The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate

Originally posted by II HAL II
So the Libyan army moving and pounding towns didn't happen?

What ever has happened in Libya in no small part has happened because of Western Intelligence Agency manipulation and funding, and Western Medias creating distorted pictures of events.

It remains though a sovereign nation, and all it takes is our government slapping freedom fighters on a group or rebels to convince people that these are good guys we want to support?

For all we know the resistance is another organized criminal cabal that wants more power for itself, that our Government is just using as a pretext.

You don't know who their leaders are, what their ideaology is, and you likely don't even care.

We are in reality dictating to another sovereign nation while at the same time first acting covertly through the intelligence community to foster unrest, and then overtly through the press to dramatize it.

Why? So we can do the same exact same thing that regime is doing under the fuzzy logic of Greater Good?

The Powers that Be are simply playing you for a fool, and getting you to support their own murderous agenda, and when it's time to turn the guns on you and yours, well they won't hesitate either.

Don't feed the beast.

You'll be sorry you did.

American Soldiers Are WAKING UP?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
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 It means that Colonel Quaddafi's "brutal, savage and unacceptable treatment", has been replaced by our "brutal, savage and unacceptable treatment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.

Indeed, US/Western hypocrisy knows no bounds and is completely of the chart. You can't fly over your own sovereign country, but we can fly over your sovereign country, and drop bombs and fire missiles, even though you have neither attacked nor threatened us (which, the only "threat" was the defense of their nation if attacked).

This is one of the first things i thought, when i heard about the implementation of the "no fly zone." Helping the people by dropping bombs, not sure whether to roll my eyes or laugh at the absurdity.

The US is filled with so much hypocrisy. It's OK for us to accidentally kill civilians (oops, collateral damage), but not OK for you to kill them. And then the utilitarian notion, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few (humans who had to die as a result), to which i could subscribe only in rare circumstances.

*Shakes head*

There is so much going on behind the scenes and something smells so funny. As everyone knows, the same lines being fed as were fed before, the same rhetoric being used to rally support, all wrapped in the facade of "we are right and they are wrong, therefore our actions are justified regardless of effect or result."

BS.

Nothing but fearmongering TPTB did it as usual. check
No solutions offered. check
Unverified death tolls. check
Discounting deathtolls caused by other side. check
It's not constitutional. check
Throw in the quack doctor Paul's name. check

Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, you don't like it, vote a new person in there next time. Oh wait ya every Congressman and potential Congressman in the history of the world is locked into TPTB (except the "Good Doctor" LOL)

Really when is this gonna end? Obama is now said to be the same as GW. Really?
This was all a bad B grade unproven conspiracy back then and it still is now. More so, it's like Rocky XVIII, terrible compared to the original, which won no awards.

I pondered the same thought as the OP.
Was going to write a thread too, until I found this:

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution

Source

Then I realized its all a sham.

Our entire Process of Declaring War is gone.
We obey the UN now.


Ridiculous.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


The confusion poster heaping scorn and derision on the concerned…check
The anti-conspiracy poster adding nothing of relevance or fact…check
The look to the false left/right divide political process for a future solution…check
The pseudo intellectual trying to make himself appear more intelligent by trying to make others appear less…check

I could go on, but let’s face it; this is a game that ends not in checkmate but stalemate.

But you really already knew that didn’t you?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I work for a company that has on going works in Libya (mostly Benghazi area) and can confirm of large scale civilian casualties.

For the record, my company has NO involvement in the oil, chemical or security areas (simple construction work).
We are in touch quite often, but no longer daily, with Libyan management as all of our workers have left the country.

I cannot speak for the Tripoli area as it has always been very highly controlled there (think official escorts when out on visits) but certainly in the east of the country this enforcement of the no fly zone is highly appreciated by the majority of locals (well over 90% in these areas).

My main issue with this type of action is that it does only appear to take place in countries that can be of benefit to the powerful industrialised countries of the North, including China and Russia. Whilst much public hand wringing may be done by these two nations, behind the scenes they are very happy with what is happening here (and in other countless places around the world).

For once i am actually pleased that my nation has got involved in a military action but obviously that does not mean i support or condone civilian casualties. This situation is totally different to say an Iraq or Afghanistan and as such we should not see the same sort of moral shame on ourselves.

Current public statements by members of the Arab League are far more to do with covering their own backs in case local public sentiment turns against the action rather than being an indication of current thinking in that part of the world - it is always difficult for arab nations to publicly support attacks against other arab nations, even when desired.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Since 2001 the Constitution of the USA has been suspended.

For the past 10 yrs the US has been operating under emergency law, the Patriot act.

