Obama’s fourth war intensifying

[dwmoeller1]

Why the action in Yemen is not illegal:

Section 1: Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes [sic] any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

It passed both Houses of Congress on Sept. 14, 2001 with a combined vote of 518 ayes, 1 nay (Rep. Barbara Lee D-CA), 10 not voting and 2 present not voting (Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID and Sen. Jesse Helm, R-NC). It is still in effect.

So, as Yemen meets the requirements of section 2(a), the action there is legal.

 

[targus]

Why the action in Yemen is not illegal:


It passed both Houses of Congress on Sept. 14, 2001 with a combined vote of 518 ayes, 1 nay (Rep. Barbara Lee D-CA), 10 not voting and 2 present not voting (Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID and Sen. Jesse Helm, R-NC). It is still in effect.

So, as Yemen meets the requirements of section 2(a), the action there is legal.

You are ignoring the fact that the war powers resolution provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

So when exactly did Yemen attack the United States?

 

[carpro]

You are ignoring the fact that the war powers resolution provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

So when exactly did Yemen attack the United States?

As long as congress lets Obama break the law, he will continue to do so.

He's well past the time limit to obtain congressional approval for his illegal attacks on Libya, yet they do nothing.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You are ignoring the fact that the war powers resolution provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

So when exactly did Yemen attack the United States?

1. The act I cited specifically meets the requirements of the War Powers act you quote. As long as he is acting under the stipulations of this '91 act he does not to seek further authorization as this act already grants it. See section 2(1).

2. The act does not grant authorization merely against countries that attack us but also "nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations". IOW the president was granted very broad and discretionary powers in the prosecution of terrorism. The action in Yemen easily falls under several of the requirements granting the president authorization to act... Not to mention that the act gives the President, not Congress, the power to decide what actions meet the requirements.

One might discuss how the act was way too broad or how the War Powers act is of questionable constitutionality in the first place. Or one might discuss how this action in Yemen is not a good idea. But the action in Yemen certainly isn't illegal from the standpoint of US law.

 

[dwmoeller1]

As long as congress lets Obama break the law, he will continue to do so.

He's well past the time limit to obtain congressional approval for his illegal attacks on Libya, yet they do nothing.

The act I cited explicitly grants blanket authorization to any action the President deems to be part of the war on terror. He doesn't need to get authorization because he already has it. Since the act has no expiration date He has authorization for any action in the war on terror (as defined by the President) till Congress explicitly takes it away.

 

[carpro]

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes [sic] any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

You're cherrypicking.

 

[targus]

The action in Yemen easily falls under several of the requirements granting the president authorization to act...

Can you offer any specifics?

 

[carpro]

The act I cited explicitly grants blanket authorization to any action the President deems to be part of the war on terror. He doesn't need to get authorization because he already has it. Since the act has no expiration date He has authorization for any action in the war on terror (as defined by the President) till Congress explicitly takes it away.

You're simply wrong...and struggling to remain relevant to the discussion.

Obama still has to abide by the war powers resolution and he is in clear violation.

At any rate, Obama has offered no explanation for Libya that has anything to do with terrorism. Your point is therefore moot and the antiterrorism resolution does not apply.

Your blind support for a president who is clearly breaking the law does you no credit.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Can you offer any specifics?

First and foremost the authorization act explicitly grants discretionary power to the President. That is if the president says it fits then it meets the requirements. Once the president makes this assessment then discussion of it's legality becomes moot regardless of whether one finds his assessment to be reasonable or not.

Second here are the parts that can reasonably be said to meet the requirents
"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Yemen has been a harbor for terrorists thus it meets the requirements.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You're simply wrong...and struggling to remain relevant to the discussion.

Obama still has to abide by the war powers resolution and he is in clear violation.

At any rate, Obama has offered no explanation for Libya that has anything to do with terrorism. Your point is therefore moot and the antiterrorism resolution does not apply.

Your blind support for a president who is clearly breaking the law does you no credit.

Read the act I cited. It explicitly states that the actions under this act meet the requirements of the war powers act. I repeat the act grants blanket authorization for any military action in the "war on terror". You cant make that fact disappear just cause you blindly hate the president. READ THE ACT!

