quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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?

quote:

Two things put the Panama operation into a completely different class than Libya. The first (and this should be a "duh," even for the special needs kid who gathers up the shopping carts at the local grocery store) is certain waterway running through the country. The Panama Canal was more than enough as a national security interest to put it on Bush's plate, and Noriega let himself be baited into making an incredibly rash and foolish statement about the state of relations between our countries.

Now I do know how much you love to argue semantics

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

But according to you none of that is as bad as a drug dealer running Panama. Is that really your argument?

No, and I've long since learned there is no point trying to work out where you come up with such fabrications.

Goodbye, Ken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

Bush did get Congressional approval prior to attacking Iraq, though.

(there is the document, and as it happens he didnt, since they had nothing to do with 9/11).

quote:

quote:

Bush had the authority because he determined...

(and what has Obama (a he) determined?)

quote:

Two days ago President Obama authorized the deployment to Uganda of approximately 100 combat-equipped U.S. forces to help regional forces “remove from the battlefield” – meaning capture or kill – Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and senior leaders of the LRA.
The president said that for more than two decades the LRA has been responsible for having “murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa” and continues to “commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security.”

quote:

quote:

The War Powers Resolution has strict guidelines regarding when the President is allowed to send troops in somewhere prior to notifying Congress. He then has to notify Congress within 48 hours of the onset of military action. I am not disputing that he has notified Congress. He notified Congress about Libya within the 48 hours, too. My allegations are that he did not have standing to order the troops in. His decisions in both cases do not stand up to the War Powers Resolution requirements.

 
(uh, use any credible text you want of the war powers resolution, but this one is good as any, although unless you want to wade thru USC at the gov site, cornell is the bomb)
There is no 48 hours required, so you are still proving you haven't read it. 

quote:

50 USC § 1543 - REPORTING REQUIREMENT
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) Other information reported
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
(c) Periodic reports; semiannual requirement
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

quote:

see section 8(1) regarding treaties (Libya-Nato situation)
You may not remember how it was splashed in the media that McCain-Kerry had an authorization for Libya for him waiting to sign (and counted up and guarenteed votes to pass) upon his asking for it.
He said, I don't need it, Nato-Treaty deal, fellas. No thanks.

quote:

the 107-40 is argumentum ad fantasy, like all of your arguments here are (the 48 hours being one example), perhaps my reductio ad absurdum is lost because of  by my poor typing.  It has nothing to do with Libya, and never did, as it has nothing to do with Uganda, nor Iraq nor Afghanistan.   But believe me, a legal argument could be made....It was successful in Iraq, wasn't it?  Even though that is not in keeping with what they thought they were authorizing.
In any case, he has sent the notification to congress regarding Uganda....hedging his bets no doubt....

quote:

   
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations 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.

(thats an excerpt, and what I think he will use on this one).   this is a situation in which imminent involvement in hostilities is not clearly indicated by the circumstances. That is my take on it, since he was at pains to call them advisors.  They went in October 15th, and how many are dead?   How many have actually engaged in battle?  How many wounded?  got the clap?  fell down the stairs drunk? misquito bites, anything? Unless you have an actual answer to that question above zero, your imminent requirement clearly delineated in that law is not gonna hunt.  So, we are at loggerheads, he is clearly adhering to the letter of the War Powers Act.   

quote:

50 USC § 1541 - PURPOSE AND POLICY
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war

on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding

requested by the President to take the necessary actions against

international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including

those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September

11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue

to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists

and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,

or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or

harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to

take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international

terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in

the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force

(Public Law 107–40); and

 

So, this here is right out of your law, an obiter dictum on the 107-40 which you might need to consider the purpose of a comma before the word including, or have an english teacher hep you to it....looks like 107-40 INTENDS to apply to acts of terrorism as determined by a male president.  

 

OK, I get it, you cant read.

 

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

 

And you are wrong on the Nato Treaty.   As has been explained to you repeatedly, you are runing around chasing your tail and your position is frankly bankrupt.

 

It is clear that you ignore any law that has been presented you in the course of this buncombe about war powers acts, which do not apply, then you go on to prove that public law 107-40 is the law that can be claimed for any act of terroism (as defined by a male president) (because it is the 'war on terror' law, when you went out into the world and actually got the SEPARATE  authorization for Iraq, created sometime distant from that law. 

