Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:01 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/po ... owers.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/us ... -000-.html
War Powers Resolution

Apparently, the Obama administration has come to the determination that drones firing missiles and material support for combatants attacking Libyan forces do not amount to hostilities.

Are we then to conclude that since Osama Bin Laden was not directly participating in acts of terrorism, instead only providing material support for combatants, was not taking part in hostilities against the United States?

Haven't you been on enough apology tours, Mr. President? (sarcasm) Perhaps you could finally apologize to the American public for your blatant disregard for the rule of law?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:51 pm

I think its hillarious, especially with his previous speech's haranguing Bush for ignoring congress and the war powers act...

However, would providing military intelligence to Britian against Iran be engaging in hostilities? In Afghanistan of the 80s, if we were to have given the rebels guns... no boots on the ground would that have been hostilities? Could the president drop a dozen nukes in Mynmar and call it kinetic action and not a war since it didn't last 60 days? What about the "drug war" and the logistical support we engage in all across south america... is that war when it involves all sorts of intelligence, logistics and probably covert boots on the ground?

I do think Obama is wrong here that the Libyan action is not a "war" just because there are no boots on the ground... the arguments we are offensively destroying Libyan government property holds a lot of water. It may be a one sided war, but its clearly a war... and sustained past the 60/90 days the war powers act requires...

its funny for hating on Bush, Obama sure acts like him.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:13 am

Maybe Obama can do another apology tour about that.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:49 am

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/0 ... Stories%29
"Obama Pulls a Bush"

LOL. And the most hilarious thing about it? Bush was Bush without being a complete hypocrite arse.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:27 pm

Naieve is the word that keeps coming to mind when I think about Obama.

Naieve about the debt limit
Naieve about transparency
Naieve about the stimulus and ability of government to execute "shovel ready" projects
Naieve about the patriot act
Naieve about unilaterally declaring wars
Naieve about Afghanistan
Naieve about Iran
Naieve about raising the US' standing in the world with the apology tour

Have I left anything out? To his credit he's flip flopped on most of the issues once he actually knew what the hell was going on, but he was a very naieve candidate or a brilliant two faced liar.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:20 am

Wow this just keeps getting better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world ... .html?_r=1

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.”
...
Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.

== lol seriously i think you screwed yourself here. 3 top lawyers, including the HEAD of the DoJ told you they think its hostilities. The only ones that agree with you are in on your staff. Boy for campaigning so feverently against Bush's 3rd term, you sure have made it come true.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
...
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
...
On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.
...
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

== so you couldn't get the answer you wanted so you made up intelligence? I mean a legal opinion?

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

== I kinda agree with him. If the US is no longer dropping bombs on Libya since APril, maybe we're not engaged in hostilities... but we're hanging on to the edge of that cliff by our finger tips by providing "material support" to hostiltiies. I wonder what we'd think if Pakistan was openly providing material support to Al Qaida... that wouldn't be construed to us as an act of war? Pretty much the justification we used to overthrow the taliban... A drone strike here or there I might let slip too and say its not covered by war powers act. If "support" is now considered hostilties we're at war with everyone. I dunno, you might be holding to the barest letter of the law, but you certainly aren't putting your best foot forward. How hard would it have been to go to congress? Bush at least had that much respect to do it even if he cherry picked evidence... that was very self serving.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:24 am

I'm confused as to what happened to liberal outrage. This time we are actually actively supporting a civil war - but no one seems to think Obama should be subject to the kind of criticism and scrutiny Bush faced for Iraq except for only the ultra anti-war people and the anti-Obama people.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:07 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:I'm confused as to what happened to liberal outrage.

i think you've succeeded in driving everyone away except sarvis
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Disoputlip » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:03 pm

Peace keeping mission!
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:18 am

Kindi wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:I'm confused as to what happened to liberal outrage.

i think you've succeeded in driving everyone away except sarvis

Kiryan's still here.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:31 pm

This is good.

