Did Obama seek an...

[Yonivore]

...Authorization for Use of Military Force from the U.S. Congress?

God, you liberal Obama sychophants must really be spittle-flecked over our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President engaging our military in a third war -- and the first without Congress' approval.

Just sayin'

[baseline bum]

Who the fuck likes Obama here? Are you fucking retarded?

[Sec24Row7]

We didn't do it in Bosnia either... It's not uncommon.... but yes I see the double standard

[Yonivore]

We didn't do it in Bosnia either... It's not uncommon.... but yes I see the double standard
Another Democrat.

The Senate debated the AUMF in Iraq for 6 months before passing it in October of 2002, another 6 months before President Bush actually acted on it and, even they, they complained about a lack of deliberation.

Where are all these whiny fucking Democrats now?

[Yonivore]

Who the fuck likes Obama here? Are you fucking retarded?
Well, a lot of people in here liked his ass on November 8, 2008. I know he's been shedding supporters like a bad case of dandruff but, they used to exist. Hell many of them would even admit it.

[baseline bum]

Well, a lot of people in here liked his ass on November 8, 2008. I know he's been shedding supporters like a bad case of dandruff but, they used to exist. Hell many of them would even admit it.

See, the left isn't like you. You would still be here singing Bush's praises if he jerked off all over the Lincoln Monument and then carpet bombed Minnesota.

[Yonivore]

"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Blasts Obama For Calling For Qaddafi to Step Down (Video) (http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html)

OY-_JsNrxiM

I can't wait to see what Reverend Wright has to say...

[Yonivore]

See, the left isn't like you. You would still be here singing Bush's praises if he jerked off all over the Lincoln Monument and then carpet bombed Minnesota.
I approved of Bush's actions in Iraq. Hell, I approve of Obama's actions in Libya, even though Hillary probably had to pussy-whip him into doing it. That's not the point of this thread.

[PublicOption]

UN resolution 1973.

foxnews:

last week, Obama sucks for not attacking sooner

next week, Obama sucks for kicking ass and taking names (GadDaffy)

[Yonivore]

UN resolution 1973.
President Bush was armed with over a dozen UNSC resolutions authorizing "all necessary means" to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression.

Your point?

[PublicOption]

UN resolution 1973.

foxnews:

last week, Obama sucks for not attacking sooner

next week, Obama sucks for kicking ass and taking names (GadDaffy)

[PublicOption]

foxnews:

last week, Obama sucks for not attacking sooner

next week, Obama sucks for kicking ass and taking names (GadDaffy)


make up your fucking mind.


USA, USA, USA

fuck yeah, fuck that asshole COL. dickhead had this coming for a long time. ........FUCK HIM UP.

[Yonivore]

foxnews:

last week, Obama sucks for not attacking sooner

next week, Obama sucks for kicking ass and taking names (GadDaffy)


make up your fucking mind.
Looks like you've already made up their "fucking minds" for them. I guess we'll see if that's how they report it.

Obama still sucks for not attacking sooner.

[ElNono]

President Bush was armed with over a dozen UNSC resolutions authorizing "all necessary means" to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression.

Your point?

Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion... you seem to forget Collin Powell's bullshit show on the UN seeking for such authorization prior to the war, which was voted down.

Obviously Yoni having selective memory is nothing new...

[George Gervin's Afro]

...Authorization for Use of Military Force from the U.S. Congress?

God, you liberal Obama sychophants must really be spittle-flecked over our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President engaging our military in a third war -- and the first without Congress' approval.

Just sayin'


wake me up when he orders and invasion... it must really bug you that we were able to work with the UN and our allies to get this accomplished... I guess you would have preferred for us to 'go it alone'

[RandomGuy]

...Authorization for Use of Military Force from the U.S. Congress?

God, you liberal Obama sychophants must really be spittle-flecked over our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President engaging our military in a third war -- and the first without Congress' approval.

Just sayin'

Meh. Let the Europeans do the heavy lifting, as they seem to be doing.

[RandomGuy]

Well, a lot of people in here liked his ass on November 8, 2008. I know he's been shedding supporters like a bad case of dandruff but, they used to exist. Hell many of them would even admit it.

Anytime I might have a tinge of any regret, I have only to think the words "Vice President Palin" and all of that goes away.

She is the Albatross around the GOP's neck. Try as you might, it says volumes about modern conservatives that she has a hard core of supporters drooling over her every pronouncement like she is some kind of conservative messiah.

[Wild Cobra]

She is the Albatross around the GOP's neck.
If you believe that, then wouldn't it be good to see her in full mode? You really think for VP, she's worse than Biden?

I too have mixed feeling. I sure in hell didn't want McCain as president, but Obama... Ouch. On the good side of that, we see Obama exposing his lack of leadership on a daily basis. With liberals in all three places, the public has seen just how dangerous liberals are in politics. I think Obama will go down in history as a pivotal role for restoring the concern of the people to take interest in government and vote, besides going down as the worse president ever.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yanni and Cobra Commander have been waiting for this one.

[Wild Cobra]

Yanni and Cobra Commander have been waiting for this one.
It's Commander Cobra...

[ElNono]

You really think for VP, she's worse than Biden?

No doubt. And Biden is nothing to be proud of.

[Wild Cobra]

No doubt. And Biden is nothing to be proud of.
We all have our opinions.

[ElNono]

We all have our opinions.

No doubt. I'm glad those that agree with you were in the minority though...

[ferg]

Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion... you seem to forget Collin Powell's bullshit show on the UN seeking for such authorization prior to the war, which was voted down.

Obviously Yoni having selective memory is nothing new...

wgaf if he had authorization for an invasion from the un? the point is, he had authorization from CONGRESS. u know, congress, the only orginization that has anything to do with what the US military does. the un, unfortunately for you, does not have anything to do with military action taken by the u.s.. i know the concept of that might be hard for you to grasp.

[LnGrrrR]

You know, it is lawful to send military to perform certain functions without it officially requiring authorization.

Not sure if this is one of those cases, tbh. I think that if this becomes worse, and we get more involved, he should look for a justification.

[ploto]

War Powers Resolution of 1973

Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action

Forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks for doing the research ploto

[ElNono]

wgaf if he had authorization for an invasion from the un? the point is, he had authorization from CONGRESS. u know, congress, the only orginization that has anything to do with what the US military does. the un, unfortunately for you, does not have anything to do with military action taken by the u.s.. i know the concept of that might be hard for you to grasp.

Obviously, Bush Jr did give a fuck about the UN, otherwise he wouldn't have sent Powell to do said dog and pony show. World relations and foreign policy might be a hard concept for you to grasp, but keep trying.

[ferg]

not discussing world relations here bud. i was pointing out the fact that weather or not we had "authorization" from the un to use force on iraq is a moot point as the OP asked if obama had asked for permission from congress to use military force. YOU, kind sir, quickly tried to deflect away from what obama has done. which is something i see happening often on this board or really any other board that talks about politics with obama supporters. "obama did this today and didnt follow protocol" "but, but, george bush did this". this might be a hard concept to grasp for you but i think you can do it!

[ElNono]

not discussing world relations here bud. i was pointing out the fact that weather or not we had "authorization" from the un to use force on iraq is a moot point as the OP asked if obama had asked for permission from congress to use military force. YOU, kind sir, quickly tried to deflect away from what obama has done.

Go look up what I was replying to. I was merely answering a claim about UN resolutions during the Bush Jr era. Heck, I didn't even bring THAT topic around. You're just barking to the wrong tree.


which is something i see happening often on this board or really any other board that talks about politics with obama supporters. "obama did this today and didnt follow protocol" "but, but, george bush did this". this might be a hard concept to grasp for you but i think you can do it!

I disagree with the vast majority of actions by this administration, due to the fact they're a continuation of the previous one. Not sure how that makes me an "Obama supporter".

ploto already addressed the OP. Do you have anything to add to that?

[boutons_deux]

No matter what Barry HUSSEIN or Dems do, WC, Yoni, etc, will be against it, even flipping their positions to remain in disloyal opposition.

[ChumpDumper]

If the US was committing ground troops and billions of dollars in a full scale invasion of Libya, then that idiot yoni might have a point. As it is, the US isn't even flying the combat missions.

[ferg]

Go look up what I was replying to. I was merely answering a claim about UN resolutions during the Bush Jr era. Heck, I didn't even bring THAT topic around. You're just barking to the wrong tree.


Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion... you seem to forget Collin Powell's bullshit show on the UN seeking for such authorization prior to the war, which was voted down.

Obviously Yoni having selective memory is nothing new...

your right, u didnt bring it up. HOWEVER, you did in fact say he did not have an authorization from the un prior to the "war". i countered with, the president does not need to seek authorization for the un prior to starting a war with another country. would it be a good idea? sure it would. is it necessary? nope, sure isnt. the only thing that is necessary is the getting the "go-ahead" from congress. that is all. i firmly believe the un should be disbanded in this day and age anyway. it had its place in the cold war but in this day and age with no real defined threat, its really an outdated organization. i digress


I disagree with the vast majority of actions by this administration, due to the fact they're a continuation of the previous one. Not sure how that makes me an "Obama supporter".

sorry man , didnt mean to peg you as an obama supporter but that is a tactic i have seen more often then not amongst obama supporter, so if ur not, my bad.



ploto already addressed the OP. Do you have anything to add to that?

and no i do not have anything add to what ploto mentioned becuase that is in fact a power the president has which i have no problem the president uitilizing. again its not up to the un as to weather or not we use force it is up to congress. so, with that being said, if clinton went to the un and asked to use force with the un's backing and was voted against it but congress voted to go ahead and use force against them would that be ok?

[ElNono]

your right, u didnt bring it up. HOWEVER, you did in fact say he did not have an authorization from the un prior to the "war". i countered with, the president does not need to seek authorization for the un prior to starting a war with another country. would it be a good idea? sure it would. is it necessary? nope, sure isnt. the only thing that is necessary is the getting the "go-ahead" from congress. that is all. i firmly believe the un should be disbanded in this day and age anyway. it had its place in the cold war but in this day and age with no real defined threat, its really an outdated organization. i digress

You're arguing a point I never made. I never said Bush Jr wasn't authorized by Congress to go at it alone, or that he started the was in any clandestine way.
What you think about the UN is your opinion.
I do think finding consensus with your allies helps towards building a strong relationship and is a good foreign policy tactic... the UN is the place to do that. Obviously Bush Jr understood that, even though he half-assed it, IMO.


sorry man , didnt mean to peg you as an obama supporter but that is a tactic i have seen more often then not amongst obama supporter, so if ur not, my bad.

I don't like Obama any more than I like Bush Jr.


and no i do not have anything add to what ploto mentioned becuase that is in fact a power the president has which i have no problem the president uitilizing. again its not up to the un as to weather or not we use force it is up to congress. so, with that being said, if clinton went to the un and asked to use force with the un's backing and was voted against it but congress voted to go ahead and use force against them would that be ok?

