Uncategorized

Why hasn’t Obama received approval from Congress, but thinks he can still stay in Libya?


Does he think he’s above the law? above the constitution?

Could this be grounds for impeachment?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/16/obama-the-new-caesar/

And Obama supporters say the Bush wars were illegal? When Bush received approval from congress. Bush’s wars were legal while Obama’s are not.

Virtually all presidents have gone on military excursions without Congressonal approval.
Bush 41 got sued by Congress for that very thing. He sent troops to the Persian Gulf region to &quot:stabilize&quot: the area without informing Congress of a da*mn thing.
George W Bush TORTURED people, in defiance of explicit Congressional statutes banning torture.
George W Bush also violated the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Rules at will.

Obama is not doing anything unique here.
You’re just being a dick.

EDIT: Tyler, you seriously need to educate yourself.
The Secretary of Defense will always defend the legality of the president’s military conduct. He is an appointed officer of the president who owes the president a duty of loyalty. The Secretary is not a legal authority of any kind. The SUPREME COURT gets to determine what is and what is not legal. Robert Gates doesn’t get to make that call.

War Powers Resolution gives presidents 60 days of battle in a foreign country w/o congressional approval. This has been ignored by previous presidents so no, it is not necessarily an impeachable offense. People say Bush’s wars were illegal because of the true reason behind invading Iraq.

Actually, we are not at war with Libya. Congress did not need to approve the military action in Libya because it was not a declaration of war. The Constitution does state (Article one Section 8) that Congress shall have the power to declare war. But the key words are &quot:declare war&quot:. There isn’t a war with Libya just military action. If Obama declared war (by himself without congressional approval) then it would be a legal issue. But as it stands, there isn’t a war, which means he did not side step the law. The only reason this is an issue is because this is just political. Its not an issue but it is politics.

This is one of the instances i will agree to an extent. Yes i agree we have no business in Libya. The only defense if any is that the United States has a minor role in this while it’s NATO(Mostly France) that’s doing most of the fighting. But having said that just like i complained that we had no business in Iraq i say we have no business in Libya.

Its all lame technicalities and commonplace presidential actions of p*ssing on the War Powers Act, and so-called &quot:Humanitarian&quot: war-like actions that supposedly only occur under leftist presidents. Nothing new.

Well apparently, the Canadians are heading the operation now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/…

Considering Bush outright lied about WMDs, Iraqi terrorist training camps, being hailed as liberators, etc I guess you’re right, his war was completely legal. I think I’ll go lie to Congress right now.

When are you people going to get No fly zone =\= Invasion

Evidently, it is routine for presidents to decry the war powers act as unconstitutional

Even the Secretary of Defence Robert Gates is saying Obama’s not breaking any laws. Do you disagree with the Secretary of Defence?

It doesn’t really matter what you think. If the Secretary of Defence says it’s not illegal, then it’s not illegal.

And Obama didn’t start the war in Libya. The Brits and the French did. Check your facts. Or do you even care about the facts?

The Congress gave the President the authority to use &quot:pre-emptive defense&quot: against terrorism one President ago. Where have you been?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *