To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War

[Better Believe It]

To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War
by Michael Ratner
Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
March 31, 2011

How is it that Congress isn't screaming at President Obama for usurping its power to take this nation to war against Libya? (Even Bushes #41 and #43 had their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq authorized.) And if Congress isn't screaming, then why aren't we? We should be. The power to make war impacts us all: it kills, it costs our dwindling treasury, and it has serious consequences.

Those are just some of the reasons why the Constitution doesn't allow the president to make the decision to go to war unilaterally -- a fact that Obama, himself a former constitutional law professor, knows full well. If fact, when candidate Obama was asked if the president could bomb Iran without authority from Congress, he categorically responded: "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."

Candidate Obama's letter perfect response reveals precisely how well he understands the framers' fear of giving the power to initiate war to the president. As James Madison, principal author of the Constitution wrote, "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." Consequently, Article 1, section 8, cl. 11 states that Congress and only Congress can authorize the use of military force against another country. It makes no difference whether it's called war or a "military action" -- Obama's term for the attack on Libya.

Some have argued that it would have made little difference for Obama to have asked for authority -- that Congress would have approved the war anyway. Whether or not that's true, it's not the point. Had Obama gone to Congress there would have been the kind of public debate that's necessary in any country that calls itself a democracy.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-11

[RegieRocker]

1. You tell us why the repugs aren't screaming.

[harun]

25. Because repugs never met a war they didn't like.

[pam4water]

82. +1

[RegieRocker]

83. Ayep

[walerosco]

90. Just reminds me of the Rand Paul

Joke about faux news. Republicans are confused right now, we love wars and we hate Obama. How the hell can we do both with a straight face. Oh the dilemma

[DeadEyeDyck]

111. rhe messages are mixed and it is interesting

those that think we are fighting for oil say, "hell yeah, kick ass"
those that think we are fighting for human rights will say, "bring em home"

[H2O Man]

2. Recommended .....

although the unremmenders are out in force.

[ClarkUSA]

3. President Obama has already informed Congress as per U.S. law in accordance with the War Powers Act.

"the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637204

60 days isn't up yet. Maybe someone better tell Ratner that before he blows a rhetorical gasket.

[H2O Man]

7. There were two

War Powers Acts. The second was passed while FDR was President.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows the President to engage the military in conflicts when there is a risk to national security, and in this context, inform Congress in 60 days. No rational person has advanced the theory that the civil war in Libya poses a risk to US national security. President Obama has stated it is a humanitarian effort.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Well, you're right, it isn't a war and there's still a long way before the 60 days is up.

<< No rational person has advanced the theory that the civil war in Libya poses a risk to US national security. >>

Numerous news articles in the past month have directly linked the Libya unrest to the spike in oil prices because of the lack of top grade extra light golden crude that is Libya's wealth (no other country has it in such abundance, few have it at all). That is a risk to our national security because it threatens our nascent economic recovery.

[H2O Man]

20. Sad.

Really sad. No, the war in Libya is not a threat to US security. If it were, President Obama would surely have promoted that theory.

[ClarkUSA]

28. That's your opinion. Nevertheless, there's a long time to go before 60 days is up.

Besides, the full Senate (including Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy) unanimously passed a resolution on 3/1/11 approving a no-fly zone in Libya. Perhaps they all know something you don't?

[H2O Man]

30. This appears hard

for you to understand, but the 60 days does not apply in this situation. It is my opinion. Opinions are, by nature, based on information known as facts. Denial of facts, and misinformation, is by definition the foundation of a bias. So, your 60 day business is just your bias.

[ClarkUSA]

36. You are obviously wrong. Unlike you, I provided proof that it does, which you ignored.

I'm not interested in kicking this garbage OP anymore, so if you're going to ignore the facts, then go with your bias. After all, all you've got is your opinion.

[Luminous Animal]

39. You provided zero proof. You skipped over the parts that are inconvenient

to your conclusion.

Indeed, an elephant is like a snake.

[ClarkUSA]

58. That's a false statement. See Reply #3. The facts at the link provided are my proof.

[sabrina 1]

41. I didn't see the facts you provided. I saw you try to make a case

for a president making a decision to go to war without the approval of Congress, which didn't include the only time a president can do that. And that would be as is written clearly in the War Powers act, when this country is under attack.

By your logic, Bush had every right to go to Iraq without consulting Congress either. But we kicked up such a stink over him thinking he could that, that he didn't even try it.

This country's constitution is being destroyed by partisans on both sides of the political spectrum.

The FFs were right about political parties when they warned against them. Too bad we did not listen.

[ClarkUSA]

59. You're not looking or you're ignoring Reply #3's source link.

I'd vote for the latter.

[Luminous Animal]

66. The only thing your source reveals is that they've blindly groped one part of an elephant and deemed

it a snake.

It is patently dishonest to claim that conditions of an imperative is the imperative itself.

[slipslidingaway]

104. Thanks :))) n/t

[Luminous Animal]

105. You are welcome. :)))

[PurityOfEssence]

89. Flim-flam: the Senate Resolution was for "them" to act, not for us to go to war

The non-binding resolution of one house of Congres was for the UN to act, with NO MENTION OF OUR INVOLVEMENT. It was also for a "no-fly zone", whereas this authorizes combat troops on the ground and all forces to do whatever they please, as long as they don't occupy afterward.