Congress doesn't mandate the use of force, it merely enables it. So if Congress authorizes and the UN doesn't, you could push the diplomatic aspect more until the UN reverses it's decision.
The UN hasn't been particularly reluctant to allow the use of force when it undoubtedly is needed, and this mission is a reflection of that, along with missions that predate it (Bush Sr incursion in Iraq comes to mind).
I think you want to have a delicate balance between diplomacy and force, because ultimately that's beneficial to the US.

[ferg]

You're arguing a point I never made.

read what you said here and what it implicates.


Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion... you seem to forget Collin Powell's bullshit show on the UN seeking for such authorization prior to the war, which was voted down.


YOUR post, made by YOU, IMPLICATES he had to seek authorization from the UN to go into iraq! im not sure how you can say differently.


I never said Bush Jr wasn't authorized by Congress to go at it alone, or that he started the was in any clandestine way.

you are right u didnt and niether do i.

What you think about the UN is your opinion.

thanks i appreciate you lettin my have my opinion


I do think finding consensus with your allies helps towards building a strong relationship and is a good foreign policy tactic... the UN is the place to do that. Obviously Bush Jr understood that, even though he half-assed it, IMO.

agree to a point. the un doesnt really do a whole lot more than provide a meeting place for countries. co-ordinating something could be done via diplomacy, between a couple of countries. the un is not the end all be all when it comes to action by a country to protect whatever interests it has in other countries.


Congress doesn't mandate the use of force, it merely enables it.

i never said it did. they authorize the president to give orders to our military commanders, being a military man this is very well understood by me.


So if Congress authorizes and the UN doesn't, you could push the diplomatic aspect more until the UN reverses it's decision.

dubya did try that route, in your opinon in a half assed effort, and it was shot down so we went at it alone with a few allies.

[Cry Havoc]

Amazing how ploto throws down a little factual information in this thread and suddenly Yoni and company are nowhere to be found.

[boutons_deux]

If the US was committing ground troops and billions of dollars in a full scale invasion of Libya, then that idiot yoni might have a point. As it is, the US isn't even flying the combat missions.

We know that US ground forces be wrong, because BK is for it, and he's always wrong.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/20/bill-kristol-calls-for-u-s-ground-forces-in-libya/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[ChumpDumper]

President Clinton ruled out ground forces in Kosovo. And finally, the threat of ground forces caused Miloševic to capitulate and we ended up sending in peacekeeping forces and we eventually got rid of Miloševic.So they don't actually have to send in ground troops. Ok, Billy.

[ElNono]

read what you said here and what it implicates.

YOUR post, made by YOU, IMPLICATES he had to seek authorization from the UN to go into iraq! im not sure how you can say differently.

I can see how you would interpret that if you took it out of the context of what was being adressed. Bush Jr sought authorization from the UN security council and was voted down. There's no if or buts about it. Claiming he had a plethora of UN resolutions backing up the invasion is disingenuous at best, flat out lie at worst.
Now, the fact that he could go at it unilaterally is something I didn't touch at all in that post. I thought the post was pretty clear as far as what it was addressing, but I guess not.


agree to a point. the un doesnt really do a whole lot more than provide a meeting place for countries. co-ordinating something could be done via diplomacy, between a couple of countries. the un is not the end all be all when it comes to action by a country to protect whatever interests it has in other countries.

Never claimed otherwise.


dubya did try that route, in your opinon in a half assed effort, and it was shot down so we went at it alone with a few allies.

When you base your argument on lies, then go at it alone and confirm that you were indeed full of shit (I'm obviously talking about WMD, which was Powell's main topic in the UN), then you're half-assing it and giving the US a bad name, IMO.

[lazerelmo]

Meh. Let the Europeans do the heavy lifting, as they seem to be doing.

What heavy lifting are you talking about? The only thing coalition forces are doing is flying their jets over a no fly zone that we established. All of those tomahawks were fired from US ships and subs. The stealth bombers flew out of Missouri. I've only read one report of French planes engaging ground targets.

[ferg]

I can see how you would interpret that if you took it out of the context of what was being adressed.

or maybe its a shitty argument that has no basis in the OP? the op was did obama ask for authorization from congress to use force against libyan military targets? answer: no he didnt, why because he didnt neccessarily have to as pointed out by ploto.


Bush Jr sought authorization from the UN security council and was voted down. There's no if or buts about it. Claiming he had a plethora of UN resolutions backing up the invasion is disingenuous at best, flat out lie at worst.
Now, the fact that he could go at it unilaterally is something I didn't touch at all in that post. I thought the post was pretty clear as far as what it was addressing, but I guess not.

actually he did have a plethora of resolutions that were repeatedly violated since the first gulf war! its amazing how people forget that!


When you base your argument on lies, then go at it alone and confirm that you were indeed full of shit (I'm obviously talking about WMD, which was Powell's main topic in the UN), then you're half-assing it and giving the US a bad name, IMO.

also, how can it be a falt out lie if the information you have at the time is deemed correct and from a creditable source? perhaps the admin went to the security council with intel that was never correct in the first place. IF that was in fact the case we would have no way of knowing because saddam routinely kicked out the weapons inspectors and wouldnt allow access to certain places, which was *gasp* a violation of some of the resolutions!:wow

also, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_in.html
pretty interesting article right here which talks about none other than wikileaks!! kinda shits on your theory of lies doesnt it?

[ElNono]

or maybe its a shitty argument that has no basis in the OP? the op was did obama ask for authorization from congress to use force against libyan military targets? answer: no he didnt, why because he didnt neccessarily have to as pointed out by ploto.

I wasn't responding to the OP, thus your point is moot.


actually he did have a plethora of resolutions that were repeatedly violated since the first gulf war! its amazing how people forget that!

I didn't forget. However, the resolution enabling use of force was voted down.


also, how can it be a falt out lie if the information you have at the time is deemed correct and from a creditable source? perhaps the admin went to the security council with intel that was never correct in the first place. IF that was in fact the case we would have no way of knowing because saddam routinely kicked out the weapons inspectors and wouldnt allow access to certain places, which was *gasp* a violation of some of the resolutions!:wow

It's a lie when, after the fact, the 'mobile WMD lab trucks' are nowhere to be found. The credibility of the source is debatable at best. The findings speak for themselves. They went in on a hunch, and it didn't pan out, damaging the US credibility in the process.


also, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_in.html
pretty interesting article right here which talks about none other than wikileaks!! kinda shits on your theory of lies doesnt it?

No, actually those articles reaffirm the previous administration was full of shit. Finding that 10 rounds of artillery tested positive for mustard is hardly the smoking gun they were looking for. Iraq having some chemical weapons was not new, seeing they've used some in the past. Accusing them to have a large scale secret WMD program in place, then not finding any such thing is very different. Where are the mobile labs Powell identified during the UN presentation? There were no such things. Obviously, admitting they were hotdog stands was probably more damaging, so they did do well to stay silent and then move the goalposts to the 'liberation' angle.

Don't get me wrong, I would be as pissed with Obama or Clinton should they pull the same kind of shit. I've always been high on what Bush Sr did in the Iraq/Kuwait campaign. Same with Clinton in Yugoslavia.
I already stated I have no problem with this no-fly zone installation in Lybia.

[Spurminator]

...Authorization for Use of Military Force from the U.S. Congress?

God, you liberal Obama sychophants must really be spittle-flecked over our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President engaging our military in a third war -- and the first without Congress' approval.

Just sayin'

Sounds to me like a lot of anti-war activists don't support this move. I'm not sure where you're finding the hypocrisy. Link?

Just sayin'.

[Marcus Bryant]

Afghanistan - obvious target after 9/11. Would have been difficult for any administration to not engage in military action with the Taliban. We knew going in that it would be a morass, given the lessons of previous military invasions.

Iraq - Hussein had been on the US radar for quite a while as a potential recipient of "regime change." Still, the administration then determined the action before deciding if it was a good idea. Far too many individuals in the administration in positions of influence were wedded to the idea of democratizing the Middle East through force. Also, Saddam tried to whack the president's Poppy.

Libya - current US commitment is light enough to allow an obviously reluctant president to bail before getting bogged down there. Even less clear potential threat to the US than Iraq ever was. IMO, the administration is looking for quick success in eliminating Gaddafi or they will pull back and let it die down, given that we're roughly a year and a half out from a presidential election.

[Yonivore]

Your typical Obama supporter, today.

jZsG28JcRg8

[Yonivore]

Amazing how ploto throws down a little factual information in this thread and suddenly Yoni and company are nowhere to be found.
Sorry, some people worship and work around here. What'd piece of brilliance did ploto lay down?

the War Powers Act of 1973. The one that was around when y'all were whining about President Bush who, by the way, fulfilled that very obligation -- every 90 days -- after invading Iraq; on top of actually having Congressional approval to use military force and 17 UNSC resolutions calling for member countries to do whatever was necessary.

My favorite post in this thread?


You know, it is lawful to send military to perform certain functions without it officially requiring authorization.
No shit? You just discovering this?


Not sure if this is one of those cases, tbh. I think that if this becomes worse, and we get more involved, he should look for a justification.
Yeah, justification should never be a predicate to putting our military into harms way.

But, in fairness to LnGrrrR, I have no doubt this President will do just that.

By the way, Obama has gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good. I doubt justifying his actions in Libya are at the top of his priority list.

[Yonivore]

President Obama has officially fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize laureates, combined.

Heck of a job, Barry.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, then he'll be like the one before him. And before him.

[Yonivore]

Except he didn't have authorization for carrying out an invasion...
I don't think the AUMF in Iraq prohibited an invasion. And, in the proceeding 9 years, since its passage, Congress has done nothing to restrict, repeal, or otherwise abandon the AUMF in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nothing, that is, except for Congressional Democrats bitching for a decade.

[Yonivore]

Well, then he'll be like the one before him. And before him.
Not really.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, the legislative branch has been passing authority to the executive for quite some time now.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not really.

True. This one might not get the country bogged down in yet another military quagmire.

[Yonivore]

True. This one might not get the country bogged down in yet another military quagmire.
I was referring to the two years he spent in full-throated opposition to the very policies he now embraces. I don't think that particular trait was shared by either of his two predecessors.

And, last I checked, he's been President of the United States since January 2009; anytime he wanted to pick up our assets and pull out of his predecessor's "quagmires," he's been free to do so.

[Marcus Bryant]

And GWB was against "nation-building" once upon a time as a candidate. It happens.

[Marcus Bryant]

Now that popular conservatism is tied at the hip to shooting up as many countries as possible, I guess we can forget that principle.

[ElNono]

I don't think the AUMF in Iraq prohibited an invasion.

