Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[TraneWreck]

Specific statutory authorization means just what it says. And there has been no specific statutory authorization (remember, if it's not ratified by Congress, it is not a statute) for military force to be used against Libya.

You are completely failing to understand how these treaties operate.

NATO, for example, authorizes the president, as executive, to respond to any attack on a member nation with military force. That's not specific authorization to attack Country X. It's a general power to respond to any aggressive nation.

The UN Charter demands that member states fulfill their obligations to the UN, including executing resolutions by the Security Council. That's not a specific mandate to execute Resolution X, it's a general obligation to act.

You're sputtering all over the place and trying to avoid the relatively narrow question at issue.

 

[BeAChooser]

NATO, for example, authorizes the president, as executive, to respond to any attack on a member nation with military force.

And did Libya attack any member nation? No. Hence, NATO has no authority to be involved in this, nor are we obligated to be involved as a result of membership in NATO.

The UN Charter demands that member states fulfill their obligations to the UN, including executing resolutions by the Security Council. That's not a specific mandate to execute Resolution X, it's a general obligation to act.

The UN resolution on Libya says it

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

and

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

*Authorization* is not the same as an *order*. The resolution merely gives the member states the option of doing those things. In which case, it's up to the Constitutions and laws of the member states to decide if they participate. Our Constitution and laws state very clearly that Congress must be consulted before introducing US forces, unless we are under direct attack or a serious threat of attack. But Libya was not attacking us or threatening to attack us. So Obama has NO authority to involve us without first consulting Congress. He clearly violated the War Powers Act and has proven himself to be an untrustworthy hypocrite in yet another area.

And you know I'm right, TW, which is why you won't even respond to my posts.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Then I'll point out that Obama ran for President on that record just 3 years ago.

And I bet you voted for him.

How far in the past doesn't matter to you?

Is history totally irrelevant to liberals?

See, I have this amazing capacity, BaC. I can see that people change.

You might want to realize that. Or something.

No, it is not. The WPA clearly states:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001542----000-.html



The only exception was if the US were under direct attack or serious threat of attack. Neither was the case in Libya.

Furthermore, the WPA states:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001547----000-.html



Thus, the fact that the Senate ratified the NATO and UN Charters does NOT give the President the authority to introduce US forces into Libya without seeking Congressional approval prior to doing so. The NATO charter does not apply because Libya did not attack a NATO member state. And the UN Charter is simply too broad and vague to be considered a valid exception in
this case.

In your opinion. I also think I quoted ab it back that gives the President ability to deploy troops for about 60 days. I know everyone ignored it because it's far less sexy then arguing about treaties, but w/e

Yes. Under the War Powers Act, Congressional authorization is required.

So even if the UN did demand action of all member states (which they're not), the obligation to act would fall to Congress, since it is explicitly against U.S. law for the president to order the use of military force without specific congressional authorization.

Nope. Read the entire law.

And did Libya attack any member nation? No. Hence, NATO has no authority to be involved in this, nor are we obligated to be involved as a result of membership in NATO.



The UN resolution on Libya says it



and



*Authorization* is not the same as an *order*. The resolution merely gives the member states the option of doing those things. In which case, it's up to the Constitutions and laws of the member states to decide if they participate. Our Constitution and laws state very clearly that Congress must be consulted before introducing US forces, unless we are under direct attack or a serious threat of attack. But Libya was not attacking us or threatening to attack us. So Obama has NO authority to involve us without first consulting Congress. He clearly violated the War Powers Act and has proven himself to be an untrustworthy hypocrite in yet another area.

And you know I'm right, TW, which is why you won't even respond to my posts.

Or.. and incredibly likely.. he has you on ignore.

 

[BeAChooser]

See, I have this amazing capacity, BaC. I can see that people change.

You didn't answer my question. How far back do you have to go before a change doesn't matter? A week? A month? What? And what prompted this change by Obama. He was pretty clear back then what the Constitution and law required. And supporters were telling us he was a Constitutional genius. So what changed? Did the law change? No. Did the Constitution change? No. So what changed to change his opinion? Hmmmm?

In your opinion.

An opinion backed up by the specific sources and quotes I noted. Now if you have a different opinion, what's it based on. *feelings*?

I also think I quoted ab it back that gives the President ability to deploy troops for about 60 days.

