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

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And nothing has changed in that since the war powers act. There is no case of protracted whatever that didnt get approval. So you are telling us what we already said the war powers act was and doing it repeatedly. I miss the point, if any. No, you're purposely not seeing the point. Since the War Powers Act, there are guidelines established for what the president *must* do if he initiates military action of his own volition. President Obama has failed to do that. You can't argue that someone broke a law that wasn't in existence. The law is there and the Obama administration dropped the ball. You've got Lucky Leo out there, dodging questions about the president seeking congressional approval which the president is *required* to do. he's claiming that all the president needs is the approval of NATO or the UN. Huh? Another vote for globalism bullshit. The point is that president Obama sent our troops somewhere (which he absolutely has the power to do) and didn't follow the law, after he did so. He's claiming the right to do something (which he absolutely has) without meeting his responsibilities. When you're wrong, you're wrong and the president dropped the ball, in this case. There's not even a disagreement that he didn't do what he was required to do (except from the Obama apologists that insist the man walks on water and farts rose petals). Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:36:33 PM)
You miss the point entirely. Perhaps if you read the war powers act, and understood it, you would have some insight into this conversation. The point is that president Obama sent our troops somewhere (which he absolutely has the power to do) and didn't follow the law, after he did so. He's claiming the right to do something (which he absolutely has) without meeting his responsibilities. I am unaware of where this happened. It has never been publicized. Did we hit trinidad an tobago some years ago and have been ensconsed there, and you got that on the shortwave or what? Delineate how and where this happened with the proper law for the proper case (or perhaps cases) that he has violated. Remeber that the law goes in order and is interpreted in order, that is: Article in the constitution (and what branch it is set forth under). Amendment USC and so on. Because you started this (or whoever the op was) regarding Uganda and congress got their report.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:37:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I won't look all of those up but I'm pretty certain that the president(s) sought and recieved congressional approval under the War Powers Act. This, of course, was the case with Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia, and Bosnia, at least. The War Powers act was passed in 1973 in response to the end of Vietnam. So clearly the President didn't follow it in 1965. Yes. I know that. Did the presidents seek and get congressional approval or did they start their own dictatorship? Whether the WPA was in effect or not, if the president initiated a military action that wound up being protracted, congressional approval would have to be given, even in a passive way, by congress passing bills to allocate funds for such an action. Then what's your beef. Congress did not cut off funding for Libya or Uganda.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 1:44:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And nothing has changed in that since the war powers act. There is no case of protracted whatever that didnt get approval. So you are telling us what we already said the war powers act was and doing it repeatedly. I miss the point, if any. No, you're purposely not seeing the point. Since the War Powers Act, there are guidelines established for what the president *must* do if he initiates military action of his own volition. President Obama has failed to do that. You can't argue that someone broke a law that wasn't in existence. The law is there and the Obama administration dropped the ball. You've got Lucky Leo out there, dodging questions about the president seeking congressional approval which the president is *required* to do. he's claiming that all the president needs is the approval of NATO or the UN. Huh? Another vote for globalism bullshit. The point is that president Obama sent our troops somewhere (which he absolutely has the power to do) and didn't follow the law, after he did so. He's claiming the right to do something (which he absolutely has) without meeting his responsibilities. When you're wrong, you're wrong and the president dropped the ball, in this case. There's not even a disagreement that he didn't do what he was required to do (except from the Obama apologists that insist the man walks on water and farts rose petals). Peace and comfort, Michael No you misunderstand. The War Powers Act is widely held to be unconstitutional and has never been enforced or challenged because both sides don't want the fight. Here is a 2004 report on the law and it makes clear no President has accepted it as Constitutional since it was passed over Nixon's veto. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 6:10:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: According to the charter, NATO can only authorize military action itself when a member is under attack or in danger of being attacked. Where? Which article limits NATO's ability to authorize or engage in military action? You quoted 3 articles. Article 1 says they have to try find a peaceful resolution first if possible. Nothing about what they can or can't do after that has been tried. Article 3 says that they'll consult with each other when one member feels they have been threatened. Nothing about what they can or can't do in the way of military action. And Article 7 says that the members' rights obligations as UN members isn't altered by being NATO members. Nothing about what they can or can't do in the way of military action. So which of the Articles you quoted backs up your claim? Article 1. quote: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. 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: Your premise is invalid, because you are claiming the entire Libyan action is unconstitutional, and it clearly wasn't. The question of whether or not any individual act or bombing was justified within the scope of the UN resolution isn't relevant to that question. The action in Libya was 100% legal and constitutional. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Thus, when the NATO started bombing tanks that were not actively fighting, it was not truly in accordance with the UN resolution. The asset freeze was really a non-military action. The No-Fly Zone was completed within hours of the onset of actions. Enforcement of the Arms embargo would not include attacking military installations and command structures. The only way that it can be construed that the UN Resolution was supported by the continued actions of NATO is in Protection of Civilians. What is one to do when the "civilians" are rebels against the sovereign government? Are they not "enemy combatants?" Are they still "civilians" needing to be defended? Notice how my only comment on the No Fly Zone was that it was in place within hours? Does that sound like I was arguing against it? Shall we also add into it that Obama felt he did need to follow the War Powers Resolution by delivering to Congress notification that sent some of our military into combat? He followed that part of the Resolution and got the notification in within 48 hours. Regardless of what NATO or the UN says, for the US, their treaties and resolutions are secondary to the US Constitution and US laws.

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 6:30:07 PM)
IMHO....the thing that`s shifting is the precedent. The President isn`t breaking any laws, using the methods in place now.But President Obama is doing things that were not done in the past,ei.,the use of drone spies and killer-drones to go after al-queda types. We face threats that the folks who wrote the Constitution never dreamed of or didn`t even exist. Saying we must now use a strict reading today is ridiculous and not even possible,really.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 6:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Well, you see, since war wasn't declared, it doesn't really matter who has the authority to declare war. 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.

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 7:36:47 PM)
Noreiga.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 7:49:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Noreiga. You mean the guy who went on TV and declared that a state of war existed between his country and ours?

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:17:45 PM)
Oh. So a foreign leader declares war for us. Got it.

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:20:22 PM)
Granada.....

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:28:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Oh. So a foreign leader declares war for us. Got it. Do you wanna shift out of Obamabot mode, and think that one through, Muse?

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:33:21 PM)
You want to? Korea ring a bell? You've become nothing but a bot. And you used to be smart.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:40:38 PM)
No go, Muse, and it saddens me to see you sinking to that level.

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 8:45:36 PM)
Back at ya.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:01:44 PM)
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.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:12:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I certainly see it, Michael, and I hope he catches some hell over it. Panetta sitting there in front of the committee though, claiming that the legal authority for the US to go to war comes from NATO or the UN, and they just need to advise Congress about what they are up to... As the Congressman said, breathtaking. As I have noted in the past, a treaty of mutual defense is a declaration of war addressed ' to whom it may concern', We have current in force treaties of mutual defense, duly ratified by the Senate, with Nato and the United Nations, and those treaties do not say that we would 'consider' whether to respond. So, yes, war has been declared. Then there is the War Powers act which allows the President to make short term emergency deployments prior to gaining Congressional approval. Again, war was declared. But this means nothing to the Radicals, of course since all they care about is seizing power. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:20:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 IMHO....the thing that`s shifting is the precedent. The President isn`t breaking any laws, using the methods in place now.But President Obama is doing things that were not done in the past,ei.,the use of drone spies and killer-drones to go after al-queda types. We face threats that the folks who wrote the Constitution never dreamed of or didn`t even exist. Saying we must now use a strict reading today is ridiculous and not even possible,really. Oh? And how is the employment of a tactical weapon in a foreign war a threat to Constitution? Is Washington coming under 'friendly fire'? That's happening here is you hate Obama, so anything he does is a monstrous act, treasonous on its face. That doesn't make it so. [sm=bury.gif]

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Noreiga. You mean the guy who went on TV and declared that a state of war existed between his country and ours? But the guy who actually attacked us and recruited our own citizens to engage in a campaign of terror against us was off limits? WHAT THE HOLY FLAMING FUCK?

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/21/2012 9:59:36 PM)
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.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375