Republican bill would halt 'unauthorized' U.S. strikes in Libya

Republican bill would halt 'unauthorized' U.S. strikes in Libya

www.rawstory.com

Two Republican congressmen, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (IL) and Rep. Justin Amash (MI), have introduced legislation to the House of Representatives that would prevent the United States from carrying out further military operations in Libya until such actions were authorized by Congress.

Johnson and Amash claimed that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional authority to launch a military assault unless there was an imminent threat against the country.

"The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war and to provide for the Armed Services," Amash said Monday in a statement. "The

(visit the link for the full news article)

This may be one of the most important legislative attempts since Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill, and a critical effort to restore a key constitution provision too often and too destructively usurped by the White House over the last decade.

John Adams one of the key constitution framers wrote extensively about the vital necessity of not allowing the ability to declare war, and initiate war to ever fall into just one person’s hands.

While some here on ATS are bound to foolishly claim things like Partisan Politics, as being the motive and to claim it was the United Nations who ordered the military intervention in Libya, while others will no doubt chime in with that it’s just a ‘no fly zone’ and not a war for various and sundry reasons those dismissals ignore the following.

1. A key provision of the Constitution is constantly being side stepped and placing way too much power in the sole hands of the Chief Executive that the framers never meant for the Chief Executive to have.
2. The United Nations is not the United States and Treaty obligations that supersede the Constitution are themselves expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
3. Labeling select Acts of War through word games to mask or minimize that it is an Act of War does not make it not a direction of US Military Forces to carry out violent, destructive and deadly acts on another nation, ie, War.

Whether or not the Bill is partisan political sniping is mute when it comes to that for over a decade now the Executive Branch has been unconstitutionally directing the US Military in a financially and morally bankrupting process that has eroded and compromised the Constitution in three major critical ways.

A. Prohibitions meant to make sure only Congress has the right to Declare War
B. Prohibitions designed to protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures
C. Habeas Corpus; Government must charge the imprisoned with a crime, allow them to confront their accusers, present evidence in their defense, and have the advice of expert legal counsel

Do we as a people really want to give up the rights our ancestors fought so hard for in hasty measures to ‘aide’ people in other nations to help them fight for the very same rights we are giving up in the process?


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

I'd like to believe there is more behind this than simple partisan D v R nonsense. I really would.

d v r - party political pantomime.

"oh yes it is"

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I would too, not only is it rediculous and dangerous that a International Body like the United Nations known for it's corruption can authorize U.S. Military action side stepping the American Congress in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, but we have already seen how ambiguous something like a "No Fly Zone" is, and a quick and constant expansion of the type of military actions and goals that stem from that.

We have spent an estimated 500 million dollars overtly in munitions already and that doesn't factor in what the CIA is likely spending in it's own efforts to end Gadaffi's regime, and all that has been done with out one consultation with Congress.

The endless war and constant military expiditions are clearly bankrupting us financially.

If Congress can't get a hold of the Military Industrial Complex and restore the Constitution it is constantly trampling on, then clearly the American people are going to have to.

I wouldn't count on the UN declaring a no fly zone over America to protect us though.

I would have to agree.
SF For providing this. I wonder though, how many democrats will go along with it. Especially the ones who were against the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?

Originally posted by beezzer
I would have to agree.
SF For providing this. I wonder though, how many democrats will go along with it. Especially the ones who were against the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?

Well I would like to hope that the membes of Congress that haven't been corrupted by the Powers that Be and the Military Industrial Complex gravy train will vote honestly simply based on wanting to defend and ensure the very Constitution that ultimately also defends and ensures their jobs within the government.

Congress risks putting itself right out of business if it can't do the job we elected it to do, and that's defend and ensure the Constitution.

That's the Bedrock on which the government is able to exist, and if the government is not up to the task of it's most primary and basic function then clearly the American people need to take matters in their own hands.

Since this is all about an autocratic effort to 'aide' a people through the U.S. Military and CIA to rebel against a 'corrupt' government, then surely they will understand when the American people decide to get together to give these theives and morons their pink slips if they can't maintain their oaths of office to properly run ours.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


But no war was declared or initiated right?

How about our involvement in the Bosnia-herzogovinia conflict?

This action was fully authorized in my estimation... This is not a war effort... No draft, no large scale movements of troops etc.... Just some ship mvement and missile launches.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Oh the old I fell victim to the word games and didn't notice US Military jets dropping American munitions on a foreign soveriegn land in a destructive violent act that is WAR.

And who cares if the constitution is still being trashed today, since it's been trashed for decades now by similiarly out of control politicians.

Brilliant argument there Hunka, simply brilliant!

reply to post by HunkaHunka


"Your honor I did not rob that bank, I simply undertook an act of 'Bank Note Liberation' helping them to recognize their freedom to be spent by declaring a 'No Storage Zone', clearly I am innocent of these charges being made against me".