You mean your post #77? As JoeTheJuggler pointed out in post #80, you cited the wrong statute and what you should have cited, Title 50, Chapter 33, the War Powers Resolution specifically states just what I already noted … namely, that

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

As JTJ noted to you (which you apparently ignored) is that the 60 day requirement applies to cases where the President has to act in emergency self defense of the country. It is not a blanket permission for the President to introduce the military without pre-approval into humanitarian operations like Libya.

Or.. and incredibly likely.. he has you on ignore.

If so, that only makes him look foolish. He can't hide forever from facts and sound logic.

 

[sarge]

No. The War Powers Act requires specific authorization. There is no way that a treaty ratified by Congress some 60 years ago is specific authorization for this use of force.

The WPA does not require specific authorization - at least, not as you are presenting it. The WPA specifically authorizes the President to commit war if required by statute. As treaties are "statutes", Congress clearly intended for the President to have the authority to commit war when a treaty we are signatory to requires it.

Cut the crap. No one is arguing that ratified treaties are not law. There is no ratified treaty that requires the U.S. to supply forces to the actions in Libya.

Don't get pissy when I point out flaws in your arguments.

I have not argued that the Libya resolution satisfies the WPA. I have established that Congress intended to give the President the independent authority to commit war in response to treaty obligations, and I have recognized that Obama has a reasonable case if charged with violation of the WPA.

No. Even if it did (which it doesn't), it explicitly states that member states compliance has to be in accordance with their own constitution. So even if it did bind "us" to comply, under U.S. law, the obligation to act falls to Congress. The president cannot use military force without specific authorization of Congress.

Except that the President undoubtably can use military force without specific authorization from Congress. There is no doubt about this at all. If the WPA required the President to seek Congressional approval p[rior to using force, there would be no need for the WPA. Indeed, the existance of the WPA is evidence that Congress intended to extend advance approval for the use of force to the President.

The idea you keep using, that the UN Charter is somehow constructively Congressional authorization for any and all uses of military force that the Security Council authorizes would be tantamount to a constitutional amendment [rather than requiring an act of Congress, it requires the vote of one ambassador to the UN], and tantamount to a repeal of the War Powers Act.

I could ignore this entire passage, as I've never argued for this position. If you intended this for me, you have presented a strawman. If you did not, then you are employing a sloppy posting style.

So even if the UN intended it to mean what you claim (and I don't think they do), any conflict between the UN Charter (ratified in 1945) and the War Powers Act (passed in 1973) would be decided in favor of the War Powers Act. (In other words, the War Powers Act could be seen as amending U.S. ratification of the UN Charter, but not the other way around.)

I've made no claim as to what the UN intended.

My claim is that treaties that require the use of force meet the "statute clause" of the WPA. I believe that I have carried that argument.

Please, read the War Powers Act. It is actually the law that governs this issue. The UN Charter is the law that governs how the UN authorizes use of military force, and it says nothing at all about what authority the POTUS has.

You ask me to read the WPA in the same post that you demonstrate and almost singular misunderstanding of the WPA?

Irony is not just how your shirt feels after you press it.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have established that Congress intended to give the President the independent authority to commit war in response to treaty obligations

Only in cases where it is an emergency and the US is directly threatened. The WPA clearly states that in all other cases the President must consult Congress BEFORE introducing military forces into situation with where hostilities or the threat of hostilities exists. Libya was not an emergency that directly threatens the US. And he did not do that. You are spinning. The WPA was "intended" to LIMIT the President's authority to do exactly what he did.

 

[TraneWreck]

Or.. and incredibly likely.. he has you on ignore.

Indeed. And judging by just that section quoted, it remains one of the better decisions I've made.

 

[BeAChooser]

indeed. And judging by just that section quoted, it remains one of the better decisions i've made.

Coward.

 

[sarge]

Only in cases where it is an emergency and the US is directly threatened. The WPA clearly states that in all other cases the President must consult Congress BEFORE introducing military forces into situation with where hostilities or the threat of hostilities exists.

That is untrue, and you should know that by now. The WPA specifically authorizes the President to use military force when required to by statute. It is as clear as it is possible for the English language to be. Because treaties ARE statute, any treaty that Congress ratifies and that requires the US to us force will always allow the President to commit forces without seeking prior Congressional approval. That is what the WPA does.