The Patriot act was passed by Congress, so i am afraid your argument that these actions are unconstitutional is a bit of a misnomer.

As for legitimacy, well this time it is backed by a clear UN resolution, so it is quite legitimate.

Last week everybody was screaming about the lack of support for the revolutionary youth of Libya, how could we all stand back and watch as Qaddafi turned his armed forces on his own people was the cry.

Now that something is being done, something that the UN was actually designed to do, people flip-flop and denounce it.

WTF ???

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Cosmic...

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

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

They’re not clearly opposed to military action; they could have made that clear by voting against it.

There could be any number of reasons for their abstention from some sinister conspiracy involving the defence sector or because they want Gaddafi gone but they just don’t think it will play well with their people.

Neither of us know, but what we do know is that abstaining does not necessarily mean they are opposed and the article is wrong to make that claim; that is all I’m saying.

reply to post by Cosmic4life


Why US must be involved millitary ?..why just don't vote yes on no fly zone and tell French and UK to control that no fly zone or Russians for once .Why Obama not condemn the action and stay away for one time like Chinese and Russians are doing all the time?

People are taking a literal meaning of the “declare war” clause (Article I Section 8), and applying it to all hostilities. It’s apparent to me that “Congress shall have the power to declare war” can’t be read literally and mean that exclusively. If that were so, then the President would require Congressional approval even before ordering the armed forces to defend the United States from an on-going attack.

The “declare war” clause in Article I Section 8 is a term of art, intended to prevent the President alone to commit our nation to a full-on war. Do all hostilities qualify as wars? I don’t think so, but that’s not to say that if something is not a war then it’s peace, and I think some people’s confusion stem from a black and white view on that.

In any event I don’t think we need to focus on that particular question because, by Congress’ own legislation, the President isn’t required to seek Congressional authorization to use the armed forces when it’s pursuant to an Article 42 military action of the United Nations Charter, such as the one at issue here.

22 USC 287d—

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of [the United Nations] Charter

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by II HAL II
So the Libyan army moving and pounding towns didn't happen?

What ever has happened in Libya in no small part has happened because of Western Intelligence Agency manipulation and funding, and Western Medias creating distorted pictures of events.

It remains though a sovereign nation, and all it takes is our government slapping freedom fighters on a group or rebels to convince people that these are good guys we want to support?

That's fine if true but where are you getting these facts from? you obviously have access to information I don't... please share.

The point I was originally making was that this isn't a war... it's a UN and Arab League agreed no fly zone... not a war.

reply to post by Flavian

We are in touch quite often, but no longer daily, with Libyan management as all of our workers have left the country.

They say if you listen carefully to people they will tell you all the things that they really don't want you to know. In this case that you are not in daily touch and the people you are in touch with are management with a company with strong western ties.

I cannot speak for the Tripoli area as it has always been very highly controlled there (think official escorts when out on visits) but certainly in the east of the country this enforcement of the no fly zone is highly appreciated by the majority of locals (well over 90% in these areas).

Which leads us to which locals these are, and on what you are basing the 90% number since, clearly by your own admission your own workers have fled the scene and you are no longer in firm contact with the managers either.

Start having China drop bombs on Miami Beach where I live and I can pretty much gaurantee you no one would be in support of it under any circumstances.

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?

IT's just very disingenuous of you to pretend anything being done by obama that is somehow "distasteful" is not being done by obama at all. It's the UN!

I'm just getting ready to post a new thread on obama's "Abu Ghraib". Going to blame the UN for that, too?

The article that the OP presented is not only mistaken, but fails to do a bit of research that anyone can do. The President of the United States of America does have the authority to conduct military operations when it comes to those terrorist organizations or states that harbor or support terrorist activities. This was decided back in September 14, 2001 when then President Bush asked for the opinion of the Congress at the time. The response was given and fully adhered to by President Bush and thus binds all future Presidents giving them that authority. Further more, it allows for the President of the United States to make decisions and or commit United States Armed forces to be able to do a preemptive strike or to retaliate against terrorist anywhere they may be.
In Libya, the government has admitted to not only knowing about, but also authorizing said terrorist attacks, that has killed people in the past, and they may do such in the future. They are currently using armed forces against some of the civilian population, to include bombing and other actions. Would you prefer to sit down and allow another Darfour or Rwanda to happen and do nothing, would it not be a good idea for the nations of the world to stand up for once and actual live by the agreements that they signed when it comes to human rights and actions under the different UN charters, or allow such atrocities to happen?
As this is not a war, as the congress did not declare it, the presidential powers for the use of the military is limited, and going by his speech, it will be in a support role, offering aid to both sides that ask for it, and to supply intelligence, letting the powers of Europe and other members of NATO take more of a lead and direct actions against the government of Libya. If Libya decides to directly attack a member nation of NATO, then the US is obligated by treaty to commit armed forces to assist them, along with hardware, support and military personnel.
Here is the link:
www.justice.gov...

reply to post by Cosmic4life

Since 2001 the Constitution of the USA has been suspended.

You got the 1 part right but you are a bit off on the other numbers.

The Constitution has been in desuetude (an outdated no longer enforceable legal doctrine through the practice of disuse or abandonment) since 1861 and the start of the Civil War.

At that date a De Facto (matter of fact and principle) War Time Military Dictarorship took over the United States Government replacing the De Jure (matter of law) government and has operated under those powers ever since.

The 14th Amenment making all people incporporated citizens of the states that they live in, and the states incorporated entities under the Teritory of Washington D.C. has simply allowed Congress to give lip service to the Constitution by making almost every act part of the Commerce Clause since the Department of Commerce counts you as a human being and citizen and resident through the Census it takes every 10 years.

The Commerce Clause gives congress virtually unlimited power to pass commerce based laws, and they have simply made all human beings part of the system of comerce through an endless series of amendments, decrees, contracts, licesnes and other agreements.

There is a reason why the Democratic Congress under the Bush White House would scream and holler and decry his every request and then sit down and quietly vote it into law after the posturing for the left/right dog and pony show.

That is because the United States is a Presidential/Military/Corporate dictatorship.

AS a UK Ciizen,I do not support this intervention what so ever. Those who think,that this intervention is not going to end up wtih foot troops being put on the ground are dillusional.

You cannot win with Air power alone. We learned that in Bosnia,Kosovo. As well as Iraq.

I do not want anymore british armed forces men and women killed or maimed in another coutries war.

As one ex MP as already said. This has nothing to do with democracy, freedom. The goal of this intervention is for in 3 words. OIL. Nothing more nothing less.

We will be sucked into this, and will not be able to get out of it.

I also think Cameron has some cheek,sending our armed men and women into a conflict,when he is taking an AXE to them. How ironic is that.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Indeed you are correct.

However, not wanting to write a novel i decided to skip over the details.

We are in agreement that these actions in Libya are not unconstitutional.

Cosmic...

Originally posted by II HAL II

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by II HAL II
So the Libyan army moving and pounding towns didn't happen?

What ever has happened in Libya in no small part has happened because of Western Intelligence Agency manipulation and funding, and Western Medias creating distorted pictures of events.

It remains though a sovereign nation, and all it takes is our government slapping freedom fighters on a group or rebels to convince people that these are good guys we want to support?

That's fine if true but where are you getting these facts from? you obviously have access to information I don't... please share.

The point I was originally making was that this isn't a war... it's a UN and Arab League agreed no fly zone... not a war.

Of course its a war, it is simply a sham political process of corrupt leaders all tied into the same banking and energy systems decreeing in unison what they must for the sake of continuing the enterprise.

Haven't you yet understood the word games that they are playing. Fight your own dictator you are a freedom fighter, fight against us taking over and dictating to you, you are an insurgent.

The Patriot Act does away with many of the laws that the patriots who founded the country fought and died for and cautioned us to never give up or relinquish most especially in times of crisis when adhering to those principles would be more challenging but be our saving grace.

Detainees are kidnapped victims that through rendition are being held outside of the protections of any legal agreement governing war, once again through a series of word games.

A rose is a rose by any other name, and whether they call it a No Fly Zone, its an armed, organized act of violence that leads to death of human beings and other life, and the destruction of property by states, this is what is known as WAR.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Flavian

 

They say if you listen carefully to people they will tell you all the things that they really don't want you to know. In this case that you are not in daily touch and the people you are in touch with are management with a company with strong western ties.

It is however based on first hand accounts and not on what has been reported by the media or by knowledge that i have 'gleaned' for myself from reading unverifiable internet reports and watching news bulletins.


Which leads us to which locals these are, and on what you are basing the 90% number since, clearly by your own admission your own workers have fled the scene and you are no longer in firm contact with the managers either.

Start having China drop bombs on Miami Beach where I live and I can pretty much gaurantee you no one would be in support of it under any circumstances.



This a clearly quite a ridiculous and vaccuous comparison to make as Miami Beach residents are not having to deal with same sort of thing as people living in Eastern Libya.

I am all for debate and rationale but to make ridiculous statements does no one any favours. I do not contest that dodgy things happen all over the world but that does not necessarily imply that every action is underhand or manipulative. To imply that it does is in itself very manipulative.