Obama's speech on the Libyan conflict vs. the facts

Yes I do, several in fact. I have also started threads that have nothing to do with the man.

You slay me.

But America is not policing the world here. We are following a United Nations call to help to save the people of Libya. We are not declaring war on anyone. As a matter of fact, none of our troops are even on the ground. We have a support role, not a destroy Ghadhafi role.

Yes I do, several in fact. I have also started threads that have nothing to do with the man.

And there you have the answer!

But America is not policing the world here. We are following a United Nations call to help to save the people of Libya. We are not declaring war on anyone. As a matter of fact, none of our troops are even on the ground. We have a support role, not a destroy Ghadhafi role.

True, but the real question is just how long will our role remain that way? I hope we dont go any further in Libya, but the way things have been going, who knows.

But America is not policing the world here. We are following a United Nations call to help to save the people of Libya. We are not declaring war on anyone. As a matter of fact, none of our troops are even on the ground. We have a support role, not a destroy Ghadhafi role.

Mentioned that several times in another thread already. I believe Moose said something like the U.S. Constitution overrides the U.N.

Mentioned that several times in another thread already. I believe Moose said something like the U.S. Constitution overrides the U.N.

In that part, Moose is right. The U.N. takes a back seat to each nations laws. The U.N. is just a place for all nations to get together and discuss issues to prevent wars. However even that has its flaws that still need to be ironed out. If the U.N. wanted to do something, they could have done what they have done in the past, by sending in a neutral third party on the ground to confirm or deny the alligations being made against Ghadhafi. So far nothing that has been said about what he is or has done has been proven.

In that part, Moose is right. The U.N. takes a back seat to each nations laws. The U.N. is just a place for all nations to get together and discuss issues to prevent wars. However even that has its flaws that still need to be ironed out. If the U.N. wanted to do something, they could have done what they have done in the past, by sending in a neutral third party on the ground to confirm or deny the alligations being made against Ghadhafi. So far nothing that has been said about what he is or has done has been proven.

I dunno, if Libya citizens are (or were, at least) protesting against their leader, something might be up.

But America is not policing the world here. We are following a United Nations call to help to save the people of Libya. We are not declaring war on anyone. As a matter of fact, none of our troops are even on the ground. We have a support role, not a destroy Ghadhafi role.

Fair enough. However, enforcing a no fly zone is still an act of war and should be approved by congress first.

I dunno, if Libya citizens are (or were, at least) protesting against their leader, something might be up.

It is obvious that something is up in Libya, but that doesn't necessarily mean we disregard laws to act on it. If congress approved the act of war, then that would be okay, but it isn't the president's decision to make. If other countries want to intervene in Libya than that is okay, and if the US wants to intervene it is only okay if it has congressional approval to do so.

Fair enough. However, enforcing a no fly zone is still an act of war and should be approved by congress first.



It is obvious that something is up in Libya, but that doesn't necessarily mean we disregard laws to act on it. If congress approved the act of war, then that would be okay, but it isn't the president's decision to make. If other countries want to intervene in Libya than that is okay, and if the US wants to intervene it is only okay if it has congressional approval to do so.

True enough.

Under the War Powers Act Obama is still in the clear.

Fair enough. However, enforcing a no fly zone is still an act of war and should be approved by congress first.

The no fly zone was requested by the United Nations and was not called upon by Obama directly. He's still just supporting a worldwide call for help. This is not an act of war as we've declared war on nobody. This is an act of support.

Under the War Powers Act Obama is still in the clear.

Congressional laws do not override the constitution. Amendments were made hard to pass for a reason.

The no fly zone was requested by the United Nations and was not called upon by Obama directly. He's still just supporting a worldwide call for help. This is not an act of war as we've declared war on nobody. This is an act of support.

When you militarily enforce something onto a country it is an act of war. The US would be appalled if someone enforced a no fly zone on us because it threatens our right to be a sovereign state. Morally, intervention in Libya is probably justifiable, but it is not legally justifiable (yet).

Then tell the U.N. that they've overreached their bounds to enact war with a country.

Then tell the U.N. that they've overreached their bounds to enact war with a country.

Other nations in the UN may not have overreached their bounds. I don't know the laws of other countries. Legally the other countries might be fine, but the US isn't and that is my concern.

Obama’s actions should be of great concern to all americans, for they clearly show that Obama refuses to accept the limitations placed on our federal government and the office of the president by the constitution and that he apparently considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than congress and the sovereignty of the United States.

The war powers act was mentioned so here is the part where it becomes an issue:

The War Power Resolution clearly states:

1541. Purpose and policy

© Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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.

Now, lets take a quick glance at the U.N. The United Nations Charter was authored by a Rockefeller aide and globalist named Alger Hiss, who was later convicted of being a communist spy for Russia. Tell me why president would just go with a U.N. resolution as if it were given by congress. Obama took an oath of office to “...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”, not an oath to the U.N. Charter.

Now, lets take a quick glance at the U.N. The United Nations Charter was authored by a Rockefeller aide and globalist named Alger Hiss, who was later convicted of being a communist spy for Russia. Tell me why president would just go with a U.N. resolution as if it were given by congress. Obama took an oath of office to “...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”, not an oath to the U.N. Charter.

HAHAHAHAHAHA in argueably what was one of the most obvious set-ups of all time. Chambers is basically remebered as being a backstabbing bastard solely to put hiss away for perjury. Oh and he was never convicted or even officially charged with espionage. Just perjury. most of the evidence coming from the same lying douche, chambers, who perjured himself multiple times and lied repeatedly under oath. Yeah and evidence provided by this man was allowed in court.

Educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

I know it's not the funhouse, but I saw this on YouTube and thought of this thread.

 Spoiler

[video=youtube;q0i9acHS_zQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0i9acHS_zQ[/video]

Obama’s actions should be of great concern to all americans, for they clearly show that Obama refuses to accept the limitations placed on our federal government and the office of the president by the constitution and that he apparently considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than congress and the sovereignty of the United States.

The war powers act was mentioned so here is the part where it becomes an issue:


Now, lets take a quick glance at the U.N. The United Nations Charter was authored by a Rockefeller aide and globalist named Alger Hiss, who was later convicted of being a communist spy for Russia. Tell me why president would just go with a U.N. resolution as if it were given by congress. Obama took an oath of office to “...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”, not an oath to the U.N. Charter.

As far as I can read, according to the War Powers Resolution, the Commander-in-Chief can:

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

or am I just reading things wrong?

As far as I can read, according to the War Powers Resolution, the Commander-in-Chief can:
or am I just reading things wrong?

No, you are reading it right. However, the provisions for that are in my previous post, so the time table does not matter since the action is not justified.

HAHAHAHAHAHA in argueably what was one of the most obvious set-ups of all time. Chambers is basically remebered as being a backstabbing bastard solely to put hiss away for perjury. Oh and he was never convicted or even officially charged with espionage. Just perjury. most of the evidence coming from the same lying douche, chambers, who perjured himself multiple times and lied repeatedly under oath. Yeah and evidence provided by this man was allowed in court.

I dont think so. Having looked at many sources of information, not just wikipedia, I have found quite a bit out. First as it relates to perjury, he was convicted of that on 2 counts. The only reason he was not convicted of espionage was because the statute of limitations had run out. One of the many flaws of or judicial system. Anyway, in order to commit perjury, you have to lie and get caught in the lie and that is exactly what happened. That said there is evidence to back up the claim that he was a spy for russia but that is another topic.