What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya?

Congratulations, you have now been invited to join the newest reality show, Top Clown! The tactic of calling Obama a war monger is a political cheap shot and relegates you to the level of the left wing clowns on this forum.

 

Thank you... I'll have a hard time beating Moen for the Top Clown spot, but I've got my fingers crossed. I'll just keep chanting to myself, "Yes We Can! Yes We Can!"... That always seemed to work for the most clownish of clowns. But, I beg to disagree about sinking to the level of the left wing, however. Obama is bombing another country WITHOUT congressional approval (unlike Bush who HAD congressional approval for Iraq & Afghanistan) so that sounds like war mongering to me any way you slice it. I know the left has called on us to be more civil, so instead of "monger" would you prefer I replace it with "criminal"? That sounds a little more cuddly....

 

What's your point here OKC?

Did Chavez want to be Obama's friend or vice versa? Or does it matter? Or were they just practicing protocol?
Do you think anything like this has ever happened before?

Seems Obama approached Chavez to shake his hand to me. Maybe something could come out of it in the long run. Stranger things have happened after all. What would you want him to do? Walk up to him and punch him in the face?

NOW if Chavez doesn't want to be friends with Obama is that a big thing? Not like we (the U.S. and Venezuela) have been great friends after all.

Please point out where Chavez wanted to be Obama's friend in the meantime. I don't see it.

 

From this article: Hugo Chavez tells Barack Obama he wants to be friends | World | RIA Novosti

"I hailed George Bush with this hand eight years ago. Now I greet you. I want to be your friend," President Hugo Chavez told Obama, according to Venezuelan officials.

 

Bomb another country without congressional approval? What was the first one? Furthermore, he doesn't need Congressional approval. He has 90 days (I think) to get it. What did you expect him to do, sit back and allow all of the Libyan citizens in Benghazi to get slaughtered. What would you do if you were President?

 

Back to the original topic - What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya? How about deciding who and probably what is going to lead this assault (? picka better word) on Libya. Is NATO in or out?

 

This is from the UN's own web site

The Security Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary
measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss
of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a
military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

Now does this mean that if and when the rebels begin to advance and therby place civilians in danger we will bomb them as well or are we only interested in those who might be killed by Qadhafi's people?

 

I was speaking in historical terms. I believe the last president to bomb a country without congressional approval was Clinton.

The War Powers Resolution directs presidents to get Congressional authorization to send troops into hostilities except in an emergency; in that case troops must be withdrawn after 60 or 90 days unless Congress gave retroactive approval. Is Libya an "emergency"? You decide. If the basis for the "emergency" is to protect civilian lives in Libya, where does the "emergency" end? Does it end in Libya, Somalia, Darfur, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran? Where?? Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007, "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". Please tell me where the strife in Libya poses "an actual or imminent threat to the [U.S.]".

My heart goes out for the Libyans, but the internal strife in Libya is for Libyans to deal with.

I wouldn't have authorized a military attack. There are even reports that some of the rebels we're supporting have ties to Al-Qaeda. Certainly if Obama was going to launch an attack, more intelligence should have been gathered before doing so.

 

War Powers Resolution of 1973

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement 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 indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) 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.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation 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.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

cont'ed...

 

Part II

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference.
Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) 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--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) 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 stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.


The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J.
Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress
and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his
objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the
Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

 

On the other hand...he hasn't always said nice things.

Chavez Likens Obama's Stench to Bush's - FoxNews.com

 

Personally, if I was King, I would tell the Arab League that the No Fly zone is set up. It's your baby now. Keep it going and get your humanitarian assistance going and work on solving the issues. Or not. 1, 2, 3, ...you're it. Decide.

But, we won't do that, and they know it. NATO will probably end up with it and we will probably stay involved.

 

I didn't ask you what you wouldn't do! Are those reports about Al-Qaeda from Khaddafi? What intelligence are you talking about?

Let's get back to my question which you so artfully dodged. If you were President of the United States and the UN authorized the use of force to stop genocide from occurring, would you refuse to offer military assistance? If so, what would you tell the international community?

 

According to the French NATO will not assume responsability for leadership

"It is important to make clear that the leadership is not Nato," said Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister. "We see this as a UN operation under a UN mandate. It is implemented by a coalition of European, North American and Arab countries."

Germany has withdrawn it's dhips in the Med from NATO control!!

Libya no-fly zone leadership squabbles continue within Nato | World news | The Guardian

 

Well, now that is interesting. I had not scoped the news much the last 2 days. Does not bode well for the US (or UK) getting out of this.

 

Yes.

I would tell the international community that I would not use force in Libya.

 

And when they asked why, what would you say?

 

Because of actions (or non-actions) from the Arab countries:

Arab countries on the sidelines in Libya campaign - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – As America's NATO allies shoulder a greater share of the mission in Libya, the Arab countries that urged the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone are missing from the action.
Except for the small Persian Gulf nation of Qatar, which is expected to start flying air patrols over Libya by this weekend, no other members of the 22-member Arab League so far have publicly committed to taking an active role.

It's senseless for America to continue to be the world's policeman. We're on the verge of economic disaster and we have our own internal problems to deal with.

 

Have to agree I know that we here in the UK can not afford to be drawn in to another long conflict

 

Although I am still not sure whether of not we should go in there at all, I would not have agreed with this coalition until they answered 3 questions;
1. Who is in charge?
2. What rules are we supposed to be following?
3. And most importantly, how do we win? i.e., just what is the objective of this non-war?

The last time I heard, these were still open questions. I have no idea even what we are trying to do at the monment.