Where is the left? I mean we have a guy here, bombing another country, a country full of what would be minorities in our neck of the woods... and bold face LIEING to us that its not "hostilities" despite having several lawyers at several departments telling him otherwise.

Where is your outrage?

Was Bush really worse?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Pentagon has applied the “imminent danger” label to more than three dozen countries. Some are indeed war zones: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia.

But others are generally peaceful. Last year, the list included Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Turkey and areas of Greece within 20 kilometers (about 12 miles) of Athens.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:56 pm

Well, the mainstream media did give it some coverage - hostilegate. I guess it was just a bit too much. Or a slow news week.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:31 pm

kiryan wrote:Where is the left? I mean we have a guy here, bombing another country, a country full of what would be minorities in our neck of the woods... and bold face LIEING to us that its not "hostilities" despite having several lawyers at several departments telling him otherwise.

Where is your outrage?

on left websites, so obviously you don't see it

just one example that i found after typing 'liberal websites' into google then checking 'obama libya site:dailykos.com': http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/1 ... a-(updated)

"Why is he taking this approach? It is trouble, legally and politically and financially and morally, and from a number of other standpoints. It is egregiously wrong.

Obama has crossed the line on Libya. Personally, I think he crossed the line the day that he took us to war with absolutely no approval from Congress. [...]

How much difference is there between what Obama is doing now and what Bush did when he lied us into a war?"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:03 pm

I read the leftists sites too. I haven't seen anything like they excoriated Bush. Specifically i read huffingtonpost and politico daily as well as msnbc, cnn.

Also, the difference between what Bush did and what Obama did... was "faulty intelligence" was what Bush used to justify the war and it was billed as BUSH LIEING by the media. I don't think there was anything conclusive about Bush's role or that it was even constructed to be used as a lie... they come off looking incompetent, but not as liars if you honestly look at just the data.

Contrast that with Obama who has at least 3 legal opinions from the department of defense, the DOJ (including holder) and another special legal bureacuracy saying its "hostilties." Obama then over rules them and tells congress its not hostilities thank you come again and btw harry reid has my back so you can suck me. That is a MUCH more brazen and obvious lie than what Bush was purported to have done.

I like Obama's style, its what I would do... but if Bush could be criticized for sullying the office of president and expanding presidential powers and encroachments on freedom... Obama has finished the job decisively. he's an activist and not the "uniter" he claimed to be in the campaign.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:12 pm

so it went from "the left doesn't attack obama" to "the left doesn't attack obama enough" and i bet if i pulled out more examples it'd be "not enough of the left attacks obama enough" and if i pulled out still more it'd be "some fringe lunatic over there who looks like he could be left doesn't attack obama"

it's such a distracting meta-discussion, i really don't see the point in talking about who's attacking whom, unless you're more literal and stick to stuff like "US attacks Libya", in which case it does matter a whole lot

is the story liberals and the media, or is the story war and Libya? which do you care about more?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:21 pm

... the left is not attacking Obama. Is not calling him out on this lie. You have some very isolated complaints, but I've yet to see anyone even come close to calling Obama a liar and certainly not on any of the liberal media vanguards.

Imagine if a Republican pulled this crap in office what the headlines would read.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:36 pm

they might look like:

* Obama's Libya Defense Makes Bush's Lawyers Look Smart
* Kucinich: Impeach Obama over Libya strike
* House scolds Obama on Libya
* Lawmakers Challenge Obama's Libya Authority
* Report: Obama overruled lawyers on Libya air war
* Mission: Inscrutable

all taken from the first page of a google search for 'obama libya headlines'

i seriously don't understand. who's not attacking him (and please name names)? even jon stewart said he's sucking it

wait...... why does it matter again?

what is the purpose of this meta-discussion?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:52 pm

Ok now go search "bush lie iraq"

then compare to "obama lie libya"

Kucinich gets my respect for using the same tone with Obama he did with Bush.