 

There is no substantial use of troops in either Libya or Uganda.

 

You need to slow down and read, not pick and chose a sentence fragment of a clause and tell everyone this means what I say it means, and expect other than to be laughed at.  

quote:

Considering that there is no DoW or statutory authorization being pursued

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war

on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding

requested by the President to take the necessary actions against

international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including

those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September

11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue

to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists

and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,

or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or

harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to

take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international

terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in

the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force

(Public Law 107–40); and

 

So, this here is right out of your law, an obiter dictum on the 107-40 which you might need to consider the purpose of a comma before the word including, or have an english teacher hep you to it....looks like 107-40 INTENDS to apply to acts of terrorism as determined by a male president.  

 

OK, I get it, you cant read.

quote:

 

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

 

And you are wrong on the Nato Treaty.   As has been explained to you repeatedly, you are runing around chasing your tail and your position is frankly bankrupt.

 

It is clear that you ignore any law that has been presented you in the course of this buncombe about war powers acts, which do not apply, then you go on to prove that public law 107-40 is the law that can be claimed for any act of terroism (as defined by a male president) (because it is the 'war on terror' law, when you went out into the world and actually got the SEPARATE  authorization for Iraq, created sometime distant from that law. 

 

There is no substantial use of troops in either Libya or Uganda.

 

You need to slow down and read, not pick and chose a sentence fragment of a clause and tell everyone this means what I say it means, and expect other than to be laughed at.  

quote:

50 USC § 1543 - REPORTING REQUIREMENT
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours

quote:

And, I have also explained why those laws don't apply. No one has rebutted my explanations other than to say that I am wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Condition 3 contains the 48 hours demand, please learn to read, only under condition 3 is there a clear and present need to notify congress within 48 hours.  It does not apply to the rest of the document or it would be worded more like:

quote:

Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

quote:

I picked and chose nothing. Thanks for pointing out where you are wrong, he did not violate any war powers act in that clause either.

quote:

You have not yet shown how the war powers act applies to Uganda or Libya. You have not shown anything of substance, in fact.  You have poorly constructed arguments that are easily disprovable as without foundation.

quote:

You have been provided proof it does not apply, and that Libya was a Nato treaty event.

quote:

Now, you can disagree all you want, but you havent presented a cogent and accurate argument in support of your  fantasy claims.

quote:

Here is, while not a proof, a damning indictment of your position.  With all the neo-cons and teabaggers in the congress, not one impeachment proceeding or lawsuit has went forward.

quote:

This either speaks to their ineptitude, their willingness to permit the slow undoing of our constitution, or the fact that you are chasing ghosties.
I cannot concieve of a fourth option, but entertain me.....  

quote:

Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;  (announced some days before sending advisors there and letter sent, mid-October and you have yet to come up with the imminent involvement in hostilities clearly indicated by the circumstances, since nobody has gotten even a case of the clap there so it does not apply)
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; (advisors sent to advise the troops) a damnable exception but an exception nonetheless.  (the exception at the very least negates this clause.)

 or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; (this clearly does not apply in any way.)

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoreBook

quote:

And, I have also explained why those laws don't apply. No one has rebutted my explanations other than to say that I am wrong.

First of all, no you haven't. You haven't explained anything along those lines. All you have said on the topic is that
1. We follow the Constitution first and foremost (Correct, and nothing has been done that in any manner violates anything in the Constitution)
2. We follow US law (Correct, US laws such as the UN Treaty)
3. We were not forced to follow the UN resolution (Correct but it has no bearing on the topic and certainly doesn't explain why the UN Treaty doesn't apply)
4. Claimed that Obama didn't have the required "specific statutory authorization," required in the WPR (He clearly did, there was a valid Security Council Resolution in place, and according to both the Constitution and US law, that qualifies as statutory authorization)

quote:

Here is your chance. Please explain exactly why the UN Treaty (a valid US law passed by the body Constitutionally empowered to do so) does not apply to Libya?