Libya was not an emergency that directly threatens the US.

I agree - unfortunately, as you now know, the WPA does not require a threat to the US.

And he did not do that.

He is not required to.

You are spinning.

You are confused. The WPA specifically authorizes the President to commit US Forces when a treaty requires him to do so. That much is settled. The only logical argument you might present is that the treaty Congress ratified with the UN does not require the President to use force. I've not presented the argument that the UN Charter requires the US to use force (or even if it does, that the No Fly resolution would invoke that requirment).

The WPA was "intended" to LIMIT the President's authority to do exactly what he did.

Not quite accurate.

The WPA was intended to identify the very specific circumstances under which the President could commit forces without first seeking Congressional approval. In all circumstances except for the 3 exceptions identified in the WPA, the President must seek Congressional approval. Build an argument that the Libya resolution does not meet one of the exceptions, or abandon the argument.

 

[BeAChooser]

The WPA specifically authorizes the President to use military force when required to by statute.

And what is the law that specifically authorizes Obama's use of the military in Libya?

Because treaties ARE statute

Are they? Then why did the WPA have to delineate between treaties and laws in it's text? Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001547----000-.html .

any treaty that Congress ratifies and that requires the US to us force will always allow the President to commit forces without seeking prior Congressional approval. That is what the WPA does.

But the NATO treaty doesn't apply here. It only obligates the US to act if a NATO member is attacked or threatened with attack. Libya did neither.

And the UN resolution doesn't obligate us to do anything either (if it did, then all UN members would now be waging war against Libya and committing their forces). The UN resolution on Libya only *authorizes* member states to participate … if they want and provided their own Constitutions and laws allow them to do that. Neither the UN resolution or the UN Charter "requires" the US to commit forces. That is completely voluntary.

The WPA specifically states that "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." It was possible for Obama to have consulted Congress in this instance. He clearly had the time to do it. But he didn't consult Congress.

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, the WPA states that "Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred … snip … from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations". And clearly that is not the case here either. You can not infer that our ratifying the UN Charter is authorization for or requires the use of US forces without consulting Congress. This section of the WPA states that authority to introduce US forces can only be infered if the "treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations." Can you show such legislation in the case of the UN charter and Libya? I bet you can't.

Quote:
Libya was not an emergency that directly threatens the US.

I agree - unfortunately, as you now know, the WPA does not require a threat to the US.

Yes it does. Here, from the third paragraph of the WPA:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Case #1 clearly doesn't apply in this case (Obama even claims what's happening in Libya isn't a war). Case #2 clearly doesn't apply in this case (there is NO specific statutory authorization). So that leaves only case #3 as a possible justification under the WPA, and that requires "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Which again, does not apply in this case. So you are simply wrong.

Quote:
You are spinning.

You are confused.

No, I'm not confused. You are. Or you are deliberately spinning. I think the latter.

Quote:
The WPA was "intended" to LIMIT the President's authority to do exactly what he did.

Not quite accurate.

No, that's exactly accurate. The very first paragraph of the WPA states it's intent: "It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations." That is an intent to LIMIT the power of the President. You are spinning. You need only look at what motivated passage of the WPA to understand this. The WPA was introduced because members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was intended to limit.

In all circumstances except for the 3 exceptions identified in the WPA, the President must seek Congressional approval. Build an argument that the Libya resolution does not meet one of the exceptions, or abandon the argument.

I just did. So there.

 

[BeAChooser]

Perhaps we should look at who convinced Obama to get us involved in Libya? Samantha Power, one.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-role-inside-to-help-sway-obama-on-libya.html

Samantha Power Brings Activist Role Inside to Help Persuade Obama on Libya

Look at her history. She's no friend of Israel. Just the opposite. She continues to promote the policies of Robert Malley, who went so far as to advocate not merely talking with Hamas but funding the terrorist organization. Keep that in mind as you watch Obama and Samantha help extremists who vow to destroy Israel get control of countries like Libya and Egypt in the Middle East. Keep that in mind as you weigh the legitimacy and reasons behind Obama's decisions on Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. What is Obama's real agenda, folks? Do you really know? Remember that treason is indeed an impeachable offense.

 

[sarge]

And what is the law that specifically authorizes Obama's use of the military in Libya?



Are they? Then why did the WPA have to delineate between treaties and laws in it's text? Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001547----000-.html .