The 2002 AUMF is not based off a UN resolution. Compare and contrast with the 1991 AUMF passed by Congress "pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678"

[Marcus Bryant]

The left bitches about the airstrikes, the right bitches that it was too late and too little. The president triangulates and the general public finds that to its liking. Not hard to see where this is heading.

[Yonivore]

The 2002 AUMF is not based off a UN resolution. Compare and contrast with the 1991 AUMF passed by Congress "pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678"
Oh, I thought you meant he didn't have Congressional approval for an invasion. I don't care if the UN authorized it. If they don't like what we do, they can relocate their headquarters to some country that does.

And, I'm not going to go back and read all 17 UNSC resolutions, issued during the 90's and early 00's, against Iraq but, I'm pretty sure more than a few of them specifically said members could use all necessary means to stop Iraq from whatever insult that particularly UNSC resolution was drawn up to address. I read most of them, contemporaneous to their passage, and vaguely remember wondering why we didn't use that as justification to kick his ass on several ocassions.

[Yonivore]

Went back and read the 2002 AUMF in Iraq and, lo and behold, they did recall the several UNSC resolutions in the justifications section...


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Well, there goes that canard. Care to try something else, ElNono?

[ElNono]

Oh, I thought you meant he didn't have Congressional approval for an invasion. I don't care if the UN authorized it. If they don't like what we do, they can relocate their headquarters to some country that does.

No, I was specifically addressing this claim:


President Bush was armed with over a dozen UNSC resolutions authorizing "all necessary means" to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression.


And, I'm not going to go back and read all 17 UNSC resolutions, issued during the 90's and early 00's, against Iraq but, I'm pretty sure more than a few of them specifically said members could use all necessary means to stop Iraq from whatever insult that particularly UNSC resolution was drawn up to address. I read most of them, contemporaneous to their passage, and vaguely remember wondering why we didn't use that as justification to kick his ass on several ocassions.

It's clear that he thought he didn't have authorization from prior resolutions, otherwise he wouldn't have been requesting a new one authorizing the invasion. Then again, Bush Jr foreign policy was amongst the worst this country ever had, so it's no surprise he went maverick.

[Yonivore]

And GWB was against "nation-building" once upon a time as a candidate. It happens.
September 11 changed his mind. You can disagree but, at least he has a reason for the shift in ideology.

What's Obama's excuse?

[Yonivore]

It's clear that he thought he didn't have authorization from prior resolutions, otherwise he wouldn't have been requesting a new one authorizing the invasion. Then again, Bush Jr foreign policy was amongst the worst this country ever had, so it's no surprise he went maverick.
I'm going to assume you were composing this when I was posting the AUMF's language referring to the previous UNSC resolutions.

[ElNono]

Went back and read the 2002 AUMF in Iraq and, lo and behold, they did recall the several UNSC resolutions in the justifications section...

Except that UN resolution 678 was the one that authorized Desert Storm back in the Bush Sr days, which was subsequently superseded by the weapons inspection resolutions and the no-fly zone resolutions (some of which Saddam didn't entirely comply with, but neither of which authorized invasion).

But keep glossing over wikipedia, maybe you'll find a smoking gun.


Well, there goes that canard. Care to try something else, ElNono?

Not really. I think Powell dog and pony show in the UN is fairly well documented, along with the lack of alleged WMD program.
But maybe we should wait until all documents are translated, Yoni.

[ElNono]

I'm going to assume you were composing this when I was posting the AUMF's language referring to the previous UNSC resolutions.

I was, but the point stands, and you didn't answer it.
If he felt like he had authorization, why did he seek a new resolution from the UN?

[Yonivore]

I was, but the point stands, and you didn't answer it.
If he felt like he had authorization, why did he seek a new resolution from the UN?
To give them a chance to get on board. Who knows but, if he thought he needed it, he was disabused of that before March of 2003.

[Marcus Bryant]

September 11 changed his mind. You can disagree but, at least he has a reason for the shift in ideology.

What's Obama's excuse?

Prudence. Not a bad concept. There are plenty of two bit asshole dictators around the world. Further, can not Obama claim a change of mind after actually occupying the big chair for a couple years? That was the right's meme in the last election, after all.

[Yonivore]

Prudence. Not a bad concept. There are plenty of two bit asshole dictators around the world. Further, can not Obama claim a change of mind after actually occupying the big chair for a couple years? That was the right's meme in the last election, after all.
Has he claimed such? And, if he did, I'd be interested to hear what seminal event led to that change.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'll leave that to him. Did GWB ever acknowledge his 180?

[ElNono]

To give them a chance to get on board. Who knows but, if he thought he needed it, he was disabused of that before March of 2003.

You don't need a UN resolution for that, just pick up the phone.
Disabused by who? US lawyers?

Going at it alone reflected very poorly outside of the US, something that even cost them some allies during operations (Spain comes to mind). Now, I suspect you don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks, and that's certainly your choice.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, justification should never be a predicate to putting our military into harms way.Iraq wasn't justified.


By the way, Obama has gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good.Not really. Only an idiot would think that.
I doubt justifying his actions in Libya are at the top of his priority list.You are a complete fucking loser.

[Yonivore]

I'll leave that to him.
That's fine but, will you harangue him as you did Bush?


Did GWB ever acknowledge his 180?
Yes, on several occasions. His opposition to "nation-building" was abandoned when the Taliban-run government of Afghanistan refused to give up the terrorists, based there, that had perpetrated the 9-11 attacks.

He's stated it in interviews and it's in his memoir, "Decision Points."

[Yonivore]

You don't need a UN resolution for that, just pick up the phone.
When you're President, do it your way.


Disabused by who? US lawyers?
Most likely by Saddam Hussein but, really, you'd need to ask him.


Going at it alone reflected very poorly outside of the US, something that even cost them some allies during operations (Spain comes to mind). Now, I suspect you don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks, and that's certainly your choice.
There was originally a 49 country coalition involved in the invasion of Iraq. I'm not sure they started bailing as fast as did Obama's Arab partners in his back-seat driving of the coalition that attacked Libya yesterday.

They're already whining about his truth in advertising the moment the meaning of a no-fly zone dawns on them that civilians may be killed.

Arab League condemns broad Western bombing campaign in Libya (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3)

And, now, the Chinese and Russians appear to be getting pissed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-air-strikes-waning-arab-support), saying we've already exceeded our stated objective. That's a fucking day after the shooting starts.

Oh, and no matter what the administration says, the world sees this as a U.S.-led action. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs even said, we have "unique" assets that no one else has that makes this operation possible.

[ChumpDumper]

What is yoni bitching about here?

[DMX7]

This isn't even a war, it's just a one-sided bombing campaign.

[Blake]

By the way, Obama has gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good.

it seems like the ones that know absolutely nothing about college ball are the ones that win the tourneys I'm in every year.

[LnGrrrR]

Sorry, some people worship and work around here. What'd piece of brilliance did ploto lay down?

the War Powers Act of 1973. The one that was around when y'all were whining about President Bush who, by the way, fulfilled that very obligation -- every 90 days -- after invading Iraq; on top of actually having Congressional approval to use military force and 17 UNSC resolutions calling for member countries to do whatever was necessary.

Which one of us here argued that the War in Iraq wasn't justified legally by an AUMF? I'm guessing it's the minority. You're arguing a strawman.


No shit? You just discovering this?

You were the one acting like it was an outrage he didn't have an AUMF. I explained he didn't need one yet. *shrug*


By the way, Obama has gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good. I doubt justifying his actions in Libya are at the top of his priority list.

That's beneath even you, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Which one of us here argued that the War in Iraq wasn't justified legally by an AUMF? I'm guessing it's the minority. You're arguing a strawman.

You were the one acting like it was an outrage he didn't have an AUMF. I explained he didn't need one yet. *shrug*
No, I'm the one pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the left that will give Obama a pass for doing exactly the things over which he criticized his predecessor mercilessly for two years, while campaigning, and -- in doing so -- didn't even bother to seek the authorizations the Bush administration spent a year garnering.

I support the Libya action. I'm not outraged at the lack of an AUMF; in fact, I think he should have started bombing 10 days ago when it became apparent the Libyan madman was going to annihilate the popular uprising.


That's beneath even you, Yoni.
Save your sanctimony.

[ChumpDumper]

Again yoni, tell us when the US ground forces are invading and occupying Libya.

You said it's exactly the same.

[ElNono]

There was originally a 49 country coalition involved in the invasion of Iraq.

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[ChumpDumper]

You remembered Poland.

[Yonivore]

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
You're only counting boots on the ground. If that's you're measure, there's a zero country coalition in Libya.

[Yonivore]

In a question about bombing Iran, which I also support, Candidate Barack Obama had this (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/)to say.


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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Call it the Obama-Kucinich Doctrine. I'm betting Obama differs with Kucinich on what should happen to a President that violates this tenet (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html).

[ElNono]

You're only counting boots on the ground. If that's you're measure, there's a zero country coalition in Libya.

No, I'm not. That WAS the original coalition that went to war unilaterally.
There's no comparison between 2003 Iraq and Lybia, as there's no invasion in Lybia (at the moment anyways), only the installation of a no-fly zone.

[Yonivore]

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
My wiki can beat up your wiki.

Multi-National Force – Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq)

[Yonivore]

No, I'm not. That WAS the original coalition that went to war unilaterally.

There's no comparison between 2003 Iraq and Lybia, as there's no invasion in Lybia (at the moment anyways), only the installation of a no-fly zone.
Military force is military force.

[ElNono]

My wiki can beat up your wiki.

Multi-National Force – Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq)

No, it can't. You said 49 nations were part of the coalition in the invasion of Iraq. They weren't. Only 4 were part of the coalition during the invasion.

Others joined in and left post-facto.

[Yonivore]

No, I'm not. That WAS the original coalition that went to war unilaterally.

There's no comparison between 2003 Iraq and Lybia, as there's no invasion in Lybia (at the moment anyways), only the installation of a no-fly zone.
Military force is military force. One could argue a well-placed special operations detail could produce better results than 115 Tomahawks.

I'm not going to argue with how the military implements the President's objective -- no matter how vague it may be at present.

I know the President has said no ground troops but, now that you've swatted the hornet's nest; what does he do if, by chance, the Libyan dictator is able to project force beyond his border and attack -- via terrorist (with which he is know to have a real cozy relationship) -- a U. S. interest somewhere in the world?

Do we invade then?

[ChumpDumper]

You're only counting boots on the ground. If that's you're measure, there's a zero country coalition in Libya.Thanks for kicking your own ass by showing it's not the same thing.

[ElNono]

Military force is military force.

No, it's not. Tell me how many ground troops the US has deployed in Lybia.

[ChumpDumper]

Military force is military force. One could argue a well-placed special operations detail could produce better results than 115 Tomahawks.

I'm not going to argue with how the military implements the President's objective -- no matter how vague it may be at present.