That's apples and hand grenades.

Let your ego go and stop thinking you can hammer people into the ground and "win"; if you give a fuck about the human race, you need to care about the law and the truth. This is deplorable.

[sabrina 1]

40. Are you serious? Even the president isn't pretending that

Libya is a threat to our national security. I think he knows better than to try that.

He is claiming that it is a humanitarian intevention. Which is interesting also considering that he argued against the U.S. intervening in foreign affairs for humanitarian reasons in 2007.

In fact he used the logical argument that has been made regarding this intervention, that if we are to go to war for humanitarian reasons, we would be in the Congo. Yes, he said that.

He also said at that time, that diplomacy is the way to settle conflicts and that war should be avoided unless we are directly threatened.

Please, don't insult people's intelligence like that again ~ unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I apologize.

[ClarkUSA]

60. I agree with the president. So does the Senate, who unanimously voted for a no-fly zone on 3/1/11.

But I do also believe that if the price of oil goes higher, it will endanger our national security because it would threaten our economic recovery via higher food prices (already noted by many here) and higher gas prices (ditto).

[Luminous Animal]

68. Non-binding resolution in one House only. Non-binding.

[sabrina 1]

79. Don't be ridiculous. We can survive on the oil reserves

we have and on Saudi Arabia's increase in production which they are ready to do if there is a problem. Any increases are merely the same old price gauging we see every time the oil cartels find an excuse to do so. Soon we will see them back again in Congress supposedly answering questions about their latest price gauging activities, they'll receive a few starn words and that will be that.

The Senate DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to authorize war. How many times do you have to be told that?? They vote on anything they like, it means nothing in terms of the law.

I find it really and truly sad to see democrats here defending the breaking of our laws by elected officials. I thought we all agreed that we needed to restore the rule of law seeing as how we made NO SUCH excuses for Bush's disdain for the Constitution.

I really have little faith that we will hold on to this democracy very much longer. Partisanship is destroying our system of laws and justice. Party politics, as the founders warned, are a real threat to democracy.

[PurityOfEssence]

93. Yes, you agree with the President that you don't give a damn about the law or truthfulness

The vote was a non-binding resolution calling on the UN to mount a "no-fly zone"; there was NOTHING in there about the United States taking part, and although it was implied, its absence shows the deliberate muddying of the issue to make a statement.

What was passed--and NOT AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, AS IS NECESSARY--was a blank-check for military operations, including ground troops and literally no restrictions on what violence may be perpetrated or against whom, as long as some kind of justification of protecting civilians could be shoehorned into the situation. Except for occupation, everything is fair game here.

HOW ON EARTH IS THIS A "NO-FLY ZONE"? This is permission to wage WAR.

Besides that, it's illegal for a President to commence operations without Congress' authorization or Declaration of War, unless we're attacked, and ANY call-up by the UN may only be done AFTER CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE SPECIFIC AGREEMENT.

Shifting stories, and no admission of deliberate attempts to obscure obvious, settled law; this is deplorable behavior.

[tekisui]

42. You support war for the reason of cheap oil?

[MedleyMisty]

50. I support intervention to save lives

If you think this is about cheap oil, you know nothing at all and are totally ignorant of the situation.

[JonLP24]

51. You should read the post that poster replied to

ClarkUSA said (paraphrasing) that the action in Libya is in interest to our national security because of the Libya unrest is tied to a spike in oil prices.

The poster you accused of being ignorant of the situation was responding to that.

[sabrina 1]

52. It is about many things, including oil and contracts

already underway in Libya as we know from the wikileaks cables and just how hard they worked to get those contracts. But it's also about other things. We just lost two of our dictator friends in the two countries on either side of Libya. The revolutions all over the Arab World threaten our power in that region of the world. Sadly all of our allies are dictators who have so oppressed their people for so long while we supported all of them, that a bubble has finally burst and people are revolting.

We need friendly governments, or at least one, in the region.

Who do you think will replace Qaddafi after we invade Libya and remove him? Do you really think it will someone chosen by the people who wanted their freedom?

You must know that the original revolutionaries stated over and over again that they did not want foreign troops on their soil, that they did not want Libya to become another Iraq.

And what will happen to the people, who are in the millions from what I've read, who were against this revolution, some because they knew it could not work without outside help, others because they did support the government? Do you think that once Qaddafi is gone, Libyans will all settle down and become a nice, peaceful society?

Or will there be a real civil war that will require 'peace-keeping' troops on the ground, like Haiti has had to deal with for years now? We know that the Western powers will not leave that up to the people of Libya especially with all that oil that Europe needs so badly.

I am so sad for the Libyan people. They will not be free to run their own country. It was a nice dream but the chances of them not being occupied are probably about 99-1 at this point.

[tekisui]

76. I am not the one who suggested it was about oil.

You seem totally ignorant as the to progression of this thread.

[ClarkUSA]

61. Where did I say that? Or is this your attempt at a strawman fallacy?

See Reply 60.