quote:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED


• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
  
  AND FOR THESE ENDS
  
  
• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
  
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
  
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples

CHAPTER I
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

quote:

Chapter I
Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

quote:

Chapter VII

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
LOL.  You are almost closing in, I will lead you around to it, as I said it is an agumentem ad fantasy, and you are being treated to a reductio ad absurdum.
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces  (uh, advisors were sent to train).
SO (1) stands by itself, it is singularly a necessary and sufficient condition, and either (2) OR (3) can apply, and there is no language that would prevent them ALL from applying, except none of them apply in this case.

quote:

Next, while you learn to do some research, cuz you are very very far away from an effective argument yet....On what date did Obamas administration send down a document to the congress on this matter (cuz they did).  Just wondering if it was in 48 hours of what the 15th? Oh that was the public announcement and the troops didnt arrive till a couple days later, but as I say, not that this 48 hours thing matters, clearly the statute paragraph has not come into play since ZERO of the 3 conditions have occurred.

quote:

so we got (3) out of the way, (no substantial increase) by any measure....

quote:

we now turn our attention to (2) oh, there is that vexing exception....

quote:

Hows about you make the case for number (1) now, since the introduction in mid-October, cuz I am sure you have anecdotal evidence that someone caught the clap from a hysterical local whore, necessitating the activation of clause one.

quote:

And you clearly showed nothing regarding Nato treaties, Lorebook wiped the screen with you.

quote:

Until Actions in Article 41 have been attempted, Article 42 doesn't come into force anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
LOL.  You are almost closing in, I will lead you around to it, as I said it is an agumentem ad fantasy, and you are being treated to a reductio ad absurdum.
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces  (uh, advisors were sent to train).
SO (1) stands by itself, it is singularly a necessary and sufficient condition, and either (2) OR (3) can apply, and there is no language that would prevent them ALL from applying, except none of them apply in this case.

Wrong. The 3 conditions are separate from each other. If 1 stood by itself, there would have been an "and" following the semi-colon at the end of 1. There wasn't/isn't. Thus, only one of the three listed conditions need apply to effect the 48 hour reporting requirement.

And conjoins.   that would conjoint 1 and two.  I agree they are separate, IF any one of the three is the case; THEN;  the following must be done within 48 hours; ELSE; nothing.

quote:

Next, while you learn to do some research, cuz you are very very far away from an effective argument yet....On what date did Obamas administration send down a document to the congress on this matter (cuz they did).  Just wondering if it was in 48 hours of what the 15th? Oh that was the public announcement and the troops didnt arrive till a couple days later, but as I say, not that this 48 hours thing matters, clearly the statute paragraph has not come into play since ZERO of the 3 conditions have occurred.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-formally-notifies-congress-of-libya-action/1#.T23x5jEgfwo
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/Did-Obama-Violate-War-Powers-Resolution.htm


Some dickwiggle opinion piece is no credibile anthing.

quote:

so we got (3) out of the way, (no substantial increase) by any measure....

0 to anything is substantial. (words cannot mean what you want them to mean,. Investigate the dictionary).

quote:

we now turn our attention to (2) oh, there is that vexing exception....

Regardless of who the President is calling "advisors," the soldiers sent in are trained and geared for combat. Calling them "Jello® Brand Pudding Pops" does not make them Jello® Brand Pudding Pops. (leave go of the vermiform argument, there is not a soldier in the world of any nation that is not trained and geared for combat).  You can call all dogs trained and geared for combat, but you haven't a leg to stand on, they are fully within the exception. perhaps a dictionary would be useful to determine the multisyllable reasonable man meaning of substantial and except.)  

quote:

Hows about you make the case for number (1) now, since the introduction in mid-October, cuz I am sure you have anecdotal evidence that someone caught the clap from a hysterical local whore, necessitating the activation of clause one.

I would consider - and it could just be me - that launching missiles into a country is hostile. Again, that could just be me.  (we have launched missles into Uganda, stop the presses alert the media)

quote:

And you clearly showed nothing regarding Nato treaties, Lorebook wiped the screen with you.

At no point in time did LoreBook wipe anything with me. Her rebuttals amount to "nuh uh."

Since we've all passed the age of the average 2nd grader, that type of response just isn't really worth anything.