I know the President has said no ground troops but, now that you've swatted the hornet's nest; what does he do if, by chance, the Libyan dictator is able to project force beyond his border and attack -- via terrorist (with which he is know to have a real cozy relationship) -- a U. S. interest somewhere in the world?

Do we invade then?Do we invade because you have a hunch that might happen?

[ElNono]

Thanks for kicking your own ass by showing it's not the same thing.

[Yonivore]

No, it can't. You said 49 nations were part of the coalition in the invasion of Iraq. They weren't. Only 4 were part of the coalition during the invasion.

Others joined in and left post-facto.
I'm not going to side-track the debate, have your way...it doesn't even matter to the current conversation.

[ElNono]

Do we invade because you have a hunch that might happen?

[Yonivore]

No, it's not. Tell me how many ground troops the US has deployed in Lybia.
Tomahawks are military force. And, truth be told, there are some brave soldiers on the ground in Libya...I'd almost guarantee it.

[ElNono]

I'm not going to side-track the debate, have your way...it doesn't even matter to the current conversation.

What debate? :lol

[ElNono]

Tomahawks are military force. And, truth be told, there are some brave soldiers on the ground in Libya...I'd almost guarantee it.

Not an invasion though

[LnGrrrR]

No, I'm the one pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the left that will give Obama a pass for doing exactly the things over which he criticized his predecessor mercilessly for two years, while campaigning, and -- in doing so -- didn't even bother to seek the authorizations the Bush administration spent a year garnering.

Except there are tons of Democrats that are outraged about it, effectively undercutting your argument.

As well, what "authorizations" do you think the Left expects him to seek out? NATO authorizations? It's pretty obvious that NATO is behind this.


I support the Libya action. I'm not outraged at the lack of an AUMF; in fact, I think he should have started bombing 10 days ago when it became apparent the Libyan madman was going to annihilate the popular uprising.

Your support shows through strongly.


Save your sanctimony.

The moment you stop hand-wringing, I will.

[LnGrrrR]

In a question about bombing Iran, which I also support, Candidate Barack Obama had this (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/)to say.


Call it the Obama-Kucinich Doctrine. I'm betting Obama differs with Kucinich on what should happen to a President that violates this tenet (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html).

What's that? Obama isn't interested in defending civil liberties and stopping overreaching executive power? I am SHOCKED.

Next you'll be telling me that the sun is coming up tomorrow.

[RandomGuy]

Uh? You mean 4?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq


The United States assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq's aggression, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself

Yoni could be referring to this dimly-remembered event as well.

You know, when the Republican president decided to forgo unilateralism and forge an international consensus.

Yoni would have been all for that, if he had been out of grade school by then.

Because, you know, it's always the right thing when a Republican does it. :rolleyes

[vy65]

Call it the Obama-Kucinich Doctrine. I'm betting Obama differs with Kucinich on what should happen to a President that violates this tenet (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html).

What about our obligations as a member of the general assembly in carrying out a mandate from the UN?

[coyotes_geek]

What about our obligations as a member of the general assembly in carrying out a mandate from the UN?

Please. If Russia, China and Germany get to decide that they don't have an obligation as a member of the general assembly to carry out a mandate from the U.N. then we can too. Fuck the U.N.

[vy65]

Please. If Russia, China and Germany get to decide that they don't have an obligation as a member of the general assembly to carry out a mandate from the U.N. then we can too. Fuck the U.N.

What does that have to do with the "Obama Kucinich" doctrine?

Also, how have those countries decided that they have no obligation to enforce a UN mandate?

[coyotes_geek]

What does that have to do with the "Obama Kucinich" doctrine?

You tell me. You're the one who apparantely thinks that a U.N. mandate trumps "obama kucinich".


Also, how have those countries decided that they have no obligation to enforce a UN mandate?

Well, we're dropping bombs on Libya and they're not. Why do you think that is?

[vy65]

You tell me. You're the one who apparantely thinks that a U.N. mandate trumps "obama kucinich".

You should ask Yoni that question - he made the doctrine up.


Well, we're dropping bombs on Libya and they're not. Why do you think that is?

Because we voted to do so.

[coyotes_geek]

You should ask Yoni that question - he made the doctrine up.

I understand the concept behind Yoni's made up doctrine. I don't understand why you think the US has an obligation to enforce UN mandates when other countries do not.


Because we voted to do so.

Right. We did, and Russia, China and Germany didn't. Now we have a UN mandate with Russia, China and Germany deciding that they don't have an obligation to enforce it.

[vy65]

I understand the concept behind Yoni's made up doctrine. I don't understand why you think the US has an obligation to enforce UN mandates when other countries do not.

Then explain this doctrine; specifically, why the US would not be obligated to enforce UN mandates that it votes for.


Right. We did, and Russia, China and Germany didn't. Now we have a UN mandate with Russia, China and Germany deciding that they don't have an obligation to enforce it.

And we have an obligation to enforce said mandate given that we voted for it along with other permanent members of the UNSC. What's your point?

[MannyIsGod]

There's not a facepalm big enough.

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, someone please explain what the hell we hope to accomplish by bombing the crap out of Libya and then leaving?

If regime change wasn't the goal, what WAS the goal?

[ChumpDumper]

OK, someone please explain what the hell we hope to accomplish by bombing the crap out of Libya and then leaving?

If regime change wasn't the goal, what WAS the goal?Who said we were leaving?

[CosmicCowboy]

Who said we were leaving?

Who said we were staying?

[ChumpDumper]

Who said we were staying?Exactly.

[CosmicCowboy]

So what is the point?

[vy65]

OK, someone please explain what the hell we hope to accomplish by bombing the crap out of Libya and then leaving?

If regime change wasn't the goal, what WAS the goal?

Enforcing a UN mandated no-fly zone that Quadafi has violated.

[ChumpDumper]

So what is the point?What would be accomplished by giving an arbitrary deadline?

[CosmicCowboy]

What would be accomplished by giving an arbitrary deadline?

No, Chump, I mean WTF are we doing there?

[ChumpDumper]

No, Chump, I mean WTF are we doing there?Pretty much facilitating the rebellion in the east so they can consolidate their holdings and/or advance. Couldn't tell you the extent of any coordination between the coalition forces and the rebels, but if Afghanistan and Iraq provide any kind of template, it is occurring. Probably more like Afghanistan, where the US did little of the initial fighting.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like Afghanistan...Oh Ok...Thats reassuring.

[ChumpDumper]

Like Afghanistan...Oh Ok...Thats reassuring.But with oil.

[CosmicCowboy]

But with oil.

Oh...even better. And as my memory serves me the oil in Libya is in the eastern half of the country...the part with the rebels...uh huh.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh...even better. And as my memory serves me the oil in Libya is in the eastern half of the country...the part with the rebels...uh huh.Now you're getting it.

[coyotes_geek]

Then explain this doctrine; specifically, why the US would not be obligated to enforce UN mandates that it votes for.

And we have an obligation to enforce said mandate given that we voted for it along with other permanent members of the UNSC. What's your point?

My point is that there is no such thing as an obligation to the UN to enforce their mandates. We're bombing Libya because our president wants us to be bombing Libya. Not because we're in any way required to do so over some stupid UN mandate. We didn't have to support the mandate. We wanted to. We were not obligated to.


OK, someone please explain what the hell we hope to accomplish by bombing the crap out of Libya and then leaving?

If regime change wasn't the goal, what WAS the goal?

What we hope to accomplish is to weaken Gaddafi's forces enough to where the rebels can take him out. If rebels get in trouble again, the no-fly zone will suddenly become "inadequate" and the coalition will start targeting pro-Gaddafi ground forces, under the cloak of doing it to protect civilians.

Goal #1 is regime change. Goal #2 is making it look like the rebels deserve all the credit and we were just there to protect the innocents.

[vy65]

My point is that there is no such thing as an obligation to the UN to enforce their mandates. We're bombing Libya because our president wants us to be bombing Libya. Not because we're in any way required to do so over some stupid UN mandate. We didn't have to support the mandate. We wanted to. We were not obligated to.

That presupposes a lot. Why aren't we obligated to enforce UN mandates? We're a permanent member of the security counsel, aren't we? We supposedly take the international rule of law seriously, don't we? We support the UN as an institution, right?

In any event, what's the point in entertaining scenarios that didn't happen? We voted for the no-fly zone, didn't we? Do you think we didn't become obligated to enforce the mandate we voted for?

[CosmicCowboy]

That presupposes a lot. Why aren't we obligated to enforce UN mandates? We're a permanent member of the security counsel, aren't we? We supposedly take the international rule of law seriously, don't we? We support the UN as an institution, right?

In any event, what's the point in entertaining scenarios that didn't happen? We voted for the no-fly zone, didn't we? Do you think we didn't become obligated to enforce the mandate we voted for?

There wouldn't have been a UN mandate if we hadn't voted to intercede.

[vy65]

Can someone explain to me what's so controversial about being obligated to enforce the UN mandates that we voted for?

[vy65]

There wouldn't have been a UN mandate if we hadn't voted to intercede.

Absolutely. Too bad that's not what happened.

[CosmicCowboy]

There have been UN mandates before that we have just wrung our hands over and didn't do shit.

[coyotes_geek]

That presupposes a lot. Why aren't we obligated to enforce UN mandates? We're a permanent member of the security counsel, aren't we? We supposedly take the international rule of law seriously, don't we? We support the UN as an institution, right?

Russia and China are permament members of the UNSEC too. Where's their obligation to bomb Libya?

[MannyIsGod]

He keeps using the word obligation but I'm not sure he knows what it means.

[vy65]

He keeps using the word obligation but I'm not sure he knows what it means.

Great contribution to the discussion. Thx bud.

[CosmicCowboy]

So is vy65 the only one in the political forum that thinks we should be bombing Libya?

[vy65]

Russia and China are permament members of the UNSEC too. Where's their obligation to bomb Libya?

They're obligated to enforce UN mandates as well.

[CosmicCowboy]

How did enforcing all those UN Resolutions work out for Rwanda?

[vy65]

How did that work out for Rwanda?

Not very well. But that's besides the point. They still had an obligation - the fact that they welched on it is a different issue.

[CosmicCowboy]

So we could have just as easily welched on this one too?

[vy65]

So we could have just as easily welched on this one too?

Why's that relevant?

[coyotes_geek]

They're obligated to enforce UN mandates as well.

So why aren't they bombing Libya right now? They're obligated to.

[CosmicCowboy]

Did y'all see that video of the dead tank with a fucking GOATS HEAD hanging off the muzzle of the cannon and that stupid motherfucker just sitting on the cannon barrel shooting his AK47 straight up in the air?

THATS who we are fighting for?

[vy65]

So why aren't they bombing Libya right now? They're obligated to.

I don't know why they're not.

But as constituent members of the UNSC, I'd say they are obligated to enforce the no fly zone.

I've yet to get a coherent reason out of you as to why they're not other than the fact that Russia/China have done nothing.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't know why they're not.