But the NATO treaty doesn't apply here. It only obligates the US to act if a NATO member is attacked or threatened with attack. Libya did neither.

And the UN resolution doesn't obligate us to do anything either (if it did, then all UN members would now be waging war against Libya and committing their forces). The UN resolution on Libya only *authorizes* member states to participate … if they want and provided their own Constitutions and laws allow them to do that. Neither the UN resolution or the UN Charter "requires" the US to commit forces. That is completely voluntary.

The WPA specifically states that "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." It was possible for Obama to have consulted Congress in this instance. He clearly had the time to do it. But he didn't consult Congress.

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, the WPA states that "Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred … snip … from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations". And clearly that is not the case here either. You can not infer that our ratifying the UN Charter is authorization for or requires the use of US forces without consulting Congress. This section of the WPA states that authority to introduce US forces can only be infered if the "treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations." Can you show such legislation in the case of the UN charter and Libya? I bet you can't.



Yes it does. Here, from the third paragraph of the WPA:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html



Case #1 clearly doesn't apply in this case (Obama even claims what's happening in Libya isn't a war). Case #2 clearly doesn't apply in this case (there is NO specific statutory authorization). So that leaves only case #3 as a possible justification under the WPA, and that requires "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Which again, does not apply in this case. So you are simply wrong.



No, I'm not confused. You are. Or you are deliberately spinning. I think the latter.



No, that's exactly accurate. The very first paragraph of the WPA states it's intent: "It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations." That is an intent to LIMIT the power of the President. You are spinning. You need only look at what motivated passage of the WPA to understand this. The WPA was introduced because members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was intended to limit.



I just did. So there.

I take the trouble to provide you with the knowledge that I am not arguing that the Libya resolution provides the President with the authority to commit forces in Libya, and you still devote pages of text to an argument about that point. I gotta say I admire your ability to not let facts get in the way of a good argument. Good on ya.

Now - in spite of your lengthy post responding to a point I never made, you still do not understand the WPA any better than you did earlier. The WPA clearly, inarguably provides the President the authority to conduct combat if we are party to a treaty that requires us to conduct combat. In that circumstance, the President would not require prior specific approval from Congress. I'll leave you to argue with yourself about whether or not our treaty with the UN provides the statutory obligation and whether or not the resolution would invoke that statutory obligation. Carry on.

 

[BeAChooser]

Now - in spite of your lengthy post responding to a point I never made, you still do not understand the WPA any better than you did earlier. The WPA clearly, inarguably provides the President the authority to conduct combat if we are party to a treaty that requires us to conduct combat.

The NATO treaty doesn't apply (would you like to actually argue that?) and neither the UN charter (is it even a treaty?) or resolution on Libya (not ratified by Congress) "requires" us to conduct combat. It merely gives us the UN's permission if we decide to do it subject to our own Constitution and Laws.

Carry on.

RUN, having lost the debate (and you know it).

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...professors-war/2011/03/24/ABPjvmRB_story.html

Obama and Libya: The professor’s war

President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor.

True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Gaddafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on “hallucinogenic pills”) thug losing support by the hour — to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.”

But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?

The rest of that article is great reading and spot on, as well.

I think Krauthammer sum up Obama and this matter rather well:

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...-president-wants-to-cut-america-down-to-size/

Doug Feith: "The President wants to cut America down to size"

… snip …

“Most people are analyzing U.S. action in Libya in a way that makes what President Obama is doing seem incomprehensible. If the President says Gadhafi must go and believes it is important enough to engage our military to achieve this objective, why would he wait two or three weeks before making a stand? If the President’s goal is to protect civilians in Libya, how can he be willing to let Gadhafi - the source of the humanitarian danger in Libya - remain in power after the operation ends?

“Pundits are puzzled because they assume President Obama is focused on Libya. But that assumption may be false.

“The only way to make the President’s behavior comprehensible is to recognize that he has a larger strategic goal than just the outcome of Libya. While the rest of the country is focused on Libya’s future, the President is focused on fundamentally changing America’s role and standing in the world. Libya, for him, is simply an occasion for undertaking a radical reformulation of 70 years of American foreign policy.