[tekisui]

73. Here:

"Numerous news articles in the past month have directly linked the Libya unrest to the spike in oil prices because of the lack of top grade extra light golden crude that is Libya's wealth (no other country has it in such abundance, few have it at all). That is a risk to our national security because it threatens our nascent economic recovery."

You said it, not me.

[Ignis]

91. "the spike in oil prices ... is a risk to our national security"

Well, at least you're honest about our thirsty Empire. That's refreshing. :thumbsup:

And yet.... :dilemma:

I'm reminded of PNAC's 1998 letter to President Clinton, urging him to overthrow Saddam in Iraq because his control of "a significant portion of the world's oil" was considered a "hazard."

...And of Cheney's 1999 speech (while he was still CEO of Halliburton) to the London Institute of Petroleum, wherein he said, "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Is this merely a case of great minds thinking alike? :shrug:

[Mimosa]

92. At least you admitted it is about the OIL

Most defenders of these military engagements try to say it's all about imposing 'democracy' upon those Ay-rabs.

[Luminous Animal]

38. The War Powers Resolution is as clear as it can possibly be when it enumates ONLY 3 options

that a President can exercise when engaging our military in a new war.

(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.

If any of the above conditions are met, the the 60 day condition kicks in.

These are known as facts upon which and intelligent person may form an opinion.

One method of teaching is to break down a complex problem and relate it to real life experiences. Here is an example from my own life...

When my daughter was a new teenager, she wanted to go out with her friends at night (AKA; engaging the military).

1 ) Her Dad and I had a parental (AKA; Constitutional) duty that stipulated the she consult with us before she went out (AKA; engaging the military).
2 ) Even though she may have screamed, "I hate you and I can do what I want!", we nevertheless asserted our authority (AKA, The War Powers Resolution) and stipulated that:
a ) Based on that discussion of; who, what, where, and when... and gleaning as much extraneous information as possible (phone numbers of friends and other parental units, bus schedules, etc.) her dad and I, in consultation with each other, would say yea or nay (AKA; declaration of war).
b ) Recognize that we already said she could go to that concert two months ago (AKA; specific statutory authorization)
c ) Allow for the fact that if there is an earthquake and we are unreachable she may arrange to meet up with her friends (AKA; respond to an attack).

3 )If and only if any of the above stipulations are operative then the following conditions will apply:
a ) She must report when she reaches her destination (AKA; the 48 hour rule).
b ) She must call us every hour (AKA; the 60 day rule).
c ) We reserve the right to order her home at any time (AKA; the 30 day rule).

There is nothing in that parental duty (Constitution) and the rules (The War Powers Act) that would have allowed my daughter to skip step #2 and to straight to step #3.


(Edited to clean up some formatting.)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Luminous Animal]

47. You are welcome. So exhausted with truthiness.

[ClarkUSA]

62. I disagree. And unlike you, I offered proof in the source link provided in Reply #3.

[Luminous Animal]

65. No you linked to a snip of the War Powers Resolution and deemed it the whole. I gave you the whole.

It's akin to claiming Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is the pertinent part.

14th Amendment
Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[PurityOfEssence]

88. No, he has not, and you are completely wrong

Obama said, at the end of his letter, that the letter was "consistent" with the War Powers Act. That is not being in compliance, and it's deliberately tricky lawyerspeak. If one cheats on one's taxes and then whips out a pen and signs it, that act of the pen is "consistent" with tax law.

Section 2 clearly states that the President may ONLY attack with authorization, a declaration or attacked. Unless attacked, he MUST have Congressional power. What you list regarding the 60 days is under the heading "Congressional Action", which is Section 5. HOW DOES THIS MEAN PERMISSION? THIS IS WHAT HE MUST PROVIDE TO CONGRESS AFTER HE'S TAKEN APPROVED ACTION. The 48 hours is listed under "Reporting", which is also to be done AFTER HE'S BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION.

This is not open to interpretation and has been exhaustively examined. He is in violation of the War Powers Act and is now saying that he doesn't feel beholden to the 60 days.

This is important, not just another pissy little argument on a forum thread where constantly demeaning people and refusing to accept settled law and the exact wording repeatedly is some kind of personal victory. Refusing to accept this and continuing to besmirch those who correctly interpret the law is ACTIVE DECEPTION. Here is the document. Section 2 governs the ONLY TIMES THE PRESIDENT MAY SEND IN FORCES. The Act defines war as introducing armed forces into "hostilities" or where they're imminent. He may only act alone if we're attacked, not threatened or bothered, but actually attacked.

The 48 hours and 60 days are not some "free trial period" those are specific requirements for involving Congress in the operation. They're listed under "REPORTING" and "CONGRESSIONAL ACTION".

A poster who isn't a bomb-thrower and ego-wrestler would act upon common decency and read the real text and make all amends to acknowledge the mistake and contact all those he/she has confused or misled. Only a deceiver would not do so.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[PurityOfEssence]

112. Nowhere, repeat NOWHERE does this prove your contention.

Here's the actual Text; it's GREAT legislation; makes me proud to be an American.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

Section 2 regards permission to act. Section 4 is "reporting"; that's where the 48 hours comes in, and it's a REQUIREMENT to keep Congress informed after he has done something he is allowed to do PER SECTION 2. It's not some "free trial period" or "test drive". Section 5 is "Congressional Action", which is also in NO WAY SOME KIND OF PERMISSION; it points out the timetable that the Congress will hold him to. It defines what he is to do AFTER HE HAS LEGAL PERMISSION TO ACT, AND THAT COMES FROM SECTION 2.

You are so incredibly wrong it's head-spinningly laughable. Here is the text of the actual Act; it's really short and easy to read. Here, in brief is how the Act works:

The Act defines what war is: introduction of armed forces into "hostilities" or where they may be "imminent". It then defines the Constitutional right of the President to introduce forces to be in only THREE SITUATIONS: if Congress declares war, if Congress authorizes the some kind of action, or if we're attacked. That's it; those are the only situations where a President may send in the forces.

If it's not a declared war, he can then wait or act immediately, but regardless of when he acts, Congress must be informed within 48 hours of the action, intentions, forces, and all that. The clock has already started running from the time action started, so he has 58 more days to get it done, and the President has to literally certify in writing if he needs 30 more days to get permission to be allowed more time to get out of there.

It is SO idiotically simple, so please read it, and look at those sections. The UN Participation Act and the UN Charter do not constitute a self-authorizing military pact, so there's no "out" with Article 7(d).

YOU HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN; PLEASE RESPOND.

[slipslidingaway]

4. knr n/t

[Tx4obama]

5. UNrec.

We are NOT at war.
It is a UN mission.
And the Senate did have an opportunity to debate the No Fly Zone, but instead on March 1st the U.S. Senate passed S.Res.85 unanimously requesting the UN to impose the NFZ. All it would have taken is ONE of the 100 senators to object and then there would have been a floor debate before a roll call vote. BUT no, they all agreed to pass the resolution! There were NO objections.

See comment #10 here for the text of the resolution: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717373

[Better Believe It]

13. So when did the Senate declare war on Libya?

And when did the House of Representatives (it is part of Congress) supposedly vote to approve a military attack on Libya. And when did the House pass a resolution merely requesting the UN to impose a No Fly Zone in Libya?

Read the Constitution of the United States.

And more importantly, support it!

[Tx4obama]

32. Not everything you need to know is in the U.S. Constitution. Go read the War Powers Act

there's a link in comment #6 on this thread that ProSense posted.

[Better Believe It]

84. Does the War Powers Act supercede the declaration of war provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

And was the War Powers Act cited by President Obama in the speech written for him?

[Better Believe It]

17. The Korean War was not a war either. It was a UN "police action"!

Try telling that to those who lost loved ones in that war.

[slipslidingaway]

103. On the Senate resolution - "Anthony Weiner Reads From 'House Mouse Senate Mouse' Children's Book"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=569100&mesg_id=569100

Different issue, but still it appears that some forget the House when it comes to Libya.

:shrug:

Sec. Gates Forced to Admit Bombing Libya is and Act Of War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGgA-yCVsOs

[Luminous Animal]

107. Sec. Gates admits that the the non-binding measure does not authorize military action.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110401/ap_on_re_us/us_libya_congress_fact_check

[slipslidingaway]

109. Thanks, and where is our media, even the title at the link suggests...

all is well.

:(

FACT CHECK: Senate did favor Libya no-fly zone

"There have been a lot of concerns expressed about the consultation with the Congress, but in its own way, the Congress consulted with the president, and particularly this body that unanimously in a resolution called for the imposition of a no-fly zone," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Not so, said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

She argued that the resolution was limited, praising the courage of the Libyan people, calling on Gadhafi to stop the attacks and welcoming a vote in the U.N. Security Council. Reciting the phrase on the no-fly zone, she said it was "the only part that's even tangentially on this issue" and was "pretty weak language in terms of authorizing the United States."

[ProSense]

6. It's puzzling that

anyone, especially any member of Congress, would try to make the argument that the President violated the War Powers Act.

February 23: Remarks by the President on Libya

February 25: Letter from the President Regarding Libya Sanctions

March 1: SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (PDF)

<...>

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

<...>

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

Member of Congress are right to debate the action and conduct hearings. Their job is oversight. The President must still issue a report in accordance with the WPA. Congress will decide the appropriate course of action in terms of authorization.

[sabrina 1]

44. You get credit for trying, but you're still wrong.

There is only one reason a president can go to war without Congress' approval, not mentioned in your long post, and that is when this country is under attack.

Did Libya attack this country? That is the only question that needs to be asked.

[Tx4obama]

63. The President has NOT gone to war. The UN has imposed the no-fly-zone. n/t

[sabrina 1]

75. It is a war now. They have gone much further than a NFZ.

Bombing troops on the ground is not part of a NFZ. Mission creep has already begun and plans to send in mercenaries are being discussed. That would be a clever, well they think it would be clever, way to get around sending in troops. They'll call them contractors, America's private army of mercenaries.

What is going to happen after the bombing stops? Do you know? Is there a plan? I'm sure there is, but is there one the public has been informed of, or Congress? Who will take Qaddafi's place?

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like this will be another occupation.

[PurityOfEssence]

98. The UN Resolved to allow virtually anything, including ground troops; Congress has not authorized

our involvement as is necessary under the UN Participation Act.

We are attacking vehicles and Government Troops from the air. That's more than some "no-fly zone". The Act itself is not called a "no-fly zone". That mealy-mouthed usage of theirs is sheer deception, and you should pay a bit more attention to those with whom you ally yourself: sanctifying their words and actions makes you in league with them.

[PurityOfEssence]

95. You are still wrong about this, and you are deceiving; 48 hours is REPORTING, not permission

This has been presented to you over and over and over, with the very words of the War Powers Act.

Here it is: please read it.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

Section 2 defines when a President may send forces, and it's ONLY when Congress Authorizes it, Congress Declares War or we've been attacked.

Section 4 is ABOUT REPORTING THESE ACTIONS. It is how the President is required to report his action and further intent and is not, in any way permission nor a "free trial period" or "test drive". The 48 hour restriction is that he must write Congress after he's committed troops PER SECTION 2.

Section 5 talks about the 60 days and 30 days withdrawal, and these are the restrictions that a NON-DECLARED WAR must adhere to in all cases. Congress is very clear about this.

You have been presented with this repeatedly, specifically, with the actual document OVER AND OVER AND OVER again in threads where you've continued to post.

Please have as scrap of decency, admit your mistake and cease this.

[Karmadillo]

8. Oh the purists and their silly Constitution. Leave the Decider alone. He knows what's best for us.

nt

[H2O Man]

9. Right.

And it's not "war." Amazing.

[The Magistrate]

10. On Our Part, Sir, This Is Far From War

It barely qualifies a punitive expedition....

[Better Believe It]

11. War is Peace

[The Magistrate]

12. And Sometimes, Peace Is War, Sir

Countries have inflicted thousands of casualties on one another in the not too distant past without for a moment considering themselves to be at war with one another. The simple fact of military action is not synonymous with war.

[Better Believe It]

15. Peace is War. So that must mean we are now at war with Canada and Mexico!

I somehow missed that.

[TheKentuckian]

86. Define war then. Is there a threshold of troops? A length of engagement?

An amount of munitions used? A certain number of dead?

What defines war and separates it from other less warish uses of martial power? Why does the Constitution not create the several apparent uses of force and differentiate them so we know if we are in a minor punitive action, a conflict, a major punitive action, and whatever other sorts of military efforts that are "not war"?

Was Viet Nam a war despite not being defined as such because of the amount of dead but Iraq was not because a much, much, much smaller number of American dead?

Are you prepared to accept similar definitions if force is used against the US or is one bomb enough to call it a war if we are hit even if the folks behind it think they are simply engaging in a minor punitive expedition?

[H2O Man]

14. Libya is in

the midst of a civil war. Our military is using, among other things, fighter jets and missiles that cost a million dollars. They are aimed at military targets.

Yet in a society where some leaders claim that water-boarding is no longer "torture," it comes as no surprise that the definition of war would also be open to debate. When the ancient social philospher Confucius was asked what political power he might want, he is said to have responded, "To insist that words be used correctly." I'm not suggesting that torturing words' meanings should be a crime, yet I advocate using them properly.

[ProSense]

16. "Libya is in the midst of a civil war. "

No it's not. The Egyptian uprising wasn't a civil war and neither is the situation in Libya.

An dictator using his military to crush protest is not a civil war.

[H2O Man]

19. Yep, it surely is.

You may not have noticed, but the rebels are engaged in warfare. They were not doing so well; hence, the US involvement.

[ProSense]

21. No

"You may not have noticed, but the rebels are engaged in warfare. They were not doing so well; hence, the US involvement."

That doesn't make it a civil war.

[H2O Man]

27. It surely does.

Words have actual meanings. You may continue to ignore them. But that doesn't change the reality of the civil war in Libya.

[ProSense]

31. It's not, and

it's not a war based on U.S. involvement. Command of the operation has been turned over to NATO.

[H2O Man]

33. By every

accepted definition in political and social sciences, it certainly is. But you are welcome to your new definitions.

[The Magistrate]

24. It Is If It Lasts Long Enough, Ma'am

And this one is getting on towards that duration. Adding to the soundness of the definition is a degree of geographic and tribal separation between the rebels and the supporters of the government.

[The Magistrate]

26. The Quote Is Familiar To Me, Sir

And my use of words here is precise. If we were at war with the government of Libya, matters would be quite different, in terms of forces deployed, targets engaged, and ends proclaimed.

[H2O Man]

29. Surely, the US

could be ?more" at war in Libya. Likewise, the US could have been "more at war" in Vietnam. Why, one candidate for Vice President in the 1960s advocated the use of atomic weapons. Nevertheless, although some insisted at the time that the US was not "officially" at war in Vietnam, we surely were. And we are involved in a war in Libya. No two ways about that.

[The Magistrate]

34. The Line Is Far From Crossed, Sir

Your invocation of Viet Nam tends to make the point, when one compares the degree of treasure, materiel, and manpower deployed, with what is involved here. The line between war and peace is not simply the deployment of military force in some small degree.

[H2O Man]

35. Again, in all

accepted definitions in political and social sciences, we are involved in a war. Our involvement includes using our military might. We can pretend otherwise, but it's really that simple.

[The Magistrate]

37. Were We At War With Mexico, Sir, In 1916, Or 1914?

At war with the Soviet Union in 1919?