But as constituent members of the UNSC, I'd say they are obligated to enforce the no fly zone.

I've yet to get a coherent reason out of you as to why they're not other than the fact that Russia/China have done nothing.

They didn't vote for it, they didn't send help. Good enough?

[vy65]

They didn't vote for it, they didn't send help. Good enough?

Sure. But that means that those countries who did vote for it would probably be obligated to enforce the mandate, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

How old are you?

[vy65]

How old are you?

Old enough.

[CosmicCowboy]

I just assumed that if you believed in the UN you also believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

[vy65]

I just assumed that if you believed in the UN you also believed in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

Good argument.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Can you point me to the piece of legislation that obligates us to enforce UN resolutions?

[vy65]

:lol Can you point me to the piece of legislation that obligates us to enforce UN resolutions?

Sure. The UN charter is a treaty ratified by the United States. The charter obligates member states to enforce the UN Articles.

Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land unless they conflict with a statute.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't know why they're not.

But as constituent members of the UNSC, I'd say they are obligated to enforce the no fly zone.

I've yet to get a coherent reason out of you as to why they're not other than the fact that Russia/China have done nothing.

No one is obligated to go to war on the UN's behalf. Coherent enough?

[vy65]

No one is obligated to go to war on the UN's behalf. Coherent enough?

Nope.

[coyotes_geek]

Nope.

Can you cite one example where the UN forced a country to go to war against it's will?

[vy65]

Can you cite one example where the UN forced a country to go to war against it's will?

Your question shows me that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

[coyotes_geek]

Your question shows me that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'll take that as a "no, I can't name even one single instance where the UN forced a country to go to war against it's will."

[vy65]

I'll take that as a "no, I can't name even one single instance where the UN forced a country to go to war against it's will."

Correct. And the relevance of this fascinating bit of informaiton to the obligations of member states who vote in favor of creating a no-fly zone over Libya is what exactly?

[MannyIsGod]

Sure. The UN charter is a treaty ratified by the United States. The charter obligates member states to enforce the UN Articles.

Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land unless they conflict with a statute.

Any treaty that demands military action conflicts with the constitution. Good try though.

[vy65]

Any treaty that demands military action conflicts with the constitution. Good try though.

Why's that?

[vy65]

Any treaty that demands military action conflicts with the constitution. Good try though.

So the treaty underlying NATO is unconstitional?

Are you fucking retarded?

[MannyIsGod]

Because we do not place our armed forces at the disposal of the UN unless our president deems it so. Automatically doing that by rule of law would be unconstitutional.

[MannyIsGod]

So the treaty underlying NATO is unconstitional?

Are you fucking retarded?

Any treaty that obligates the US military to act is unenforceable and effectively unconstitutional. That includes NATO.

You think that if France is attacked tomorrow we're obligated to defend them by law?

[coyotes_geek]

Correct. And the relevance of this fascinating bit of informaiton to the obligations of member states who vote in favor of creating a no-fly zone over Libya is what exactly?

The relevance is that there is no such obligation.

The arab league supports the no-fly zone. How many Arab league nations are honoring your alleged obligation to participate?

[vy65]

Any treaty that obligates the US military to act is unenforceable and effectively unconstitutional. That includes NATO.

You think that if France is attacked tomorrow we're obligated to defend them by law?

Yes. Those are the terms of the treaty.

We have the ability to withdraw from NATO if we want to - much like we can withdraw from the UN.

But to claim that the terms of those treaties - which have been in effect for decades is per se unconstitutional is beyond moronic.

[vy65]

This clause has been around since 1949: why hasn't there been a succesful legal challenge to it:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

[LnGrrrR]

Does the treaty specifically demand military action? Or a more generic "aid"?

[LnGrrrR]

So the treaty pretty much says "Countries will help in the best way they see fit".

Thats what that "such actions as it deems necessary" clause means.

[vy65]

So the treaty pretty much says "Countries will help in the best way they see fit".

Thats what that "such actions as it deems necessary" clause means.

You can make that argument. I'd say that given the other words used in connection with that clause (i.e., attacking), along with the fact that the treaty is for a mutual defense organization, the "such actions" language only contemplates military aid.

Also, the last line indicates that all these actions are intended to restore security back to the North Atlantic. I'd say that clause modifies the earlier language to only encomplass military action as well - but not necessarily a direct military attack.

[MannyIsGod]

So whats the penalty if the President decides to ignore the obligation?

[vy65]

So whats the penalty if the President decides to ignore the obligation?

That's not the point.

You asked what obligates us to enforce UN mandates. I answered that. Clearly, you finally understand that we are obligated to enforce certain UN actions. The penalty for not doing so is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we're obligated in the first place.

[MannyIsGod]

We're not obligated. As I stated earlier, you don't understand the word you're using. There is no penalty because there is no obligation under law. Those treaties are in good faith but they don't mandate us action by any means which is easily proven by looking at the boatloads of UN resolutions we've flat out ignored when they don't suit our interests.

That seems to be a fact which escapes you.

[CosmicCowboy]

The simple fact is, without Presidential approval there is no UN Mandate. We still have Security Council veto power.

[vy65]

We're not obligated. As I stated earlier, you don't understand the word you're using. There is no penalty because there is no obligation under law. Those treaties are in good faith but they don't mandate us action by any means which is easily proven by looking at the boatloads of UN resolutions we've flat out ignored when they don't suit our interests.

That seems to be a fact which escapes you.

Are they treaties that have been ratified by the US? If so, explain why Article VI does not obligate us to enforce them?

You can be obligated to do something - and - ignore that obligation at the same time. That doesn't mean you're not obligated. That means you've ignored what you're duty-bound to do. Why is this fact incapable of entering you fat fucking skull?

[coyotes_geek]

The simple fact is, without Presidential approval there is no UN Mandate. We still have Security Council veto power.

I'd have been fine just abstaining from the vote. If France and GB want to take on Gaddafi, let 'em.

[MannyIsGod]

The government doesn't have the right to ignore obligations. See, this is what I mean about you not understanding how to use the word. If the US had a true legal obligation to back the UN with our military people would sue when they wanted the US military involved in a UN resolution. Of course, that would never pass because our government is not at the mercy of UN resolutions.

[vy65]

The government doesn't have the right to ignore obligations. See, this is what I mean about you not understanding how to use the word. If the US had a true legal obligation to back the UN with our military people would sue when they wanted the US military involved in a UN resolution. Of course, that would never pass because our government is not at the mercy of UN resolutions.

It may not have the right to ignore its international obligations. But it does so.

I honestly don't know how to spell it out clearer: the U.S. is obligated to enforce UN mandates just as it is obligated to defend a NATO member nation in the event it is attacked. These treaties have been around for almost half a century, and no court has declared them unconstitutional.

These laws place legal obligations on the US. The fact that those laws and obligations may not be enforced is 100% irrelevant to the question of whether those obligations exist in the first place.

Plus I'm not so sure being obigated to commit US forces is unconstitutional. Is it an automatic violation of the Executive's commander-in-chief power?

[LnGrrrR]

Are they treaties that have been ratified by the US? If so, explain why Article VI does not obligate us to enforce them?

You can be obligated to do something - and - ignore that obligation at the same time. That doesn't mean you're not obligated. That means you've ignored what you're duty-bound to do. Why is this fact incapable of entering you fat fucking skull?

We're obligated to help, as we best deem necessary per the treaty. We may deem our own help as "not necessary". Or we could send a token represenative to show that we are indeed helping.

[LnGrrrR]

Plus I'm not so sure being obigated to commit US forces is unconstitutional. Is it an automatic violation of the Executive's commander-in-chief power?

Pretty much. No other country can dictate what our military must do, for obvious reasons.

Also, the other countries COULD kick us out of NATO, but what good would it do them? They have to accept when and where we wish to help.

[LnGrrrR]

I honestly don't know how to spell it out clearer: the U.S. is obligated to enforce UN mandates just as it is obligated to defend a NATO member nation in the event it is attacked. These treaties have been around for almost half a century, and no court has declared them unconstitutional.

Actually, you're not quite getting it. The "US" isn't obligated to defend a NATO member; "NATO" is obligated. Since NATO is made up of numerous countries, they can determine how best to defend said country. The treaty doesn't require that EVERY country put in allocation of resources for EVERY defensive effort.

[vy65]

We're obligated to help, as we best deem necessary per the treaty. We may deem our own help as "not necessary". Or we could send a token represenative to show that we are indeed helping.

It's not clear, but I don't think that's what it means. Seems like it says a member can contribute military forces (i.e., join the attack) or contribute support - the choice being up to the member as it sees fit.

I wouldn't read it the "as it deems necessary" language to mean a member can do nothing at all because that would tend to negate the whole point behind an attack on one is an attack on all -- all members could then deem their support not necessary. Not likely to happen, but a possible outcome under that interpretation.

[vy65]

Actually, you're not quite getting it. The "US" isn't obligated to defend a NATO member; "NATO" is obligated. Since NATO is made up of numerous countries, they can determine how best to defend said country. The treaty doesn't require that EVERY country put in allocation of resources for EVERY defensive effort.

That's not right - the Article speaks in terms of "Parties" and not the entity "NATO."

You are right that the text doesn't require an immediate military retaliation. But I think that's the purpose of the Article, i.e., the reason an attack on one = an attack on all is to obligate each member nation to defend the attacked party.

[ElNono]

In the real world however, I hardly see the US turning their back to one of our NATO allies if they're attacked. I think the military support would be immediate.

What I do find terribly hypocritical is to justify unilateral military action on UN resolutions right after being voted down on a UN resolution seeking approval for said military action. To me that's basically saying "we'll do whatever we want, UN resolution or not", while at the same time claiming higher moral ground because you're supposedly upholding UN resolutions.

[LnGrrrR]

Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land unless they conflict with a statute.

And if the US signs a treaty that conflicts with the Constitution (ie. someone interpreting a UN treaty to mean that the POTUS doesn't have sole jurisdiction over our military), then it would be inherently unconstitutional.

IOW, the President's power as CiC would trump any treaties that said otherwise.

[vy65]

And if the US signs a treaty that conflicts with the Constitution (ie. someone interpreting a UN treaty to mean that the POTUS doesn't have sole jurisdiction over our military), then it would be inherently unconstitutional.

IOW, the President's power as CiC would trump any treaties that said otherwise.

And I think that a treaty that contemplates 1) a US presence on its governing body and 2) a US vote on military affairs doesn't necessarily violate the commander-in-chief clause.

No one thinks that, as a result of ratifying the UN charter, any member nation has access to American B-52s for military operations. That would violate the CiC clause. I don't think that's the same as the US being obligated to contribute military assistance to a mandate that it voted for.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not right - the Article speaks in terms of "Parties" and not the entity "NATO."

