The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate

The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate

www.salon.com

The Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa is opposed by countries representing 40 percent of the human race

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.

But as a member of the United Nations, the U.S. must abide by the provisions of the U.N. Charter.

Obama has validated the fears of the critics that U.S. participation in the United Nat

(visit the link for the full news article)

Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere “consultation” with the president.

Excellently written article!
One of the best articles i've read in a long long time
Please everyone..... Read the ENTIRE article!

Now see what CNN says:

The Security Council resolution, which passed Thursday, allows member states "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country ... while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

www.cnn.com...

No mention of Congress, shame on you CNN and Kudos to Salon.com

They are attacking Libya with many civilian casualties to protect the civilians, but who is stopping America with all the civilian casualties they are creating in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen?

This is one of the most important articles at Salon or the web that I have read in a very long time!



www.salon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

See a pattern here?

Also remember Barack Obama’s 2007 statement about bypassing Congress?

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.

www.boston.com...

The above were Obama's words in 2007!

Then, with the same link Obama goes on to say:

Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration

While I agree with him, it's important not to say one thing but then once president do another!

Great find, especially the Ron Paul video...

Everything he says makes sense to me... I havent heard 1 thing from him in the past year I didnt like... Same with his son Rand Paul. They both are true patriots in my mind, trying to change the system from within.

This libya situation has me really on ends, especially since yesterdays news of gadhafi arming 1 million civilians.

When will we stop with our massive oil consumption and illegal wars to steal the oil... Ugh I fear we wont until there is no oil to find, and the whole world hates us... Well we are about halfway there eh, 1 out of the 2

EDIT - Wow mayabong that vid is scary accurate... Here we go WW3!

Putting aside the internal US issues that the article discusses I do just want to point out that abstention is not the same thing as opposition; opposition would have been a vote against. Abstention is a neutral position and the article’s claim that the no fly zone is opposed by 40% of the human race is highly debatable at best and it does not consider support given outside of the UN by groups such as the AL and AU. Of course you could question how representative of the people these groups actually are but you can also pose that question of Russia and China.

reply to post by Mike_A


The question remains why are they abstaining in their votes, when clearly they are opposed to the Military Action against Libya?

Is it because of some sinister leverage by the International Banking or Oil Cartels or the Military Industrial Complex where they dare not actually challenge these actions even though they are opposed to them?

Or is it simply a form of divide and conquer where they end up representing by proxy those who are opposed amongst the masses and some how provide some illusion of hope that maybe one day the UN Security Council will stop being a rubber stamp for what the United States/UK/Israel would like to see happen?

Regardless the UN is just another psuedo democratic system that is not actually democratic in how it acts and isn't even representative of the member nations.

Clearly it's being used as a vehicle and mechanism to bypass nation's sovereign rights and systems and is not only a mockery in it's own right, but renders governments like the US's a mockery too.

Thinly veiled religious crusades against Muslim nations clearly have an appeal to Christian conservatives and fundamentalists amongst the masses, while gaining control of a nation's vital resources certainly have an appeal to the elite, fleecing dictators of their stolen billions have an appeal to the banksters who get to sit on their money in perpituity in frozen accounts, and the military industial complex continues to expend money like it's water while raking up huge profits and currying favor within the system with the tax payer's money it miss appropriates and spreads around to powerful politicians.

I don't care on what level you want to try to justify this, whether it's a US Cruise Missile killing a civilian or Gaddafi's air force killing a civilian, the end result is dead civilians and it's a process once the International Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt, Theiving, and Murderous gets involved keeps on killing for year after year after year.

When Ghadaffi kills civilians they are civilians, when our military does it they are insurgents.

Haven't you actually even questioned what they are doing yet, let alone figured it out, or are you that agenda driven yourself that the horrible price, hypocritical actions and murderous deciet justifyies it all in your mind?

The shame of it all goes beyond the pale, and frankly there is no intelligent or noble way to dress up murder to be appealing to anyone but stone cold murderers.

The UN... yes the UN are enforcing a no fly zone, nothing more, nothing less, and with the support of the Arab League.

Is this a war? I don't think it is, unless something changes of course.