A rose really is a rose by any other name. It's high time the American people realized that and this process of feel good denial is leading to the perpetual state of war and bankruptcy that the nation is mired in and will ultimately fall into complete ruin through.

How long do you imagine you can keep running an unsustainable enterprise on borrowed money.

Do the math Hunka you are a business man.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

But no war was declared or initiated right?

How about our involvement in the Bosnia-herzogovinia conflict?

This action was fully authorized in my estimation... This is not a war effort... No draft, no large scale movements of troops etc.... Just some ship mvement and missile launches.

war/wôr/
Verb: Engage in a war.
Noun: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state

Sure sounds like war to me.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I think that is the point though. Right or wrong congress did authorize it.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


"Furthermore your honor it was not even me who ordered the 'Bank Note Liberation' and 'No Storage Zone' but the International Pink Unicorn Society!"

"In addition I killed no one while liberating the bank notes from the storage zone within the bank, the Bank Managers killed their own employees and placed them at the scene to attempt to make it look like I did".

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Oh the old I fell victim to the word games and didn't notice US Military jets dropping American munitions on a foreign soveriegn land in a destructive violent act that is WAR.

And who cares if the constitution is still being trashed today, since it's been trashed for decades now by similiarly out of control politicians.

Brilliant argument there Hunka, simply brilliant!

edit on 30/3/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

Do you not realize that the President has the right to send troops wherever he wans for up to 90 days without consent from Congress? I agree, it really is a war and not a "kinetic military action" as they are spinning it. But saying he doesnt have the constitutional right to send troops is incorrect.

That being said, Congress can and most likely will defund the process. Simply put, he isnt going to be able to keep troops there since he cant pay for it. Regardless of what you think of the War Powers Resolution, it is still in place and untill it gets repealled then it is law.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by dizzie56


Just because he's been given the power doesn't make it right or that he should even have that power. There shouldn't be one man who can send others away to fight.

reply to post by dizzie56


He isn't 'sending troops' he is initiating war against a sovereign nation. These aren't troops being sent to gaurd American Embassies, Businesses or Citizens, these are warplanes and warships being used to bombard, destroy and kill, the property and citizens of a sovereign nation, that has not threatened American Interests.

The President only has that limited ability if and when America, Americans aor American Interests are being directly threatened.

This has definately not happened.

So no, the President doesn't have a 90 day right to use "Shock and Awe" blitzgriek to smash a sovereign nation's infrastructure on a whim that made no overt or covert provocation or act of war against American, Americans and or American property.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Oh the old I fell victim to the word games and didn't notice US Military jets dropping American munitions on a foreign soveriegn land in a destructive violent act that is WAR.

And who cares if the constitution is still being trashed today, since it's been trashed for decades now by similiarly out of control politicians.

Brilliant argument there Hunka, simply brilliant!

edit on 30/3/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

I guess the repubs would rather require a run up of lies to hoodwink the american people to go into an actual protracted war.

That's more to their liking

Proto, I feel like I'm reading that you think the letter of the law is more important than following moral obligation.

You may or may not think that Ghaddafi is a bad man, or that the protesters who are now rebels only because they fought back when their marches were bombed by their leader somehow don't deserve to be supported for wanting to oust a dictator. I don't want to debate personal opinion because our opinions do not matter to NATO or the UN.

But it seems to me that action is being taken based on a sense of moral obligation here. I am sure you would join me in castigating the firefighter who watches a house burn because it's 10 yards outside his jurisdiction...even if he is following the law he is morally wrong for not acting when he could act. I feel the same about this business in Libya. And so apparently does NATO and the Arab League. Even if they are bickering about how to put out the flames, at least they are trying.

But in the US, the letter of the law is more important...? Politics in the US has ceased to function, it seems, when one party uses the constitution to whip the president only because he's not on their ticket.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You do understand by dividing America into parties at constant tit for tat war based on petty jealousies is bankrupting the nation and leading it into a state of morass and decay so deep it might already be past the point of recovery?

It matters not one wit to me which identifying label those who defend the constitution attach to themselves or those that attack and destroy it attach to themselves, it simply matters to me that it be defended.

Its amazing you could be on these boards this long and still be so hopelessly caught up in the left/right divide and the petty partisan bickering.

While you fiddle Rome burns.

I tripple dog dare you to watch this video:



Great assessment regarding the challenges we face in saving and restoring the Republic

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


An argument can be simply made as to invoking the War Powers Resolution and Im sure that some top-notch lawyers in DC are coming up with some way of showing thru cause and effect Libya's actions will harm American business interests.

As much as I dislike Obama, I dont mind him taking out a known terrorist that has committed terrorist acts againts Americans. You can argue about 9/11 about whether it was a false flag or whatever, but the truth about Gaddafi is that he really did order the Pan Am flight 103 bombing that killed all 259 people aboard it, 190 of which were American citizens. That in itself should be enough to invoke the War Powers Resolution as he is clearly a threat to American citizens.