You are right that the text doesn't require an immediate military retaliation. But I think that's the purpose of the Article, i.e., the reason an attack on one = an attack on all is to obligate each member nation to defend the attacked party.

By "the parties" they meanso collectively. The parties, as a whole. How dumb would it be that, for every defensive effort, they required at least one token force from every country? Do you have any idea how hard that would be to manage?

Let's break down the actual meaning of the treaty, cutting out the extra stuff.

"... each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So, if the US deems no action is necessary on their part, because a bunch of other nations have it locked up, then they don't necessarily need to help.

[LnGrrrR]

And I think that a treaty that contemplates 1) a US presence on its governing body and 2) a US vote on military affairs doesn't necessarily violate the commander-in-chief clause.

Anything that mandates action by our military by anyone outside of the Chain of Command is unconstitutional.


No one thinks that, as a result of ratifying the UN charter, any member nation has access to American B-52s for military operations. That would violate the CiC clause. I don't think that's the same as the US being obligated to contribute military assistance to a mandate that it voted for.

Being obligated to defend another country requires the President giving up some control over the military, but the only possible exceptions for the Commander's control involve our own legislature (waging war/raising funding for armies) or our judiciary (for instance, if the Pres created a policy for military that was unconstitutional).

[vy65]

By "the parties" they meanso collectively. The parties, as a whole. How dumb would it be that, for every defensive effort, they required at least one token force from every country? Do you have any idea how hard that would be to manage?

I don't think that's right. For purposes of the treaty, an attack on one Party constitutes an attack on all Parties. Per the terms of Art. 6, that means each Party is obligated to contribute military aid as necessary.

I don't know about the actual mechanics of military cooperation. That said, my understanding is that each nation contributes some military personnel, which act as a NATO troops. So, in reality, it seems like a token force from each country is sent to NATO as a NATO troop.



Let's break down the actual meaning of the treaty, cutting out the extra stuff.

"... each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So, if the US deems no action is necessary on their part, because a bunch of other nations have it locked up, then they don't necessarily need to help.

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes possible a scenario where every member states that its participation in collective defense efforts is not necessary. That would hollow out the whole treaty. The rules of statutory interpretation prohibit such a reading.

It also reads out the term "will assist;" i.e., how does a member "assist" another by doing nothing?

[vy65]

Anything that mandates action by our military by anyone outside of the Chain of Command is unconstitutional.

Being obligated to defend another country requires the President giving up some control over the military, but the only possible exceptions for the Commander's control involve our own legislature (waging war/raising funding for armies) or our judiciary (for instance, if the Pres created a policy for military that was unconstitutional).

I guess what I'm saying is that the structure of US involvement in those bodies ensures that there is no non-CiC control off the military. My other point is that when the executive deems it prudent to assent to UN operations, the US becomes legally obligated to provide whatever aid has been contemplated.

Plus I don't think the treaty requires defense of another country.

And, there's an argument that commitment to defend a Member state or police a no-fly zone, for example, wouldn't violate the CiC clause even if the President didn't want to commit US forces - you could argue that the CiC clause only contemplates Executive control over the military hierarchy - but does not contemplate decisions as to where and when to commmit forces. In other words, the clause would be violated when another country assumed control of specific units, battalions, etc... but would not be violated when the US become obligated to intervene.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know about the actual mechanics of military cooperation. That said, my understanding is that each nation contributes some military personnel, which act as a NATO troops. So, in reality, it seems like a token force from each country is sent to NATO as a NATO troop.

I think this fact needs to be proven out one way or another. Research must be done...


The problem with this interpretation is that it makes possible a scenario where every member states that its participation in collective defense efforts is not necessary. That would hollow out the whole treaty. The rules of statutory interpretation prohibit such a reading.

So what's to stop every country from just sending one troop? That would justify the terms of the treaty, correct? But, of course, it wouldn't accomplish anything. Who contributes what, where and when is all a matter of politics.


It also reads out the term "will assist;" i.e., how does a member "assist" another by doing nothing?

As I said upthread, they could satisfy this clause with something ridiculously small, such as assigning an ambassador to look at the matter and advise, or something similar.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess what I'm saying is that the structure of US involvement in those bodies ensures that there is no non-CiC control off the military. My other point is that when the executive deems it prudent to assent to UN operations, the US becomes legally obligated to provide whatever aid has been contemplated.

Plus I don't think the treaty requires defense of another country.

Weren't you just saying the treaty required defense of another country by all parties to the treaty?


And, there's an argument that commitment to defend a Member state or police a no-fly zone, for example, wouldn't violate the CiC clause even if the President didn't want to commit US forces - you could argue that the CiC clause only contemplates Executive control over the military hierarchy - but does not contemplate decisions as to where and when to commmit forces. In other words, the clause would be violated when another country assumed control of specific units, battalions, etc... but would not be violated when the US become obligated to intervene.

If the US is obligated to intervene, it would mean the President didn't have complete control over the military, which is how the CiC position has been determined historically though legislature and court precedent.

Could you find me an example of any sort of interpretation of the CiC's power that would obligate him to give up even partial control of the military?

[vy65]

I think this fact needs to be proven out one way or another. Research must be done....

I found this: http://www.nato.int/issues/troop_contributions/index.html

Basically, it seems like NATO sends out a "want ad," and member nations decide the extent of its contribution. There is no standing NATO force - other than the supreme commander - who, in the past at least, has been a US military official who I guess was "loaned" to the alliance.

That said, I don't think this blurb answers the question of when a member is attacked or under a threat of attack. Instead, it explains the mechanics of an operation - like Kosovo - where NATO undertakes peace keeping operations. I think the question of military cooperation when a member is attacked is different.


So what's to stop every country from just sending one troop? That would justify the terms of the treaty, correct? But, of course, it wouldn't accomplish anything. Who contributes what, where and when is all a matter of politics.

Besides being funny, I don't understand what you're getting at. Contributing one soldier probably won't be sufficient for any given military operation. Therefore, there's a strong argument that it wouldn't constitute "assistance" as contemplated by the treaty.

[vy65]

Weren't you just saying the treaty required defense of another country by all parties to the treaty?

I had a different idea of the word "defense" in mind.


Could you find me an example of any sort of interpretation of the CiC's power that would obligate him to give up even partial control of the military?

Sure. The Supreme Court cases dealing with military tribunals. There is some precedent in the later cases where the Court says some article III review of detainee detention is constitutionally required, even at the expense of the CiC power.

[LnGrrrR]

I found this: http://www.nato.int/issues/troop_contributions/index.html

Basically, it seems like NATO sends out a "want ad," and member nations decide the extent of its contribution. There is no standing NATO force - other than the supreme commander - who, in the past at least, has been a US military official who I guess was "loaned" to the alliance.

...which is nearly exactly what I described.



That said, I don't think this blurb answers the question of when a member is attacked or under a threat of attack. Instead, it explains the mechanics of an operation - like Kosovo - where NATO undertakes peace keeping operations. I think the question of military cooperation when a member is attacked is different.

Per your link:



The final decision on whether to contribute troops and equipment to a NATO-led operation or mission is taken by national capitals, who communicate continuously with NATO through their permanent diplomatic missions, national military representation, or partnership liaison teams.


IOW, whether a member nation decides to send troops is up to that member nation.


Besides being funny, I don't understand what you're getting at. Contributing one soldier probably won't be sufficient for any given military operation. Therefore, there's a strong argument that it wouldn't constitute "assistance" as contemplated by the treaty.

And who gets to define what "assistance" is required from each member?

[LnGrrrR]

Sure. The Supreme Court cases dealing with military tribunals. There is some precedent in the later cases where the Court says some article III review of detainee detention is constitutionally required, even at the expense of the CiC power.

Fail. I already stated that there are some exceptions whereby the President's power is limited, and gave specific examples for legislative and judiciary checks.

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Constitution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

[Yonivore]

Fail. I already stated that there are some exceptions whereby the President's power is limited, and gave specific examples for legislative and judiciary checks.

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Constitution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?
Give Ruth Bader Ginsburg some time and she'll come up with one.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Since this seems to be the official Libya thread, I have a question for everyone in case I'm wrong:

Does the US have to pay out of its own pocket (whatever that means these days, chinese money i guess) for each Cruise Missile fired in this operation?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Any treaty that obligates the US military to act is unenforceable and effectively unconstitutional. That includes NATO.

You think that if France is attacked tomorrow we're obligated to defend them by law?



That's why the whole episode in Bosnia was the precedent setter. It shifted the paradigm further from US/UN war, to NATOcentric war. That's the bull shit we leaned upon to invade Iraq, and ironic that hawks are still using Bosnia as a historic example to be pro-war.

The Constitution doesn't mean dick anymore. We are supposed to believe that since there is no countries that have the balls to declare war anymore, that what we're reading about in the news is not a war.

But it is.

Just one more step on the way to a one world government.

[Vici]

If I remember properly the Chinese only have a single missile ship in the Mediterranean while Russia has little to no presence. If Russia has a presence, it is limited to building that new port in Syria. I don't think they could have done much under the UN resolution even if they wanted to.

[vy65]

Fail. I already stated that there are some exceptions whereby the President's power is limited, and gave specific examples for legislative and judiciary checks.

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Constitution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

Sure. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied the Geneva Convention to the treatment of detainees. The Court applied 1) an international treaty to 2) strike down the Executive's treatment of "POWs." The point being - an international treaty was applied by the court to curtail the president's CIC power - specifically - how military tribunals were able to treat detainees

Your post spins the issue in the wrong way. The issue is not whether there are checks and balances on the Executive's power under the constitution. Nor is it a matter of whether a treaty trumps the Constitution. Rather, the question is whether a treaty can place binding obligations on the Executive's CiC power. Hamdan shows that, in specific situations, this can occur. When the Court says that the President cannot conduct war in a particular manner under the Geneva Convention- i.e. indefinately detaining POWs without an Article III court's judicial review of the detention - you have a situation where international obligations trump the CiC power.

Here's a link the Hamdan. The relevant section is "D:" http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html

[vy65]

Also - that link does not deal with the situation I've described. The NATO blurb deals with NATO-sponsored missions, i.e. those in Afghanistan or the Balkans. Those missions did not involve direct attacks on a NATO member nation. Explain to me why and how the information on those pages (dealing with missions not involving an attack on a "Party") is relevant to an attack on a NATO member nation - which is directly covered by Art. 6 of the treaty?

I don't know who gets to define "assistance." But you still haven't given me a reason why this is important much less relevant. Ultimately, I can concede a member nation can decide whaty type of troops to commit (i.e., air, ground, comm-support, etc...). However, that doesn't mean the question of whether to commit assistance in the first place is a matter of politics or discretion.

[boutons_deux]

When dickhead was constitutionally violating checks-and-balances with his Unilateral Executive tactics, Repugs were silent or resoundingly approving.

Now, Repugs really don't like UE when an Dem Pres appears to be doing his own UE.

