A True American Hero, Libyan Fighting Against A Dictator

[jackoroe]

Well Jack.

I've no doubt that when the Republicans are satisfied that this President has committed an illegal act, we'll have two years of impeachment hearings to live through on this board.

Interesting though....that I don't hear any of the Republicans saying that the President has committed an illegal act yet.

Why would that be?

Both sides regularly ignore the Constitution. That doesn't make it right. It's about process. Given the War Powers Act very specific circumstances under which you may utilize force, perhaps you'd care to find the legitimate basis to undertake this action?

I've asked maybe 5-6 times. Haven't gotten an answer yet. Wonder why that is?

The fact is that there apparently a few left in Congress who can actually read the founding documents. They appear to be in agreement, in a bi-partisan fashion, that there is a violation of the Constitution.

http://johnpaulus.com/blog/tag/dennis-kucinich/

 

[BostonPirate]

Both sides regularly ignore the Constitution. That doesn't make it right. It's about process. Given the War Powers Act very specific circumstances under which you may utilize force, perhaps you'd care to find the legitimate basis to undertake this action?

I've asked maybe 5-6 times. Haven't gotten an answer yet. Wonder why that is?

The fact is that there apparently a few left in Congress who can actually read the founding documents. They appear to be in agreement, in a bi-partisan fashion, that there is a violation of the Constitution.

http://johnpaulus.com/blog/tag/dennis-kucinich/

Here you go Jack....

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are
in the national security and foreign policy interests of the
United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to
conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and
Chief Executive.

Now you may disagree with that assessment, but its clear that in this case, both republicans and democrats who have congressional oversight over the executive office feel that this measure when compared to actions of the other presidents since 1975 is consistent and legal.

There are some on both sides of the extreme that argue the validity of that point, and its their freedom to do so. IT reeks of political vendetta but I guess it is what it is.

This is how the law is coming down and unless the supreme court steps in or congress uses its authority under the 1975 act to call a vote to end the police action, it will continue, legally as planned.

The truth is there are more republicans out there who support the president in the police action than democrats or independents. So there wont be any intervention from Congress.

No one wants a showdown on this as the house and senate 2012 elections come ever closer one day at a time. If the republicans act up, they will appear to be attacking the military and their base is NOT fond of that. We know that is the fear. Its the reason no republican can find a position on this issue for longer than a day without a flip flop. Getting the political nuts to risk their own hides? its not in the makeup of the members of congress... sorry champ.

Obama will continue as commander in cheif to make the choices his job require, and if that is just difficult for you, you always have the vote in 2012 to let your feelings known.

 

[Kulindahr]

A case can be made that Obama is within the requirements of the War Powers Act, though it's thin, just as a case can be made that supporting the rebels against Qadhafi is within the parameters of the U.N. resolution, but it gets a bit thin. In both cases, people come down on both sides -- in the U.S. we see who; in Europe, France is supporting the one, and Italy the other (threatening to withdraw use of its bases, even).

In Libya, the situation could be made more clear by the rebels, with a little creativity. In the U.S. . . . not so much.


Meanwhile, here's hoping this young man's sacrifice and example will stand as a link between America and Libya.

 

[jackoroe]

That is a terrible source for opinion. Just reading through the comments, and the exchange with the Voice of Reason (name of respondent, doubtful it is literal), show that whoever's blog this is has no credibility. Did you randomly Google this clown or do you follow his blog that considers facts best fabricated as you go as opposed to being reality-based?

I really could care less about the opinion of the author or anyone who commented on the article. What is relevant to the issue is that the president has members of both parties significantly pissed about his violation of the law as it relates to waging war on Libya.

And since no one has seen fit to answer the difficult question, you may as well have at it as well. Please cite for us all, form the War Powers Act of 1975, the authority of the president to wage war for humanitarian purposes without Congressional authorization.

 

[Kulindahr]

I really could care less about the opinion of the author or anyone who commented on the article. What is relevant to the issue is that the president has members of both parties significantly pissed about his violation of the law as it relates to waging war on Libya.

And since no one has seen fit to answer the difficult question, you may as well have at it as well. Please cite for us all, form the War Powers Act of 1975, the authority of the president to wage war for humanitarian purposes without Congressional authorization.

I think the theory is that since he's acting within existing treaty frameworks, Congressional authorization pre-exists.

 

[rareboy]

You can cite all the sources till the cows come home.

Jack ain't buyin' it.

 

[rareboy]

Jack,

While one respects the opinion of every poster to a porn site political board.....I also suspect that before any President goes out on a limb to engage in military action has a battery of lawyers and constitutional experts weigh in on this.

Particularly in a case like this where the response has been so measured.

So while you may think that no one knows how to read the Constitution, I'm thinking that a few people have covered this ground.

Now these might be the same kind of legal advisors that Bush turned to in order to legalize torture.

But they may also be legitimate counsel.