… snip …

“The President is saying that as important as Libya is, it is not as important as the principle that the U.S. should not act independently. He is saying, 'I’m willing to intervene in Libya only if I can do it in a way that establishes the principle that America does not act unilaterally, independently or simply for American interests. We only act within multilateral contexts.* We try not to take the lead and when we do have to assert leadership, we do not hold it for very long. We transfer leadership early.'

“Essentially, the President wants to cut America down to size - he would say make America a better citizen of the world. But what he is talking about is moving America away from a position of leadership.

Some might call this treason, given who he wants to have that leadership.

 

[sarge]

The NATO treaty doesn't apply (would you like to actually argue that?) and neither the UN charter (is it even a treaty?) or resolution on Libya (not ratified by Congress) "requires" us to conduct combat. It merely gives us the UN's permission if we decide to do it subject to our own Constitution and Laws.



RUN, having lost the debate (and you know it).

I am struggling to accept that you are not being intentionally dense. I have made no argument that the Libya resolution would satisfy the requirements of the WPA. I've informed you of this several times, yet you continue to present a counter.

Perhaps taking it one step at a time will be easier:

Do you now accept that Congress, through the enabling legislation of the WPA, gives the President the authority to conduct war under several limited, specific circumstances, and that one of those circumstances is when required by statute?

 

[BeAChooser]

I am struggling to accept that you are not being intentionally dense.

Gosh, I thought you were all done here.

I have made no argument that the Libya resolution would satisfy the requirements of the WPA.

Fine. Let's just say I'm being complete in my argument incase another like you is out there hoping to bogusly justify this quagmire that Obama now has us involved in.

Do you now accept that Congress, through the enabling legislation of the WPA, gives the President the authority to conduct war under several limited, specific circumstances, and that one of those circumstances is when required by statute?

I've cited and quoted to you EXACTLY what the WPA says.

And EXACTLY why what it says precludes what Obama did and is now doing in Libya.

If you want to address those specifics, fine.

If not, I "leave you to argue with yourself".

 

[BeAChooser]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rebel-...t-against-u-s-in-afghanistan/?singlepage=true

Rebel Commander in Libya Fought Against U.S. in Afghanistan

On his own admission, rebel leader Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi fought American troops in Afghanistan and recruited Libyans to fight American troops in Iraq.

… snip …

In his more recent remarks to Il Sole 24 Ore, al-Hasadi admits not only to fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq. As noted in my earlier PJM report here, captured al-Qaeda personnel records show that al-Hasadi’s hometown of Darnah sent more foreign fighters to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq than any other foreign city or town and “far and away the largest per capita number of fighters.” Al-Hasadi told Il Sole 24 Ore that he personally recruited “around 25” Libyans to fight in Iraq. “Some have come back and today are on the front at Ajdabiya,” al-Hasadi explained, “They are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” “The members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader,” al-Hasadi added.

There you go, folks … Obama's new allies.

Doesn't this just remind you of Kosovo, where Clinton made the KLA (an acknowledged terrorist group) our allies?

And when does doing that become an impeachable offense?

 

[Darth Rotor]

In this specific instance, I think Obama can argue that he was acting in accordance with a UN resolution.

Circular logic.

Note who is on the UNSC. The US of A. Guess who tells the USofA's UN ambassador how vote? The Pres, executive branch. So, using that justification is a bad case of "I told myself to do it" and does not answer the mail to Dennis the Menace.

Part of what Kucinich is talking about, which is Constitutional authority, seems to be that UN resolutions do not fit into the Constitutional rubric.

It isn't for "others" (even though we are part of the "others") to send American blood and treasure on mission X, Y, or Z. He appears to be pointing out that Congress ought to be involved in the decision process, on a Constitutional basis.

But I'll bet with QC. Within 28 days, the report to Congress will arrive, and get the blessing ...

By the way, I am getting a curious deja vu in re Specialist Michael New, just about now ... but this time, it's Dems raising the BS flag.

Weird, is politics.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think the biggest problem is that the coalition went into Libya without any real, defined plan on what happens after our intervention is finished, and without knowing in entirety who makes up the rebel groups. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have done anything, but I'm under the impression that the weeks leading up to the no fly zone were fleshed with far more debate on action than with a specific strategy.

I'm surprised that the impeachment charge is coming from a member of his own party (I'd have expected it from one crazy guys on the other end who'd look for the most damning things against him). There are bigger issues to worry about than that now that people are involved in the conflict.