The US attacks yet another country that has not attacked us

[Jamie B]

any of you young ones familiar with the story of how the shah took over from his dad?  and the us role?

Russians and Brits in the early 40's, I believe,

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

story i was told was patricide

[Jamisjockey]

Awesome.  Now the Arab League is pissed off that we're actually enforcing the no fly zone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803222

[Fitz]

Wait... aren't they the ones who asked for it in the first place?!

[Jamisjockey]

Wait... aren't they the ones who asked for it in the first place?!

I think they wanted a sternly worded letter telling Gaddafi to stop using airplanes against his people.
They didn't really mean for us to use weapons against his air defenses and C&C...
(Just further proof this was a stupid idea to begin with....)

[Fitz]

Just found this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-asks-un-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya/2011/03/12/ABoie0R_story.html

They asked the UN for the no fly zone.

Did they think that a no fly zone can be accomplished without the destruction of air defenses?

[Jamisjockey]

Just found this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-asks-un-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya/2011/03/12/ABoie0R_story.html

They asked the UN for the no fly zone.

Did they think that a no fly zone can be accomplished without the destruction of air defenses?

Only as long as we use the special missles that completely spare civilian casualties and only destroy the actual hardware! 

[Jamie B]

Awesome.  Now the Arab League is pissed off that we're actually enforcing the no fly zone.

Screw them - they just need to shut up and pump more oil for us.

We should have kept Kuwait the last time.

[griz]

The reason we need consistency in our decisions that we claim are based on morality is so we can earn some respect instead of being feared.  All the talk about saving civilians and American interests is obviously just an attempt at justification if we are not consistent.  The ones who are effectively saying “we can kill whoever we want to kill because we are powerful” are at least honest.  I would call it immoral, but honest.

By the way, our government is now saying we are NOT targeting Gaddafi.  We want him to step down and will destroy his military to force that step, but we aren’t aiming for him.  Besides my objections on other grounds that makes no sense to me.

One more objection:  I know you don’t want to hear it when it makes the desired path difficult, but there is the matter of the US Constitution requiring congress to approve a war.

[Jamisjockey]

The reason we need consistency in our decisions that we claim are based on morality is so we can earn some respect instead of being feared.  All the talk about saving civilians and American interests is obviously just an attempt at justification if we are not consistent.  The ones who are effectively saying “we can kill whoever we want to kill because we are powerful” are at least honest.  I would call it immoral, but honest.

By the way, our government is now saying we are NOT targeting Gaddafi.  We want him to step down and will destroy his military to force that step, but we aren’t aiming for him.  Besides my objections on other grounds that makes no sense to me.

One more objection:  I know you don’t want to hear it when it makes the desired path difficult, but there is the matter of the US Constitution requiring congress to approve a war.

We don't follow the Constitution anywhere else, why bother with that pesky little provision?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If this effort lasts long enough to require congressional approval, I doubt we'll have any trouble obtaining it.

[griz]

So the second amendment is the only time the Constitution matters?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you say so?

 

[Monkeyleg]

So the second amendment is the only time the Constitution matters?

With all of the rules and restrictions in place at the federal and state levels, and even more restrictions in some localities, why would anyone say the Second Amendment matters?

[MicroBalrog]

One more objection:  I know you don’t want to hear it when it makes the desired path difficult, but there is the matter of the US Constitution requiring congress to approve a war.

No, it does not. It allows Congess to declare war, but it certainly does not require such a thing. Usually it is believed Congressional approval is enough for military action, such as that given for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, it does not. It allows Congess to declare war, but it certainly does not require such a thing. Usually it is believed Congressional approval is enough for military action, such as that given for Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is also considerable debate as to just when such a congressional authorization is required.

There is no debate that the Prez has the authority to command the military.  That the congress has authority to declare war doesn't lessen that.  A conflict arises when, if at all, an order by the prez creates a state of war.

I don't think anyone except Ghadafi believes the no-fly zone is meant as an all-out war between the United States and the the state of Libya.  As such, I'm comfortable that no declaration of war is necessary, and that at least during the early phases of the operation, not even an authorization of force is necessary from congress.  If the operation persists for a while then an authorization would become appropriate in order for the action to continue.  But we're not there yet.

To repeat what I said earlier, I trust that if this mess lasts long enough to merit an authorization from congress, such will be provided by congress.

[roo_ster]

No, it does not. It allows Congess to declare war, but it certainly does not require such a thing. Usually it is believed Congressional approval is enough for military action, such as that given for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which BHO has not gotten for his latest hijinks.

To repeat what I said earlier, I trust that if this mess lasts long enough to merit an authorization from congress, such will be provided by congress.

If Libya was going out in international waters and shooting up our boys, sure, respond then & there & ask Congress for permission later.  This was not an issue where American interests or citizens were at risk unless immediate action was taken.

Oh, and approval is not a foregone conclusion.  A majority of bovine GOP concresscritters support it, but there are plenty of Dems who do not, who happen to be the majority on one of the chambers.

[makattak]

A noted constitutional scholar has weighed in:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oh, and approval is not a foregone conclusion.  A majority of bovine GOP concresscritters support it, but there are plenty of Dems who do not, who happen to be the majority on one of the chambers.

I don't see any sound reason to doubt that an authorization can be secured.  We've seen that even the most retrograde anti-American Democrat, Barack Obama, can be made to see the light eventually.

But on the off chance that the time ever arises when an authorization becomes necessary and no authorization is provided, then I would expect Barry to withdraw our forces.  Only if he refuses would a violation of the constitution occur.  We aren't there yet, not by a long shot.

Citing unconstitutionality as an argument against the action, when no such unconstitutionality exists, doesn't seem very sensible to me.

[De Selby]

I don't see any sound reason to doubt that an authorization can be secured.  We've seen that even the most retrograde anti-American Democrat Barack Obama can be made to see the light eventually.

But on the off chance that the time ever arises when an authorization becomes necessary and no authorization is provided, then I would expect Barry to withdraw our forces.  Only if he refuses would a violation of the constitution occur.  We aren't there yet, not by a long shot.

Citing unconstitutionality as an argument against the action, when no such unconstitutionality exists, doesn't seem very sensible to me.

Bill Clinton already crossed that bridge - dropping bombs even after Congress told him he couldn't.

Bush continued the expansion of Clinton's doctrine, which was itself built on several layers since Vietnam.

The Constitutional mandates are a sideshow - what people should be debating is whether or not this power makes any sense.  I'd go so far as to say a constitutional amendment is in order to clarify the war making powers.  Perhaps something like requiring a mandatory retrospective agreement from Congress for any acts of war would work, without which the President must step down.

[roo_ster]

Bill Clinton already crossed that bridge - dropping bombs even after Congress told him he couldn't.

Bush continued the expansion of Clinton's doctrine, which was itself built on several layers since Vietnam.

Uh, come again? 

Slick Willy never got authorization, but Bush the Lesser most certainly did get authorization from Congress, after a lengthy debate.  The Dems squawked like chickens when he pushed for the vote right before the election, but a majority of Dems voted for it, too, to include Senator Reporting For Duty and Senator Whitewater.

Lots of things to criticize GWB for, but failing to get Congress's approval to smash Iraq and A-stan ain't one of them.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Bill Clinton already crossed that bridge - dropping bombs even after Congress told him he couldn't.

Bush continued the expansion of Clinton's doctrine, which was itself built on several layers since Vietnam.

The Constitutional mandates are a sideshow - what people should be debating is whether or not this power makes any sense.  I'd go so far as to say a constitutional amendment is in order to clarify the war making powers.  Perhaps something like requiring a mandatory retrospective agreement from Congress for any acts of war would work, without which the President must step down.

Bush had congressional authorization for both Iraq and Afghanistan+, so not particularly applicable.

I'm not sure which Clinton incident you're referring to.  He had authorization in Bosnia and Somalia, IIRC.  (Or was it HW who first sent troops to Mogadishu?  I misremember.)  He never had authorization for bombing the aspirin factory in Sudan, but neither did he have a prohibition from congress.  I'm not sure he would have needed authorization for Sudan, given that congress' role is to declare wars and fund them, and neither of those actions were required to lob in a few cruise missiles.

I would support some legal clarification on these matters.  It happens far too often that politicians will twist these things around into meanings that are convenient at one time, then twist them around into the exact opposite some time later, as it suits them.  Witness the Barack Obama quote above, from 2007.  I doubt we need for a constitutional amendment though.  Something like the war powers act would suffice, provided that a version could be written without obvious constitutional conflicts.

[De Selby]

Uh, come again?

Lots of things to criticize GWB for, but failing to get Congress's approval to smash Iraq and A-stan ain't one of them.

Bush maintained that he didn't need it - it was all politics.  His admin wholeheartedly and explicitly embraced the Clinton doctrine.   Yes he did get approval in the end, but his policies were still to promote that kind of executive power.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Bush maintained that he didn't need it - it was all politics.  His admin wholeheartedly and explicitly embraced the Clinton doctrine.   Yes he did get approval in the end, but his policies were still to promote that kind of executive power.

If by "he did get approval in the end" you really mean "he got approval well in advance", then you'd be correct.

The Afghanistan authorization was passed by congress on Sept 14, 2001.  Fighting in A-stan began October 7.

The Iraq authorization was passed by congress on October 16, 2002.  Fighting began March 20, 2003.

[Jamisjockey]

Your facts are meaningless in the face of ZOMg Bush is evil!!!!1!