Was England at war with Turkey in Kurdistan in 1922?

Was Imperial Japan at war with the Soviet Union at Changkufeng in 1938?

None of the governments involved considered themselves to be so.

Numerous other examples could be cited, you are familiar enough with history to know that.

[sabrina 1]

78. When you drop bombs on a sovereign nation, that is war.

If bombs were dropped on any part of this country, we would call it a war.

We called 9/11 war. By our standards even a terrorist act is war.

We joined the Civil War in Libya, taking the side of the opposition. That is going to war.

All this Orwellspeak about what is war and what is not and what is torture and what is not is simply disgusting. It's no wonder young people are already disillusioned watching the twisted logic used by politicians to justify almost anything. And you can justify almost anything, if you have to. The fact that this administration that most of us supported finds it necessary to engage in these tactics, is more than sad. This is not what we worked so hard to win for.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. The War Powers Act DEFINES war as sending armed forces into "hostilities" or where they're imminent

This is disgraceful behavior: quibbling over semantics well past the time when those very same words have been parsed endlessly and shown to be fully defined in the Act of Congress that dictates how this Enumerated Power of the Constitution is to be exercised.

It's war. By definition of standing, unchallenged, 37 year-old Congressional Law, it is WAR. If that's not enough for you, ask any of the dead people; they'll tell you. We're killing human beings in an illegal (by our own laws) operation. I guess they had it coming to them so we can continue on with Operation Roy Bean and praise President Ripper.

How would you take this deliberate, flagrant violation of the War Powers Act, the UN Participation Act, the UN Charter and the Presidential Oath of Office if A REPUBLICAN HAD DONE IT? What do you think the ramifications will be? A renegade absolutist Executive is not something that a pluralist should even be silent about, much less support.

Rectitude is a hideous substitution for morals and respect for the law. After all this, how have you sold so cheap what you hold so dear? I am appalled.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. K & R! More than 4,000 sailors and Marines headed to Libya....

NORFOLK, Va. – More than 4,000 sailors and Marines from the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit began to deploy from Norfolk and Little Creek, Va., March 23, as part of an early deployment to support Operation Odyssey Dawn in the Mediterranean Sea.

The decision to deploy the BATARG/22nd MEU ahead of its previously scheduled deployment date was made based on continuing urgent needs in Libya and the region.

“Amphibious ships are optimally suited for executing a wide range of missions, from humanitarian assistance to theater and maritime security operations,” said Capt. Steven J. Yoder, BATARG commander. “There is no doubt in my mind that our Sailors and Marines will excel at whatever task we are called upon to perform.”

Sailors and Marines of the BATARG/22nd MEU successfully completed months of unit level training to ensure they can operate effectively and safely. Over the next few days the BATARG will transit to Camp LeJeune, N.C., to complete on-load of the 22nd MEU and will continue to conduct integrated blue/green training until they arrive in the Sixth Fleet area of responsibility.<snip>

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/1070069962001

[sabrina 1]

46. Those poor people. Their country is about to be occupied as

many feared. The question is, who urged them to start a fight they had no chance of winning without help from foreign nations?

I heard one of the revolutionaries on NPR yesterday asking that same question. He said 'we have been betrayed'. He said their 'commanders' were more interested in 'setting up bank accounts' than conducting a revolution. He said they were sent out to fight having been told they were adequately armed, when in fact they were not.

I guess they may as well resign themselves to an Iraq style occupation, for the next 20 years or so, in a country where they will have even less to say then they do now. Just like the Iraqis.

I wonder who we have chosen as their next leader?

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. We know who did that. Ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by

John Perkins? Our operatives have been very busy the last few weeks....CIA and our Economic Hit Men. They've (the government) become so predictable. Yep.

[sabrina 1]

74. I have read excerpts from the book, and it's on my list

to read. I had an opportunity to 'meet' John Perkins on a news site a few years ago. Definitely will read it, thanks for the reminder.

From bits and pieces of news over the past few days, it looks like this 'grass-roots' uprising may have been infiltrated from the beginning.

[slipslidingaway]

23. Libya is not Rwanda

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/30/libya_is_not_rwanda

"... Rwanda was genocide. Libya is a civil war. The Rwandan genocide was a premeditated, orchestrated campaign. The Libyan civil war is a sudden, unplanned outburst of fighting. The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group. The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. The Rwandan genocidiers aimed to wipe out a people. The Libyan dictator aims to cling to power. The first is murder, the second is war. The failure to act in Rwanda does not saddle us with a responsibility to intervene in Libya. The two situations are different..."

[HEyHEY]

43. So Libya is not Rwanda, but Libya is Sudan and North Korea?

uh...yeah

[MedleyMisty]

49. I don't think I want to be human anymore

If freaking semantics means more than human life.

[MedleyMisty]

48. To hell with the human species

Damn Libyans, wanting to live. Don't they know they should just take getting slaughtered? They're brown and poor and far away, so who gives a fuck? Too bad for them.

Do you realize how very very close Benghazi was to getting razed? The coalition only just stopped the tanks heading their way in time.

But hey, like I said - they're just poor brown people who want to be free. Let them die. Who cares?

