Was this a wise war? I don't know...but don't fool yourself, it is a legal war.

[DuaneBidoux]

In every sense that the progressives complained that Bush's war (Iraq) was illegal (Afghanistan was legal) this one (Libya) is legal.

Bush had no international support. We have a UN resolution. More importantly than that for me is that the Arab League voted for the No-fly zone.

My opinion changed when the Arab League voted to support a No-fly zone. BUT, and for me, and this is a big but: We may have a part in starting this but as long as it is the Americans, the French, and the Brits, then it is not in our interest to do this much more than several weeks.

To that end I would tell the Arab League: put your money where your mouth is: You voted to prevent civilian deaths with the No-fly zone but you have (put in an appropriately low) number of weeks to completely take over and protect the Libyan civilians with your own aircraft (and thanks to us they have some of the finest).

Otherwise, long term (and even intermediate term) we become one more white Christian country meddling in the affairs of brown strange people with a different religion.

By the way, before this I believed Obama would be reelected. I no longer believe that.

[mmonk]

1. Legally internationally, yes. Constitionally is where the question lies.

Ironically, Bush's war was illegal but he went to Congress.

[gmaki]

2. I can't figure out how anyone can apply legality to war at all

But even if somehow this war, or some other war is "legal" means nothing to me.

Whether it is right or not is all that matters. I don't think anyone blown up by a 2,000 lb smart bomb cares one way or another if that bomb was "legal"

[DuaneBidoux]

6. For me I can figure out a way...

When we dropped bombs on Germans to save the lives of Europeans everywhere I think that was right.

I do believe that from the perspective of WWII the allies were literally morally right. The problem is that was a very easy line to draw--and, historically (NOW) it is easy to see that.

I think morally is always harder when you are right in the middle of the muddle that makes up the real war. I think the U.S. (and Clinton) were in the wrong to take no action in Rwanda to prevent genocide so I guess here is my question: Is it right to prevent genocide? Right? Of course. But the problem is to figure out with a lot of soul searching whether that is what you are doing (or if you just might be protecting your oil supply). (And, you may well have convinced yourself that is what you're doing)

I mean, after all, why is it we are always so interested in protecting civilians in areas that happen to have oil...and so rarely interested in protecting civilians where there happens to be none?

If America has a consistent policy of really supporting civilians instead of propping up dictators or the interest du jour, I would have a much easier time right now deciding how I feel. But right now, I am uncertain, fearful, and more than a little discouraged.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Congress declare war on Germany.

If you want to trash the Constitution, why not do it legally.

[Upton]

3. Thom Hartmann said this morning..

the war in Libya is unconstitutional...I'll go with his take.

[moparlunatic]

4. So am I to understand

Bush bombs Muslims=Bad

but

Obama bombs Muslims=Good

[Upton]

5. Apparently so..

the hypocrisy is just incredible..

[DuaneBidoux]

8. The Arab League says they are for this. Then why don't they do this...

but, in all seriousness, Nobel Peace Prize.

Anyone remember that?

This so fucks me over that I want to cry.

[madinmaryland]

12. You listen to Thom Hartmann?? Will miracles never cease!

:wow:

[Upton]

14. The only miracle that may occur...

is if and when you finally embrace the presumption of innocence...

[PurityOfEssence]

7. It's only legal when authorized by Congress or when the country, possessions or forces are attacked

and that Congress must be consulted. That's "consulted", not notified in writing after the fact.

It's not just high-handed, it's illegal.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
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.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation 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.

[DuaneBidoux]

9. And when exactly was the last time Congress declared war. Tell me 'cause I don't know

This has been an ongoing problem since before I was born.

It is a systemic institutional problem and this is how it needs to be tackled from progressives who are tired of Presidents taking us to war on their own.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abq_Sarah]

13. I could give a damn less about a UN resolution

I'm more concerned with making sure EVERY President follows US law.

[WatsonT]

15. Actually it is illegal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

Still on the books. Never enforced. Making this war illegal by our own treaty.

Unless Libya was threatening us.

/also the UN doesn't get to bypass the constitution. Not here anyway.

//I don't get the eagerness to join in yet another war. Are we bored with the last too already?

[Arctic Dave]

16. We have accepted torture as legal, why not war.

Obama, my kind of bush.

Sounds like a great slogan for next term.

[Arctic Dave]

17. We have accepted torture as legal, why not war.

Obama, my kind of bush.

Sounds like a great slogan for next term.