The rest of those articles try are treating Obama with kiddy gloves. Its all about authority... its not about Obama lieing about what we're engaged in over there. If Bush pulled this, it would be "Bush lies to congress". With Obama and Clinton, its not a lie, it depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:02 pm

i'm wondering why "lie" is the keyword you're looking for. i thought the whole thing was about constitutional powers. what did obama lie about exactly?

reading back, you said he lied about "whether we're in 'hostilities' or not", which is the same kind of bullshit definitional arguments that the Bush presidency pulled. i hate that kind of crap, especially coming from obama. i just don't call it "a lie". i just make fun of it the way the daily show did by pointing out the absurdity in all the phrases they use to try and cover up "at war with".

did you know air force pilots don't "blow people up"? they "prosecute the target". they try to use whatever word they want so the definition is unclear. that's completely different than what Bush did, which was lie about facts about reality (in addition to bringing the political mis-phraseology machine to unprecedented levels, just like Obama's doing)

the daily show had a segment on it, America At Not-War: Define and Conquer: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-m ... nd-conquer
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:23 pm

ooo, if you wanted to do a good attack on it, you should call it this way: Obama is to 'hostilities', as Bush is to 'enemy combatants'

that i could agree with, since it doesn't include the keyword "lie", but it still brings in constitutional issues which are very important
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:32 pm

That's a good one... so is the "enhanced interrogation", but I think lie is the appropriate word for what Obama is doing with Libya. Especially if "lie" was the word used to describe Bush's statements made relying on "bad intelligence."

He has several legal opinions that the action in Libya is "hostilities", including one "agreed with" by Eric Holder his top lawyer. Instead, he sends a letter to congress telling them its not hostilities. There is increasingly vocal bipartsian agreement that he is violating the war powers act...

What do you call that? I suppose you agree that Bill Clinton didn't have "sex" with Monica Lewinsky because sex as defined in the dictionary is "for the purpose of procreation"?

There is criticism, but its very very watered down.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:49 pm

before he answered the question, bill clinton asked the judge what definition of "sexual relations" he was to use. the teams of lawyers came up with a very particular definition. bill then answered to the definition.

what do i call it? "abuse of the war powers act". or maybe "against the constitution" (but i'd have to use that second one so often to everything congress/the president does.....)

"lie" is a word i reserve to stuff which has a clear answer, like "WMDs physically exist in Saddam's possession" (false)

unfortunately for us, the war powers act never defines the word "hostilities" like clinton's judge did, leaving it up to legal interpretation, of which there are conflicting viewpoints. hence it is a "legal opinion" rather than "a lie" (since law is all made up anyway)

war powers act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... L&summ2=m&
sexual relations definition game: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clinton ... rjury.html

the closest Obama has come to outright lying so far is when he said, "If Qaddafi isn't stopped, he will slaughter thousands of civilians" (note: not an actual quote, just generally what the administration is saying). this is known as a "counterfactual" in that it can never be proven true or false, since it only exists in a hypothetical world where we didn't attack libya
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:07 pm

to be clear, i think the word "lie" is much weaker than "against the constitution", so i'm being much more accusatory than you are, even tho i'm not using your foxnews hatemongery phrase-of-the-day board
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:14 pm

That is the point... liberals can spot a lie on the conservative side even when its not (definition of lie includes intent to deceive which it is very unclear Bush was engaged in despite the media drive by) but they can't seem to see one on their own side when its clear they are engaged in one.

No one can question what it means to engage in sexual relations. Bill Clinton wasn't trying to answer the question honestly, he was trying to be evasive and deceive us into believing he hadn't had sex with her.

No president should be confused about what "hostilities" is when the lawyers and congress aren't. Obama is not trying to meet the letter of the law certainly not the spirit. He knows he is beyond it, and he's deciptively putting out an argument to suggest theres a gray area because he can keep doing whatever he wants until Congress reigns him in.