"(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

BTW I do not support the president. I just can't stand misleading and outright false statements made by those who oppose him beyond reason.

As to Libya, this isn't about Libya.

 

[mandym]

1. The act I cited specifically meets the requirements of the War Powers act you quote. As long as he is acting under the stipulations of this '91 act he does not to seek further authorization as this act already grants it. See section 2(1).

2. The act does not grant authorization merely against countries that attack us but also "nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations". IOW the president was granted very broad and discretionary powers in the prosecution of terrorism. The action in Yemen easily falls under several of the requirements granting the president authorization to act... Not to mention that the act gives the President, not Congress, the power to decide what actions meet the requirements.

One might discuss how the act was way too broad or how the War Powers act is of questionable constitutionality in the first place. Or one might discuss how this action in Yemen is not a good idea. But the action in Yemen certainly isn't illegal from the standpoint of US law.

The 91 act was intended for Iraq and Saddam Hussein not for future events. His actions are clearly illegal.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You're cherrypicking.

That was section 2(2). I said section 2(1).

 

[dwmoeller1]

The 91 act was intended for Iraq and Saddam Hussein not for future events. His actions are clearly illegal.

Untrue. A separate act was made in 03 for the action against Iraq. Why? Because in 03 the reasons for going to Iraq was about WMDs and not the requirements of the 01 act. Iraq wasn't even on the radar in 01. The claims of the Iraq-911 link weren't made an issue till after we were already there.

Instead the 01 act was used throughout the Bush term to justify any actions in the war on terror.


NOTE: I realize in may have caused confusion by saying the act I cited was from 91. I meant 01. Sorry for the confusion. At the same time a quick perusal of the act would have made obvious it wasn't from 91 - if for no other reason than it mentions 911.

 

[mandym]

Untrue. A separate act was made in 93 for the action against Iraq. Why? Because in 93 the reasons for going to Iraq was about WMDs and not the requirements of the 91 act. Iraq wasn't even on the radar in 91. The claims of the Iraq-911 link weren't made an issue till after we were already there.

Instead the 91 act was used throughout the Bush term to justify any actions in the war on terror.

You need to reread your history.

 

[dwmoeller1]

See my edit. I guess i was stuck in the 90s. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[carpro]

You need to reread your history.

Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear has left him with a lot of egg on his face.

He has no case and is wrong all the way round.

 

[carpro]

See my edit. I guess i was stuck in the 90s. Sorry for the confusion.

The confusion was on your part, not ours.

Yet you have repeatedly accused us of intentionally posting false information.

Your crow going down smoothly?

 

[dwmoeller1]

The confusion was on your part, not ours.

Yet you have repeatedly accused us of intentionally posting false information.

Your crow going down smoothly?

Dude I simply misspoke said 91 of 01. It would have been clear to anyone who read the act what I meant. We all misspeak - it's not big deal. Just correct the simple mistake and go on. Which is what I did. Is the only inaccuracy you can find with my statements is a simple and obvious typo?

However, you have posted outright false statements as I have taken the time and effort to actually demonstrate. You haven't even bothered to address or analyze my figures or citations or analysis. You simply hand wave without engaging. I assert and then demonstrate with facts, figures and citations. So far you have consistently ignore every single argument I have given and simply declared me wrong w/o even addressing the facts I point out.

If you think I am wrong then go ahead and actually engage the arguments I put forth. Show how my analysis of the 01 act is inaccurate. Show where I have given false or inaccurate data. Demonstrate where my logic is fallacious. So far you haven't even tried. If you continue to refuse I apply the appropriate level of "troll".

And have you yet even read the 01 act I cited?

And where have I said that anyone has *intentionally* posted false information?

 

[carpro]

However, you have posted outright false statements as I have taken the time and effort to actually demonstrate.

You have demonstrated nothing but your ignorance of the resolutions you quote and that you cherrypick and use the parts that suit you and ignore the ones that don't.

 

[NiteShift]

Constitutional Scholar B. Obama 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."

"In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."