[Luminous Animal]

54. This discusssion has nothing to do with compassion. It is specifically about Constitutional matters

Presumably, both you and the President are all about saving poor brown people. Of course saving poor brown people is a wonderful goal (so wonderful that God himself directed George W. Bush to do it). Unfortunately for the crusaders, that bastard Thomas Jefferson (in cahoots with other bastards) threw a roadblock in front you and President Obama and required a debate and hopefully informed consent before pledging the lives of our own poor brown (and white) people to die for poor brown people a half a world away.

Fucking Constitution getting in the way of the pure of heart.

[bvar22]

102. Damn those Libyans for slaughtering brown people.

Don't the know thats OUR job?
...and NOTHING is better at slaughtering Brown People than a "Spooky" Gunship!!

HOOHAA!
No wimpy No Fly Zone for US!
Lets get this WAR rolling!

If you are not FOR this WAR,
then you are with The Communists AlQaeda Saddam Qaddafi!!!

[MedleyMisty]

53. The women of the Libyan revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMtCp8cgtE

Look that woman at the end, the one who is crying and saying "Stop killing Libyan people" in the eye, and tell her that your ideals and your political points and your definitions are more important than her life and the lives of her loved ones and the life of her country.

If you can do that, then we are not members of the same species.

[Luminous Animal]

55. So you contend that Congress would have voted agaisnt the U.N. and Obama?

[Tx4obama]

64. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution (S.Res.85) on March 1st requesting the UN to impose the NFZ ....

that was BEFORE the UN passed their resolution to impose the NFZ.

[Luminous Animal]

69. Nonbinding resolution in one House only. Sorry, not even close so no cigar.

[Luminous Animal]

70. Did you know that Al Gore invented the internet? A lot of people said it over and over again so

it must be true.

Anyhoo... It was a nonbinding resolution in one House; thus, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You will, of course, continue to repeat this irrelevancy ad nauseum. I will give you kudos for your tenacity but I have no respect for your disregard for the truth.

[Tx4obama]

71. I have said NOTHING that is not true. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

72. You have, repeatedly, put forth this Senate nonbinding resolution...

as if it is meaningful to the topic at hand.

It is not.

[Tx4obama]

99. It is part of the topic at hand.

Read the OP. It bitches about Congress not being able to DEBATE.
That is NOT true.

If only ONE senator had objected to S.Res.85 - instead of all 100 senators agreeing - then there would have been a unlimited floor DEBATE.
Having the President go to Congress is NOT the only thing that could have spurred on a debate regarding Libya.
Also, after the Senate passed their resolution the House also could have introduced a resolution and they also could have had a floor debate.

The Senate's resolution is relevant.

[PurityOfEssence]

100. No, that is NOT what Rattner is saying

He is not saying, as you claim he is, that Congress was not able to debate. He is saying, quite clearly, that by not going to Congress, Obama avoided opening up the subject. That doesn't mean that others couldn't have opened it up, it just means that by not bringing the issue formally to Congress, he avoided inconvenient dissent. He's supposed to "consult" with Congress, but that term is so very subjective, that I choose to avoid it completely in the light of events that are BY DEFINITION VIOLATIONS of both that law and the UN Participation Act.

Obama needed either a Declaration of War or an Authorization to invoke the War Powers Act; neither of which were sought to my knowledge, and neither of which were granted. He also needed to have an authorization from both houses of Congress on the "special agreement" he made with the UN Security Council for making forces available to the UN before he could send troops in answer to a UN Article 42 Resolution call-up. Presumably, if some friendly Congressperson had requested an authorization or the UN agreement was submitted for authorization by someone else, Obama wouldn't have had to "go to Congress".

Your references to the non-binding resolution on a "no-fly zone" that had no mention of US Military Involvement is certainly worthy of being mentioned as some kind of background sense of the moment, but it has no bearing on getting statutory approval in both houses for a course of independent action to satisfy the War Powers Act or the specific special agreement with the UN to satisfy the UN Participation Act. The UN Participation Act governs literally EVERYTHING we do with the UN, so if there's any problem with any of its stipulations, then he certainly can't hide behind its request as justification.

Rattner is NOT saying that Congress couldn't have done this of its own accord, he is clearly and correctly saying that by not doing this, Obama didn't cause such an event to occur, which WOULD have been the case by whatever method he used to get the Constitutionally and statutorily REQUIRED authorization. Those are two entirely different things.

Also, regardless of the statement made by Obama and continually quoted, the President does NOT have the power to act alone if the hostilities are only imminent; he may only do so if literally attacked. The word "imminent" is used in the description of what is considered to be "war" in Section 2 of the War Powers Act, not in the descriptions of what instances in which he is allowed to act. Obama was either wrong when saying that, or playing fast-and-loose with facts to grant himself more latitude for the future. Either way, he is flat-out incorrect. The law is clear: it's in response to an attack.

The sheer ugliness of his flagrant lawlessness is quite obviously on display in his letter to Congress, wherein he says that sending the letter is "consistent" with the War Powers Act. Yes, he performed one specific required task after having violated the law completely by initiating hostilities, and performing that task IS "consistent" with the law. The other, incredibly damning fact is that the administration has NOT RESPONDED TO THE CORRECT ACCUSATIONS OF HAVING BROKEN THE LAW, which have come from respected major publications in our national media and members of both houses of Congress. The silence is deafening, especially for someone who habitually returns fire immediately.