I think people need to calm down a bit on this one... I don't see loads of civilian casualties being casued by the UN either.

Originally posted by II HAL II
The UN... yes the UN are enforcing a no fly zone, nothing more, nothing less, and with the support of the Arab League.

Is this a war? I don't think it is, unless something changes of course.

I think people need to calm down a bit on this one... I don't see loads of civilian casualties either.

Tomahawks are UN production ...RAF jet fighters are UN ...France mirage planes are UN ... until today 50 civilans murdered and 150 wounded ..get your head out from sand

Originally posted by II HAL II
The UN... yes the UN are enforcing a no fly zone, nothing more, nothing less, and with the support of the Arab League.

Is this a war? I don't think it is, unless something changes of course.

I think people need to calm down a bit on this one... I don't see loads of civilian casualties either.

Would you like to be the ONE civilian casuality there is? What about a loved one, a mom, a aunt, a niece, a grand child?

Care to sacrifice in that way?

ONE civilian death is one too many and it's rediculous how a person can decry civilian deaths as horrible when it's their own government killing them, but make light of them when it's our government killing them.

How did the people of the world get this morally bankrupt?

Its kind of ironic that the US is using the excuse that they are attacking to "protect civilians" when the US is responsible for civilian deaths on an almost daily basis in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

To add to this convo:

A "no-fly zone" is another oxymoron, a total contradiction in terms. It means that Colonel Quaddafi's "brutal, savage and unacceptable treatment", has been replaced by our "brutal, savage and unacceptable treatment

Bombing people does not: "protect innocent people" and: "uphold universal human rights." This is Orwell-speak.

www.globalresearch.ca...

At the very least people should recognize how wrong this approach is, even if you for god knows what reason believe that this course of action is the right thing to do.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


As an American , I Never thought I'd see the day when I actually Agreed with Anything a Russian Goverment Official had to say , Until Now.........Putin Puttin' the Truth Out There........


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by II HAL II


The Arab league originally supported this & were supposed to act as the biggest force incase ground forces were needed. As of 11:00pm GST the news was reporting the Arab League are imploring that Western forces cease all bombardments & military operations on a sovereign islamic state.

This is turning really ugly really quickly!!!

Ok.. show me where these civilian 50 casualties are confirmed then? as I haven't been able to find this.

This is being done to stop more civilian deaths in the east so what's worse? Typing mother, child brother etc doesn't change the fact it's stopping whole towns from being wiped out... what's worse?

Originally posted by II HAL II
Ok.. show me where these civilian 50 casualties are confirmed then? as I haven't been able to find this.

This is being done to stop more civilian deaths in the east so what's worse? Typing mother, child brother etc doesn't change the fact it's stopping whole towns from being wiped out... what's worse?

More dual standards, how were the civilian deaths Gadaffi is alleged to have racked up been confirmed?

Isn't it convenient when the Islamic Dictator you don't like is accused of murder no proof at all is required?

Yet when the Muslim civilians you don't like are killed by us, you need to see bodies and have Quincy and CSI Miami, New York, LA, and Vegas preform the autopsies and match it to a US Gun Barrel?

Do you understand how rediculous the dual standards are?

Duplicate post by the duplicate post gremlin.

Originally posted by II HAL II
Ok.. show me where these civilian 50 casualties are confirmed then? as I haven't been able to find this.

This is being done to stop more civilian deaths in the east so what's worse? Typing mother, child brother etc doesn't change the fact it's stopping whole towns from being wiped out... what's worse?

Show me where towns are wiped out ..show me were Airplanes bombing civilians .... and your statement about Arab league agree about this is a lie

The Arab League has criticised the military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state

news.sky.com... 201103315956219?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15956219_Video%2C_Libya%3A_Arab_League_Splits_From_West_Over_Libya_Bombing_Campaign_Afte r_Supporting_No-Fly_Zone

What I find interesting, under the powers of Congress, Article 1 section 8, it is the decision of Congress to declare war. A unilateral maneuverer by a POTUS is illegal and Unconstitutional. Why are we not hearing this aspect of the legality by the MSM? This government is a joke, and a travesty put against man.

So the Libyan army moving and pounding towns didn't happen?