[coyotes_geek]

When dickhead was constitutionally violating checks-and-balances with his Unilateral Executive tactics, Repugs were silent or resoundingly approving.

Now, Repugs really don't like UE when an Dem Pres appears to be doing his own UE.

republicans = like UE when it's their guy = don't like UE when it's the other guy = democrats

[vy65]

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Constitution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

One last thing: can you find:

1. Any instance where the US refused to commit troops to NATO because the structure of the treaty violated the CiC clause - or any other part of the Constitution?

2. Any judicial decision wherein a Court holds the North Atlantic Treaty violates Article 2 of the Constitution?

3. Any case where NATO's military policy or a particular military operation was out of line, conflicted with or different from a US military policy or operation?

[DarrinS]

.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied the Geneva Convention to the treatment of detainees. The Court applied 1) an international treaty to 2) strike down the Executive's treatment of "POWs." The point being - an international treaty was applied by the court to curtail the president's CIC power - specifically - how military tribunals were able to treat detainees.

Right, but in this case the court was dealing with PRISONERS of the military, not the military itself. The court case in no way said that the Geneva Conventions dictates how the CiC will deploy troops.

Now, there might be some argument in there that the US is bound to "lawful" warfare under the terms of the Geneva Convention. It's not quite the same as a foreign power dictating how our military will be deployed, but it does put some limits on what we as a military can do.

I'm guessing though that all limits set by said treaty also are reflected somewhere in US law.


Your post spins the issue in the wrong way. The issue is not whether there are checks and balances on the Executive's power under the constitution. Nor is it a matter of whether a treaty trumps the Constitution. Rather, the question is whether a treaty can place binding obligations on the Executive's CiC power. Hamdan shows that, in specific situations, this can occur. When the Court says that the President cannot conduct war in a particular manner under the Geneva Convention- i.e. indefinately detaining POWs without an Article III court's judicial review of the detention - you have a situation where international obligations trump the CiC power.

Yes, I'll give you that. The CiC can be limited by certain treaties. But I don't think "deployment of troops" is one of them. As pointed out in that NATO link, the ultimate decider of whether or not a nation gives up troops is up to that nation.

(Usually, it's in their best interest to contribute, otherwise NATO would be toothless.)

[LnGrrrR]

One last thing: can you find:

1. Any instance where the US refused to commit troops to NATO because the structure of the treaty violated the CiC clause - or any other part of the Constitution?

I'll have to look that up, but I doubt it. They don't need justification for not sending troops other than "We choose not to".


2. Any judicial decision wherein a Court holds the North Atlantic Treaty violates Article 2 of the Constitution?

This would be a hard thing to find, as I'm not sure who would have "standing" to bring this case to the courts.


3. Any case where NATO's military policy or a particular military operation was out of line, conflicted with or different from a US military policy or operation?

What exactly do you mean by NATO? After all, Russia and China are also part of NATO, and they disagree with us quite often.

Even if we're bound to help by treaty, there's no one person who has the oversight to effectively enforce it. At the most, they could collectively agree to kick us out of NATO, which isn't going to happen.

[MannyIsGod]

Russia and China aren't part of NATO.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's one example of a US/NATO disagreement.

http://aknews.com/en/aknews/4/196479/

[vy65]

Right, but in this case the court was dealing with PRISONERS of the military, not the military itself. The court case in no way said that the Geneva Conventions dictates how the CiC will deploy troops.

Now, there might be some argument in there that the US is bound to "lawful" warfare under the terms of the Geneva Convention. It's not quite the same as a foreign power dictating how our military will be deployed, but it does put some limits on what we as a military can do.

You're moving some serious goal posts.

Your original question was as follows:


Could you find me an example of any sort of interpretation of the CiC's power that would obligate him to give up even partial control of the military?

The Hamdan decision is that example. The fact is that SCOTUS has recognized that treaties place binding obligations on the Executive - obligations that impair the CiC function. Are you arguing that Hamdan did anything other than limit the Executive's war powers?

Now, you're asking me for a treaty governing how US military troops will be deployed? Obviously not. Clearly, no treaty dictates where, when, and how US troops will move in battle. I don't know why this is relevant anyway. The North Atlantic Treaty obligates the US to defend other member states - it says absolutely nothing about how the US must deploy troops.



I'm guessing though that all limits set by said treaty also are reflected somewhere in US law.

Right - there is probably enabling legislation somewhere in the US code. But that would just codify the terms of the treaty as US law.




Yes, I'll give you that. The CiC can be limited by certain treaties. But I don't think "deployment of troops" is one of them. As pointed out in that NATO link, the ultimate decider of whether or not a nation gives up troops is up to that nation.

(Usually, it's in their best interest to contribute, otherwise NATO would be toothless.)

As mentioned above - we now agree that treaties can limit the CiC clause by placing binding obligations on the executive's war powers - obligations that cannot be ignored.

Please find where the link states that - in the event a member is attacked - the US is constitionally not obligated to provide military assistance.

[LnGrrrR]

Russia and China aren't part of NATO.

Argh. My bad, I was thinking of the Security Council.

[vy65]

I'll have to look that up, but I doubt it. They don't need justification for not sending troops other than "We choose not to".


The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.".

Note the mandatory "shall" and "will" language. How does the US say "we choose not to send any troops" given Article 5.

Besides that, you seem to say that there is no such authority - right?




This would be a hard thing to find, as I'm not sure who would have "standing" to bring this case to the courts.

Pretty sure military personnel would have standing. But that's besides the point. You're saying there's no such authority, right?



What exactly do you mean by NATO? After all, Russia and China are also part of NATO, and they disagree with us quite often.

Even if we're bound to help by treaty, there's no one person who has the oversight to effectively enforce it. At the most, they could collectively agree to kick us out of NATO, which isn't going to happen.

I mean the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Not Russia or China b/c they're not a part of the treaty.

Regardless of what would happen - member states could kick us out. I'm more than willing to concede that there is no "real world" ramification to us welching on our obligations. My point from the get go has simply been that we have obligation.

[LnGrrrR]

As mentioned above - we now agree that treaties can limit the CiC clause by placing binding obligations on the executive's war powers - obligations that cannot be ignored.

Please find where the link states that - in the event a member is attacked - the US is constitionally not obligated to provide military assistance.

I'll give you that I did move some goalposts unfairly.

I'll try to do some more research. What I thought upthread was fairly open-and-shut now doesn't seem to be. Learn something new every day, I suppose.

Though, by the wording on NATO's own website, the discretion to send troops is ultimately up to each nation.

However, if we posit a hypothetical were the member states of NATO collectively demand US military assistance in the form of personnel/equipment, that might bind our CiC to action due to our treaty.

[LnGrrrR]

Note the mandatory "shall" and "will" language. How does the US say "we choose not to send any troops" given Article 5.




The final decision on whether to contribute troops and equipment to a NATO-led operation or mission is taken by national capitals, who communicate continuously with NATO through their permanent diplomatic missions, national military representation, or partnership liaison teams.


As I stated in the post above though, if NATO were to collectively demand our assistance, it would liekly bind the CiC to war per the treaty. (Yes, I've changed my stance on this, kudos.)


Regardless of what would happen - member states could kick us out. I'm more than willing to concede that there is no "real world" ramification to us welching on our obligations. My point from the get go has simply been that we have obligation.

It does seem so. I want to do a little more research, but I'm temporarily conceding this one to you (which I will take back if I can find evidence contrary to this.)

[vy65]

As I stated in the post above though, if NATO were to collectively demand our assistance, it would liekly bind the CiC to war per the treaty. (Yes, I've changed my stance on this, kudos.)

I'd place more faith in the Treaty's terms over a FAQ on the NATO website.

Frankly, this has all been academic. To think that NATO is anything but a European extension of the US military is beyond retarded. Given that, there would probably never be a situation where the US KoolAid_Man'd its obligations the a member nation. In other words, this scenario would never happen in the real world.

[Yonivore]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Muammar%20Than%20He%20Bargained%20For.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

I'd place more faith in the Treaty's terms over a FAQ on the NATO website.

Frankly, this has all been academic. To think that NATO is anything but a European extension of the US military is beyond retarded. Given that, there would probably never be a situation where the US KoolAid_Man'd its obligations the a member nation. In other words, this scenario would never happen in the real world.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Awesome, awesome inside joke.

But yes, I realize it was a mostly academic argument. I learned from it anyways though. :tu Thanks.

[Winehole23]

I participated in an extraordinary hearing (http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/event.cfm?eventid=dff260f50b247719c4fa9f1e3daf7232 ) before the Armed Services Committee today on the scope of the AUMF. Lawfare readers interested in the scope of the AUMF will want to watch the hearing video carefully (or read the transcript, when available). I have not had a chance to watch the hearing video, and I won’t today. According to my notes of the hearing (and thus this is all provisional, pending review of the tape) DOD officials:




Acknowledged that they had domestic authority to use force in Mali, Syria, Libya, and Congo, against Islamist terrorist threats there. At first they strongly suggested that the AUMF provided the domestic authority, but at the very end one DOD representative tried to walk back that suggestion and said that the authority to use force in those places didn’t necessarily rest (or some such formulation) on the AUMF. As best I can tell he did not walk back the claim that some authority exists and that it might be the AUMF.



Emphasized that they were satisfied that current authorities suffice to meet the threat. In light of the extraordinarily broad interpretation of extant authorities on display today, and the secrecy of AUMF determinations, it is hard to assess that claim. DOD officials also said that they were actively considering emerging threats and stated that it was possible they would need to return to Congress for new authorities against those threats but did not at present need new authorities.



Discussed the “murkiness” and “shifting” nature of memberships and alliances among al Qaeda affiliates, and how challenging it is to make “associated forces” determinations under the AUMF.



Emphasized that the conflict authorized by the AUMF was not nearly over. At one point one DOD official claimed that the end of the AUMF conflict was “a long way off.” At another point an official said the conflict would last “at least 2-3 years.” At another point an official used the figure of 10-20 years, although as Senator Levin pointed out this may have been a reference that included extra-AUMF Islamist terrorist threats, and not AUMF groups themselves.



Stated that they would provide the Committee with a list of terrorist groups covered by the AUMF. (That should be an interesting (and probably classified) list. But: Why does the Armed Services Committee – which supposedly receives regular briefings from DOD about the shadow war – not know the answer to that question!?)



Appeared to state that the legal determination of groups covered by the AUMF is made within DOD subject to inter-agency scrutiny.