Please admit that this is a violation of the War Powers Act and UN Participation Act; if you do not choose to, please refrain from making the contention that it isn't or disputing the contention that it is.

[Tx4obama]

101. I will not be told what to say by your or anyone else.

Of course the Senate knew that when they passed their resolution requesting the UN to impose a NFZ that the USA was going to be part of the UN mission.
You are free to go back and reread what I have actually said and you are free to stop reading more into what I said than I have, I actually don't care what you do one way or the other.
Most of what you've reply on my comments on this thread has nothing to do with anything 'I' said.

[Luminous Animal]

106. What the Senate knew is immaterial. The Senate is not the entirety of Congress.

Also, I find it laughable that the Senate chose not to record their votes. It makes it impossible to find out who was present.

[PurityOfEssence]

110. Do you not understand what the word "please" means either?

You stated an interpretation of what Rattner said, and I pointed out how this is not what he said. Sorry to stand up to you when you're flatly telling someone something that can be shown to be clearly incorrect; it's a bad habit. Here's the exchange:

You: "Read the OP. It bitches about Congress not being able to DEBATE."

Me: "He is not saying, as you claim he is, that Congress was not able to debate. He is saying, quite clearly, that by not going to Congress, Obama avoided opening up the subject.

Please tell me where I'm wrong. As for the rest of it, in other posts on this thread, you are barking at others insulting their depth of understanding of the War Powers Act, then posting a link to inanities from another poster who is either deliberately deceiving or unable to understand simple language.

If you somehow expect people to not get a bit tart with you, try showing some respect yourself.

[Imagevision]

56. I don't believe we're at war with Libya... stopping the slaughter, big difference

[EFerrari]

67. Bombing the residence of a head of state is an act of war. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

80. Bombing anything inside another country is an act of war

Bombing the airfields, the tanks, the troop convoys. All acts of war.

Yet another war with stringent rules of engagement. Enough use of force to keep us from losing, not enough to win. Quagmires start like this.

[PurityOfEssence]

96. Hell, the War Powers Act says that just introducing "armed forces" into "hostilities" is WAR

Just follow the Yellow Rubber line, and you'll find all sorts of cocksure ignoranuses (sic) who rear up on their hind legs and rage that "everything YOU know is wrong."

We're dealing with assholes here, liars and sanctimonious deceivers who are self-righteously enacting a "right" to deceive to sustain their hero.

After the many, clear specifics laid out about the War Powers Act and the UN Participation Act, anyone who could contend otherwise is either SLOBBERINGLY STUPID or a SOULLESS LIAR.

I welcome your presence here and appreciate your attempts to defend the Constitution.

Another Bear Whiz, if you please...

[TheKentuckian]

85. What is the real difference? How do you define a war?

Hell, I (ever decreasingly) support this but I do find the contortions and highly elastic logic to be very disconcerting.

I fear that when push comes to shove, many on our side also believe the constitution is "a goddamn piece of paper" when it serves them.

Yeah...we aren't at war these are excersises...yeah, that's the ticket...exercises.

It doesn't stop being war because you think it is the right thing.

How are you thinking we can commit acts of war but not participate in one.

Its not war, its stopping the slaughter is loose logic.

[PurityOfEssence]

97. You are a noble and decent sentient being, and you are to be applauded

It's war. It's illegal. It's a shocking revelation of the unscrupulous heartstring-tugging to get one's way. It's cynical and deeply deplorable; demonstrative of not just a lack of morals, but bad ones.

Those who deliberately, repeatedly attempt to deceive when they've been shown unmistakable original documents and have seen every quibbling shot to pieces are not only defective people, but dangerous.

We need to stand for something, and even the most beseeching mental contortion to justify such an action simply doesn't stand the test of scrutiny: he could have gotten authorization. He had the time to do it. The horrible revelation here is that he wants to destroy Congressional oversight about starting wars so much that he's willing to literally break the two very important laws that govern this behavior. The Republicans are caught here, too, because they thirst to get rid of Congressional authority.

It makes sense from Republicans: they hate groups and worship the individual; it's ugly and inconsistent from Democrats, because we are supposed to dislike monarchic rule-by-force and supposed to champion the law for all as a cherished covenant of ethical co-existence.

Thanks for the honorable posting.

[Baby Bear]

77. Howard Zinn said:

Obama is going to be a mediocre president.

In other words:
He is not too good, he is not too bad, he is just right.

[Keith Bee]

81. By Ratner's Criterion.....

...no American military action since WWII has been legal. Congressional "authorization" does not equal a declaration of war. Why the hell is he picking on Obama?

[H2O Man]

87. Wonderful thread!

Insight vs concrete thinking.

[Luminous Animal]

108. Better Believe It, this is a raging good discussion with barely an insult slung! I commend everyone

who is involved.

[slipslidingaway]

113. kick - further discussion here ...

"The False Defenders of Obama's War in Libya": Congress needed for UN call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=643800&mesg_id=643800

[Synicus Maximus]

114. It's not a war. It is a kinetic military action. It just looks like a war.