-40 does not apply unless he actually has made that determination. I'm not going to type it all out, but 107-40 has nothing to do with our Libyan military actions either. Now, you can stop referring to 107-40 with regards to Libya and Uganda. It does not apply. And, I have read the US Constitution. I have read the War Powers Resolution. I have read the Federalist Papers. I'm still working on getting my very own copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers so I can read those, too. Dude.....what`s your problem.......gaddafi killed 189 Americans......he was a terrorist scumbag. What more do you need?

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 6:14:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? Well perhaps while you wait, Ken, take yourself back over to the space colonization thread and answer the questions put to you there?

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 6:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? I have *always* maintained that the Noriega situation was illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation under the pretense of charging its head of state with a "crime" that exists in our law. The trouble is (I could be wrong about this but I don't think I am): until we dragged his ass back to the US, he had never set foot on our soil. How can he have broken one of our laws? Peace and comfort, Michael

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 6:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You are troubled by the D by this president's name. No, I'm troubled by the short-sighted "Duh," in his policies, Muse. Has NPR had anything on the coup in neighboring Mali, where the influx of former Libyan weapons cranked their civil war up to 11?

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 7:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? I have *always* maintained that the Noriega situation was illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation under the pretense of charging its head of state with a "crime" that exists in our law. The trouble is (I could be wrong about this but I don't think I am): until we dragged his ass back to the US, he had never set foot on our soil. How can he have broken one of our laws? Peace and comfort, Michael I'm glad someone else gets it.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 7:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? I have *always* maintained that the Noriega situation was illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation under the pretense of charging its head of state with a "crime" that exists in our law. The trouble is (I could be wrong about this but I don't think I am): until we dragged his ass back to the US, he had never set foot on our soil. How can he have broken one of our laws? Peace and comfort, Michael I'm glad someone else gets it. You're both missing the point of what happened in Panama. Unfortunately, I'm currently engaged in metaphorically flipping Ken the bird for the "waiting," snark. Maybe somebody else with a clear vision of just how well Bush I played that particular hand of geopolitical poker will come along, before I finish up the 60 new levels of electronic crack I downloaded this evening.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? Well perhaps while you wait, Ken, take yourself back over to the space colonization thread and answer the questions put to you there? What thread? And just to make clear if you are demanding a quid pro quo I demand you answer the above question fully and to my satisfaction no bullshit evasions and no running away.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? I have *always* maintained that the Noriega situation was illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation under the pretense of charging its head of state with a "crime" that exists in our law. The trouble is (I could be wrong about this but I don't think I am): until we dragged his ass back to the US, he had never set foot on our soil. How can he have broken one of our laws? Noreiga had been in the country quite a lot. He received some training in fort bragg early in his career and was frquently in both Miami and NYC before his indictment.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.234375