My general impression of the hearing was that (1) DOD officials were very uncomfortable talking about how they interpret the AUMF and what groups are covered by it, (2) those officials interpret the AUMF very broadly, and (3) several members of the Committee were surprised by the breadth of DOD’s interpretation of the AUMF. I came away thinking that Congress cannot address the problem of extra-AUMF threats until it gets a handle on how the AUMF is being interpreted and deployed. I also came away thinking more than ever that Congress needs to re-engage in a serious way about the nature and scope of the conflict against al Qaeda and affiliates. Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/quick-reactions-to-extraordinary-armed-services-committee-hearing-on-the-aumf/

[Winehole23]

Last October, senior Obama officials anonymously unveiled to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html) their newly minted "disposition matrix", a complex computer system that will be used to determine how a terrorist suspect will be "disposed of": indefinite detention, prosecution in a real court, assassination-by-CIA-drones, etc. Their rationale for why this was needed now, a full 12 years after the 9/11 attack:



Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism."


On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether the statutory basis for this "war" - the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) - should be revised (meaning: expanded). This is how (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/decades-of-war/) Wired's Spencer Ackerman (soon to be the Guardian US's national security editor) described the most significant exchange:


"Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, 'At least 10 to 20 years.' . . . A spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that

Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today - atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America's Thirty Years War."


That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the "war on terror" will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week's big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined. The military historian Andrew Bacevich has spent years warning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/books/review/Bass-t.html) that US policy planners have adopted an explicit doctrine of "endless war". Obama officials, despite repeatedly boasting (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/al-qaeda-shadow-of-former-self/) that they have delivered permanently crippling blows to al-Qaida (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/spy-terrorism/), are now, as clearly as the English language permits, openly declaring this [not] to be so.


It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war - justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism - that is the single greatest cause of that threat.


In January, former Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson delivered a highly-touted speech suggesting that the war on terror will eventually end; he advocated that outcome, arguing:

'War' must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the 'new normal.'"


In response, I wrote that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/war-on-terror-endless-johnson) the "war on terror" cannot and will not end on its own for two reasons: (1) it is designed by its very terms to be permanent, incapable of ending, since the war itself ironically ensures that there will never come a time when people stop wanting to bring violence back to the US (the operational definition of "terrorism"), and (2) the nation's most powerful political and economic factions reap a bonanza of benefits from its continuation. Whatever else is true, it is now beyond doubt that ending this war is the last thing on the mind of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner and those who work at the highest levels of his administration. Is there any way they can make that clearer beyond declaring that it will continue for "at least" another 10-20 years?


The genius of America's endless war machine is that, learning from the unplesantness of the Vietnam war protests, it has rendered the costs of war largely invisible. That is accomplished by heaping all of the fighting burden on a tiny (http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/05/who-bears-fighting-burden.html) and mostly economically marginalized faction (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html) of the population, by using sterile, mechanized instruments to deliver the violence, and by suppressing any real discussion in establishment media circles of America's innocent victims and the worldwide anti-American rage (http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/) that generates (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/13/arabs/).


Though rarely visible, the costs are nonetheless gargantuan. Just in financial terms, as Americans are told they must sacrifice Social Security and Medicare benefits and place their children in a crumbling educational system, the Pentagon remains the world's largest employer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17429786) and continues to militarily outspend the rest of the world by a significant margin (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending). The mythology of the Reagan presidency is that he induced the collapse of the Soviet Union by luring it into unsustainable military spending and wars: should there come a point when we think about applying that lesson to ourselves?


Then there are the threats to Americans' security. Having their government spend decades proudly touting itself as "A Nation at War" and bringing horrific violence to the world is certain to prompt more and more people to want to attack Americans, as the US government itself claims took place just recently in Boston (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/16/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-message-boat-cbs-news) (and as clearly took place multiple other times over the last several years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/boston-terrorism-motives-us-violence)).


And then there's the most intangible yet most significant cost: each year of endless war that passes further normalizes the endless rights erosions justified in its name. The second term of the Bush administration and first five years of the Obama presidency have been devoted to codifying and institutionalizing the vast and unchecked powers that are typically vested in leaders in the name of war. Those powers of secrecy, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and due-process-free assassination are not going anywhere. They are now permanent fixtures not only in the US political system but, worse, in American political culture.


Each year that passes, millions of young Americans come of age having spent their entire lives, literally, with these powers and this climate fixed in place: to them, there is nothing radical or aberrational about any of it. The post-9/11 era is all they have been trained to know. That is how a state of permanent war not only devastates its foreign targets but also degrades the population of the nation that prosecutes it.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-terror-obama

[Winehole23]

long form journalism in Buzzfeed? I had no idea.


In the span of a few hours, the U.S. had launched a pair of raids — one successful and one not — 3,000 miles apart, in countries with which the nation was not at war. Hardly anyone noticed.


More than a dozen years after the Sept. 11 attacks, this is what America’s war looks like, silent strikes and shadowy raids. The Congressional Research Service, an analytical branch of the Library of Congress, recently said that it had located at least 30 similar occurrences, although the number of covert actions is likely many times higher with drones strikes and other secret operations. The remarkable has become regular.


The White House said that the operations in both Libya and Somalia drew their authority from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a 12-year-old piece of legislation that was drafted in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks. At the heart of the AUMF is a single 60-word sentence, which has formed the legal foundation for nearly every counterterrorism operation the U.S. has conducted since Sept. 11, from Guantanamo Bay and drone strikes to secret renditions and SEAL raids. Everything rests on those 60 words.


Unbound by time and unlimited by geography, the sentence has been stretched and expanded over the past decade, sprouting new meanings and interpretations as two successive administrations have each attempted to keep pace with an evolving threat while simultaneously maintaining the security of the homeland. In the process, what was initially thought to authorize force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has now been used to justify operations in several countries across multiple continents and, at least theoretically, could allow the president — any president — to strike anywhere at anytime. What was written in a few days of fear has now come to govern years of action.http://www.buzzfeed.com/gregorydjohnsen/60-words-and-a-war-without-end-the-untold-story-of-the-most

[Winehole23]

What was supposed to be a rather routine Senate hearing early in Obama’s second term provided a glimpse into just how expansively the administration had been interpreting the sentence at the heart of the AUMF. On May 16, 2013, the Defense Department sent a quartet of officials to the Capitol to answer questions about the AUMF and the current state of the war against al-Qaeda. In the course of their joint testimony, Michael Sheehan and Robert Taylor, who were speaking for the four, both claimed that the 2001 AUMF and its 60 words were “adequate” for the administration’s needs.


Sheehan, a balding former counterterrorism official with the New York Police Department who looked like he had forgotten to shave that morning, spoke first. The administration, he told the senators, was “comfortable” with the AUMF as it was currently structured because it didn’t “inhibit us from prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.”


Sen. John McCain was incredulous. Shuffling through some papers, the 76-year-old senator pulled out a copy of the AUMF and started reading. Twenty-four seconds later he finished the 60-word sentence, and then he started to lecture. “This authorization was about those who planned and orchestrated the attacks of September 2001,” McCain said, staring down toward the witness table. “Here we are, 12 years later, and you’re telling us that you don’t think it needs to be updated,” he continued. “Well, clearly it does.”


Other senators piled on. Angus King, a professorial-looking Independent senator who had hosted a public access television program called Maine Watch for 17 years in the 1970s and 1980s, told the four officials that this was “the most astoundingly disturbing hearing I’ve been to.”


“The AUMF is very limited, and you keep using the term ‘associated forces’ — you use it 13 times in your statement — that is not in the AUMF,” King said, before adding, “I assume [the AUMF] does suit you very well because you’re reading it to cover anything and everything.”


Toward the end of the panel, as the chairman was preparing to dismiss the Pentagon officials, Sheehan raised his hand. “Just one clarification,” he said. “Certainly the president has military personnel deployed all over the world today, in probably over 70 to 80 countries, and that authority is not always under AUMF.”


Sitting behind the witnesses, waiting his turn to testify, Jack Goldsmith, the former Bush administration lawyer, was shocked. Exactly how many of the 70 to 80 countries where military personnel are deployed fall under the AUMF? he asked the next day on Lawfare (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/congress-must-figure-out-what-our-government-is-doing-in-the-name-of-the-aumf/#.UthDq2RDuFe), a legal blog he co-founded. “The phrase ‘not always’ suggests a high number.”


“The hearing made clear that the Obama administration’s long insistence that it is deeply legally restrained under the AUMF is misleading and at a minimum requires much more extensive scrutiny,” Goldsmith wrote. Goldsmith’s post and Sheehan’s public evasions raised a key question: Twelve years after 9/11, who exactly is the U.S. at war with?


When I contacted the Pentagon to get an answer, a spokeswoman emailed back: “The list is classified and not for public release.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gregorydjohnsen/60-words-and-a-war-without-end-the-untold-story-of-the-most

[Winehole23]

endless war, what a bore . . .

[Winehole23]

fifteen years later, Obama is relying on the 9/11 AUMF:


I wrote a half-reported, half-analysis article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/is-the-us-now-at-war-with-the-shabab-not-exactly.html) in the New York Times today that brings to public light a novel interpretation of the 2001 Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the 9/11 perpetrators. The Obama administration believes it authorized the massive American airstrike in Somalia that killed 150 alleged low-level Shabab fighters — even though the government still does not consider the Shabab, as a group, to be covered by the 9/11 war authorization.

Readers who are interested in the ways in which the nearly 15-year-old 9/11 war authorization keeps getting stretched to erode limits on presidential war-making powers — a push that is fueled, in a vicious cycle, by Congressional fecklessness and paralysis — can look to two parts of Power Wars for insider backstories that help explain what is going on.



Chapter Six (“Targeted Killing”), Section Sixteen (“Is the United States at War with al-Shabaab?”)
The story of the argument as it erupted early in the Obama administration’s first term. The primary poles were Harold Koh, then the State Department legal adviser, and Jeh Johnson, then the Pentagon general counsel. Some of this material first came to public light in a Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/us/white-house-weighs-limits-of-terror-fight.html) I wrote in September 2011 and in Daniel Klaidman’s 2012 book, Kill or Capture, but I had figured it out even more by the time of writing Power Wars and so was able to fill in blanks, add a previously unknown twist about a specific targeted killing dispute between Koh and Johnson, and make the whole thing more coherent and understandable. (pages 274-279 in the hardcover edition)



Chapter Twelve (“The Tug of War”) Section Fifteen (“Extending the 9/11 War”)
The story of Obama’s decision to start bombing the Islamic State in the late summer of 2014 and how and why he came to say that he already had all the legal authority from Congress he needed to wage that fight from the 2001 9/11 war authorization, even though the Islamic State was Al Qaeda’s enemy. The description of the internal deliberations and the choice put to Obama — by Neil Eggleston, his White House counsel, and Brian Egan , then the National Security Counsel legal adviser and now the State Department legal adviser — about whether to make the controversial claim that the Islamic State war was part of the Al Qaeda war or whether to say it was a new and different war that would eventually need Congressional authorization, has not appeared elsewhere. (pages 685-690)

http://www.charliesavage.com/?p=934

[Winehole23]

~19 years later, the House rescinds the 2002 AUMF

1405555827222667269