For a man who campaigned on respecting Congress's oversight role, he's a hipocrite and a liar many times over.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:22 pm

Kiryan,

Maybe they don't want to appear racist. After all, it was the left that painted any attack on Obama as racist.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:24 pm

Isn't hypocrite and liar part of the job description for all politicians?
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:33 pm

it degenerates so quickly around here.

i don't understand. why do you really, really, really want ppl to use the word "lie" when talking about this, and no other phrase or word will suffice?

i'd rather argue about the constitutionality of his actions with regards to the war powers act, but it seems like nobody else is interested in that topic
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:49 pm

Thats the problem with american politics, more time is spent trying to make the other side look bad than actually dealing with the issues.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:24 pm

Kindi wrote:it degenerates so quickly around here.

i don't understand. why do you really, really, really want ppl to use the word "lie" when talking about this, and no other phrase or word will suffice?

i'd rather argue about the constitutionality of his actions with regards to the war powers act, but it seems like nobody else is interested in that topic

Because it was unfairly used to criticize Bush for 10, going on 11 years. They used to say turnabout's fair play.

There's no constitutional debate here. The actions the US is taking against Libya would be considered an act of war if anyone was to take them against us.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Kindi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:45 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Because it was unfairly used to criticize Bush for 10, going on 11 years. They used to say turnabout's fair play.

that's what i thought, "payback" for Bush

Teflor Lyorian wrote:There's no constitutional debate here. The actions the US is taking against Libya would be considered an act of war if anyone was to take them against us.

that's why the topic is the "War Powers Act", discussing the powers the president has to engage in war and war-like actions ("hostilities"). and there is a debate, you just choose not to partake in it because you've already made up your mind......
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:41 pm

someone, probably sarvis and ragorn shared a gem with us once before. When you run on family values, then get caught solicting in a mens bathroom, you get roundly and vocally criticized by folks for being hipocrites.

What I didn't understand was the corollary to their theory which is unless your a Democrat or you espouse our same views.

--

But getting to the war powers act and your attempt to reframe the debate... (honestly, teflor started this out with Obama "bullshit" not sure where you got confused).

I see one real problem. Congress already has a mechanism to deal with an errant president engaged in a war we don't like... power of the purse and impeachment. Why do we need a "law" (that in the US has to be enforced by the executive branch to be effective to govern the president's conduct)? Its a stupid law, and I tend to agree an unconstitutional law. It seems to be very clearly of violating separation of branches. Funny how Obama's opinion on the war powers act changed once he became president and wanted to engage in a little foray of his own.

practically speaking, laws only matter if the president enforces them, or congress is willing to force the president to enforce them. Judges can order whatever they want, but they have no ability to enforce the law, so even if it went to court, the court couldn't do anything to the president (might be able to put some other people in jail, but certainly can't do anything to the president). however it would be interest to see what happened if the president did end up in a court room, judge has ultimate authority in his court room, president would I think be subject to that authority... on the other hand he can pardon himself (I think).
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:19 pm

Kindi wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Because it was unfairly used to criticize Bush for 10, going on 11 years. They used to say turnabout's fair play.

that's what i thought, "payback" for Bush

In a way, yes. I tend to use it very sarcastically and, I might add: hilariously. The only people that seem to get it are Corth and Kiryan. Sometimes Ragorn.

Kindi wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:There's no constitutional debate here. The actions the US is taking against Libya would be considered an act of war if anyone was to take them against us.

that's why the topic is the "War Powers Act", discussing the powers the president has to engage in war and war-like actions ("hostilities"). and there is a debate, you just choose not to partake in it because you've already made up your mind......

The law is actually called the war powers resolution. If you believe there is a debate over what is considered hostile, then I have a clip from the Clinton administration for you to debate what IS is. If you have arguments, make them, disingenuous whining isn't an argument.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama's Bullshit: War Powers

Postby kiryan » Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:16 pm

This makes Obama sound like a fucking liar. but its unclear to me whether the "stirke" missions mentioned in the article happened before or after he said to congress we're only in a support role.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -role.html

U.S. forces are still flying hundreds of bombing raids over Libya even though the Obama administration claims that American armed forces are only playing a limited role in the conflict.

Since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on 31 March, the U.S. has flown hundreds of strike missions, according to United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests