Balta1701 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) That makes sense with the other war he is waging in "secret". If you wanted to you could probably get away with defending that one under the Afghanistan AUMF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Ok, so the White House's lawyers think this war is illegal too. President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations. Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20. But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged. Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch. A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days. “It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.” Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Link As the article also notes, it is “extraordinarily rare” for that to happen. When Senator Whitehouse asked me after a hearing in 2008 for an example, the only one that came to mind was from the Roosevelt Administration. (There must be others, but I’m still drawing a blank.) If press accounts are correct, together with the D.C. voting rights bill, we now have two recent examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 John Yoo is attacking Obama for abusing executive power and waging war without Congressional approval. John Yoo. WTF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The House today massively voted down a bill that would have authorized the military action in Libya and then less strongly voted down a bill that would have restricted funding for the Libya war. Now that's what I call being against the war before they were for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 McConnell's admitted that the GOP response is completely partisan http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20074025-503544.html "I'm not sure that these kind of differences might not have been there in a more latent form when you had a Republican president," he said at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "But I do think there is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side." "So I think some of these views were probably held by some of my members even in the previous administration, but party loyalty tended to mute them," he continued. "So yeah, I think there are clearly differences and I think a lot of our members, not having a Republican in the White House, feel more free to express their reservations which might have been somewhat muted during the previous administration." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 No, there is a difference between what Obama is pulling and what previous presidents have done. I think all presidents have had a problem with the war powers act but have followed it. I would actually be in favor of Obama saying it's not constitutional and f*** you, Congress - and see it get hashed out - then what he's doing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 25, 2011 -> 04:29 PM) I would actually be in favor of Obama saying it's not constitutional and f*** you, Congress - and see it get hashed out - then what he's doing now. There has been talk of a court case that would do exactly that but I haven't seen more about it since I posted the first details a few pages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) John Yoo is attacking Obama for abusing executive power and waging war without Congressional approval. John Yoo. WTF. lol, seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) There has been talk of a court case that would do exactly that but I haven't seen more about it since I posted the first details a few pages ago. I wish he would. Like I said, up until now, even though every single president has not liked it, they've followed it. I would argue actually that the war powers act is not constitutional, but if Obama really thinks that, he should have the balls to call it for what it is and not hide behind a bunch of lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Military airpower has done its usual bang-up job of forcing regime change on a country in the midst of a civil war. "It's getting more difficult to find stuff to blow up," said a senior NATO officer, noting that Kadafi's forces are increasingly using civilian facilities to carry out military operations. "Predators really enable you study things and to develop a picture of what is going on." You realize that Tuesday marked 4 months of bombing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) Military airpower has done its usual bang-up job of forcing regime change on a country in the midst of a civil war. You realize that Tuesday marked 4 months of bombing? No I didn't. For some odd reason we haven't been getting all of the media coverage of this event... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) No I didn't. For some odd reason we haven't been getting all of the media coverage of this event... Freedom bombs aren't as exciting as they once were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Or its just the reality of the situation. At the beginning people were hopeful that a resolution would be quick. It turns out Gaddafi is going to do whatever he can to stay in power. There are plenty of news outlets that report on this subject every day (Al-Jazeera) but for the most part its a civil war with a constant ebb and flow. The US Civil War took years, hopefully Libya can be quicker, but this was the reality from the beginning, you never know how long it will take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:24 PM) Or its just the reality of the situation. At the beginning people were hopeful that a resolution would be quick. It turns out Gaddafi is going to do whatever he can to stay in power. There are plenty of news outlets that report on this subject every day (Al-Jazeera) but for the most part its a civil war with a constant ebb and flow. The US Civil War took years, hopefully Libya can be quicker, but this was the reality from the beginning, you never know how long it will take. I.E., a long term cluster f*** that Jesus II got us into for....I still don't know why. And i'm 100% positive he doesn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) I.E., a long term cluster f*** that Jesus II got us into for....I still don't know why. And i'm 100% positive he doesn't either. Jesus II? He's a Muslim, dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Im sure Obama knows why he got involved, international pressure, etc. Whether it was the right or wrong move, hard to say in retrospect, I am glad that the US is trying to help the people who have been subjugated by Gaddafi, there is just no promise that they will be better than he is. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I dont really think its necessary to call Obama Jesus II though, Im not sure what religion has to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) Or its just the reality of the situation. At the beginning people were hopeful that a resolution would be quick. It turns out Gaddafi is going to do whatever he can to stay in power. There are plenty of news outlets that report on this subject every day (Al-Jazeera) but for the most part its a civil war with a constant ebb and flow. The US Civil War took years, hopefully Libya can be quicker, but this was the reality from the beginning, you never know how long it will take. Do I need to go back and find our original discussion on the Powell Doctrine when you told me that forcing Qadaffi to step down using only airpower was a clear and attainable goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 He was anointed as the savior of the country despite following just about every "terrible" policy his predecessor did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Jesus II? He's a Muslim, dummy. lol, true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You can go back and quote me as much as you want, I cant imagine that I ever said that bombing would 100% work. Just because something doesnt work, doesnt mean that it couldnt have been a clear and attainable goal at the time. There have been plenty of military operations that have failed in the past, and there will be plenty that fail in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) You can go back and quote me as much as you want, I cant imagine that I ever said that bombing would 100% work. Just because something doesnt work, doesnt mean that it couldnt have been a clear and attainable goal at the time. There have been plenty of military operations that have failed in the past, and there will be plenty that fail in the future. And the people who said that it will be a complete mess at the start will continue to be right. I'm building up a pretty solid record on this, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) And the people who said that it will be a complete mess at the start will continue to be right. I'm building up a pretty solid record on this, actually. I didn't think it was the smartest idea to get into another expensive battlefront with the current state of our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) I didn't think it was the smartest idea to get into another expensive battlefront with the current state of our economy. In this case...war would actually be a decent thing for the economy if we weren't dumb enough to try to cut the budget elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I never anointed Obama anything, so once again I dont see what the nonsensical "Jesus II" statement is. Im not even sure Obama could be the messiah as he does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Torah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts