Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...

[Diogenes]

Evidently, we do not agree on the fundamental principle I quoted: "We are the friends of liberty everywhere. We are the guardians only of our own." - John Adams

Accordingly, our reasoning ends up in very different places.

Indeed we do not. Do you interpret Adams 'we' refers to each of us as individuals, or to the nation collectively? You seem to be using it in the sense of the later, where it is the liberty of Americans that Americans should fight for. That's a fine enough principle, though it seems a little at odds with John Adams actions, what with slavery continuing to be legal throughout his presidency. For some reason it seems their liberty was not worth fighting for. One might almost call on the cliched "They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew" interpretation...

This is one problem I have with extreme patriotism. In some cases it leads to deifying the founders and/or the founding constitution. The founding fathers didn't abolish slavery, they accommodated it. Sure, they had reasons and bigger fish to fry at the time, so you can write it off. Just don't use that explanation to yourself and at the same time reject it's application today.

You are weighing the morality of the past through the Zeitgeist of today. Many of the founders opposed slavery, but realized that without the south they were simply too weak of a nation to defend themselves. (even WITH the south, you Canadians came down and burned Washington in 1812, and pretty much kicked our A$$es all throughout the war. ) The price for the south's cooperation was the tolerance of the practice of Slavery. To get the South to agree to join the union, they had to insert language which allowed the importation of slaves, but only till a fixed date.

Article !, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Importation of Slaves was immediately banned by congress in 1808.

IMHO stopping a genocide at the cost of how many lives of NATO forces so far? I weigh a genocide stopped vs. bypassing Congressional approval and consider the genocide the bigger fish.

Quite the reasonable position given how valiantly you defended the correct application of Article II requirements for the office of our President. You obviously don't have a track record of cavalierly disregarding the requirements of the constitution for a nation of which you are not a part in lieu of you own personal preference. No, wait... You do.

Should we have then stopped the Soviet Genocide in the 20s and 30s? Should we have stopped the Khmer Rouge? What is the standard by which the US should intervene in other nations? At what point does murders in other countries which are none of our business rightfully become our business? Especially when such intervention is not condoned by our founding document? This sounds like a task for which the UN might have actually been useful if it were worthwhile for anything. (which it is not.) The Constitutional hook for the U.S. to intervene could then be obligations of treaty with the U.N.

And to repeat myself, since the point seems to have been missed. I am NOT demanding America must act in these instances. I am more modestly declaring that if it DOES act in them, it is right and justified to be doing so and is serving a good cause.

Davey Crockett was said to have given a speech about charity while a member of the Tennessee Legislature. Whether this actually happened our not is beside the fact that the point is valid regardless. The speech was called the 'Not yours to give" speech, and it argues that charity ought to be the decision of individuals and organizations, not Government.

Government should only act for lawful and proper reasons, dealing with the purpose for which it was established, and should mind it's own business the rest of the time.

[Diogenes]

I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters. Was there another Lockerby after Operation Eldorado Canyon?

Was Lybia sponsering and executing terrorist events outside their borders after the Reagan strike? Umm...Yes.

Was Lybia developing weapons of mass destruction after the Reagan strike? Umm...Yes.

And THESE are issues which would have justified an American intervention in Libya. It seems to me that George Bush's intervention in Iraq caused Libya to mostly stop doing these things.

What American interest is now at stake then?

[rjaypeters]

And if why does it matter so much when they are brought to your attention? Surely the timing of knowing such things doesn't affect your assessment of good or bad that much?

I'll not respond here beyond repeating: "How we go about our work is sometimes as important as the result to which we aspire." It matters to our system of government. And as I describe below, it matters to getting the work done.

I'm loath to bring it up, as it's probably the first on the Kissinger list for reasons to topple Gadhafi, but there is also Libya's existing strategic value. Under Gadhafi it exports oil to China and uses the revenues to buy Russian military hardware. Ruining that equation is probably the far largest strategic gain for America, and it's coming at a ridiculous bargain too.

Trivia for the U.S. Potentially important for Libya's neighbors and Europe.

What was he to do?

That's exactly what I was taking about before when I mention excusing his failure to make war to liberate the slaves. He had bigger fish to fry, as you've said.

"Bigger fish to fry" is your phrase.

Strictly speaking, the ideal of defending the Liberty of our nations citizens did no apply to blacks under the circumstances. The ideal was trumped by larger considerations. I consider that EXACTLY the precedent discussed now around Libya. Stopping a genocide compared to getting Congressional approval for a mission already authorized by the UN. I consider genocide a big enough fish that I'll forgive by passing taking the time to ask congress to agree on the matter. Much as you seem willing to forgive Adams not liberating slaves immediately, as the cost of that war was too much for the fledgling nation to survive.

Adams despised slavery, but could he have freed the slaves had he desired? Absolutely not. In Adams' time the American South was relatively more powerful in industrial and military capacities, IIRC, and a war to end slavery in the United States would have failed.

President Obama knows it is his Constitutional duty to do all I have previously described (see my quotation of candidate Obama from an earlier post) and failed his duty to perform those actions. A very different situation from Adams and an irrational, unrealistic, impossible crusade to end slavery. President Adams had no Constitutional duty to end slavery. Quite the opposite, he was severely charged with supporting and defending the Constitution, not his conscience. President Obama affirmed the same oath.

...I don't think the sniper suggestion is a serious response to a sincere question.

I was deadly serious. How familiar are you with Canada's sniper program? We are pretty much the unquestioned global top dog in the field. Our military includes a lot of special ops 'exchange' programs with the US, specifically to deploy our snipers as part of American black ops teams. They were right there with the first American's setting foot in Iraq for the second invasion. Although it's obviously classified, the odds are good that many of the black op assassinations attributed to American forces had Canadian snipers attached.

I am not at all familiar with Canada's sniper capabilities. Sending Special Operations teams with American personnel into Libya now would be a further violation of our Constitutional law and would make President Obama a liar, if we take him at his word about the current U.S. military involvement around and above Iraq.

If one U.S. service member who is not an aircrew member is caught by Gaddafi's forces President Obama will see his presidency circling the drain. I pray there are NO U.S. service members on the ground in Libya, I really do. As bad as the probably unrecoverable damage to President Obama's presidency would be from the death of any U.S. ground service member, my primary objection to relying on special operations teams, in this instance, is again to note: "Sending a boy to do a man's job." Name a dictator caught or killed by sniper team during a war. No? You suggest an ineffective strategy.

Let the special operations wander around the Libyan country-side, drag out the agony of the Libya people, increase the time the teams are in-country and you have a recipe for failure. One U.S. special operator dragged through the streets of Tripoli will end all U.S. involvement faster than you can say "Obama's War." This is another reason why it matters how the President sends forces into combat.

If President Obama had done his job, and committed regular ground forces to invasion, even under the short time limits of the War Powers Resolution it is much more likely U.S. ground forces would be preparing now to leave Libya today after capturing or killing Mr. Gaddafi. Diplomats and generals would be sorting out the details of handing-over peacekeeping duties to European and/or Arab allies.

I also recommended the continued targeting of locations Gadhafi is expected to be staying, we've already knocked off a few people for close to him that way. I just wish someone had the moral fortitude to openly admit our intent is to kill the man, and not only will we not apologize for it, we say "your welcome", in advance.

Also ineffective. Good luck to us playing "whack-a-mole."

[bcglorf]

You are weighing the morality of the past through the Zeitgeist of today.

No, read further. I stated that the founders in the past, as you observed, had bigger concerns than abolishing slavery, namely their own survival as a nation. I simply observed that was fair then it's fair now. Stopping a genocide seems adequately good to trump the negative side of not waiting for congress to approve.

Quite the reasonable position given how valiantly you defended the correct application of Article II requirements for the office of our President.

You should take your interpretation of it's implementation up with your own officials, not me. How's that going, they find your dental records as compelling as you do?

Should we have stopped the Khmer Rouge?

It would've at least been nice if Kissinger didn't have you HELP them...

What is the standard by which the US should intervene in other nations? At what point does murders in other countries which are none of our business rightfully become our business?

I've said multiple times now in this thread, America should be the one choosing and unless it caused the problem I don't advocate it is responsible to fix it. I DO insist that when America DOES decide to stop a genocide that it is a GOOD thing and America should be thanked for it, not condemned.

[Diogenes]

You are weighing the morality of the past through the Zeitgeist of today.

No, read further. I stated that the founders in the past, as you observed, had bigger concerns than abolishing slavery, namely their own survival as a nation. I simply observed that was fair then it's fair now. Stopping a genocide seems adequately good to trump the negative side of not waiting for congress to approve.

Quite the reasonable position given how valiantly you defended the correct application of Article II requirements for the office of our President.

You should take your interpretation of it's implementation up with your own officials, not me. How's that going, they find your dental records as compelling as you do?

We as a people have become so ignorant of our own laws and principles that the rule of law here is effectively over. The officials of whom you speak are just as ignorant of their responsibilities as the general public. In over two hundred years, they never had to deal with a person running for President who on the face of what he has presented, could not meet article II requirements. The very first time they had to deal with this requirement, they forgot how to do so.

In any case, you miss the point of those Dental records. They dramatically increase the probability that Barack does in fact have an American father, and is therefore within the technical requirements of Article II.

Should we have stopped the Khmer Rouge?

It would've at least been nice if Kissinger didn't have you HELP them...

What is the standard by which the US should intervene in other nations? At what point does murders in other countries which are none of our business rightfully become our business?

I've said multiple times now in this thread, America should be the one choosing and unless it caused the problem I don't advocate it is responsible to fix it. I DO insist that when America DOES decide to stop a genocide that it is a GOOD thing and America should be thanked for it, not condemned.

And my point is that we should only intervene in accordance with the Laws we are bound by. Rest assured, had a Republican done what Barack has done, Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) would be screaming for his head. I've noticed that constitutional requirements (and any other laws, such as firing Inspector Generals) only seem to matter when they can be used against a Republican.

Applying laws to Democrats? Not so much.

[seedload]

I've noticed that constitutional requirements (and any other laws, such as firing Inspector Generals) only seem to matter when they can be used against a Republican.

Applying laws to Democrats? Not so much.

Ummm, yeah. I mean, that is their platform. Evolving constitution, re-distribution, doing the right thing, federalization, etc.. It's all the same thing. Power to the Federal Government, regardless of the Constitution, regardless of cost, disguised as compassion and fairness.

Just my take.

[bcglorf]

I'll not respond here beyond repeating: "How we go about our work is sometimes as important as the result to which we aspire." It matters to our system of government. And as I describe below, it matters to getting the work done.

And I suppose this is the heart of our dissent. I agree that it matters, but I disagree on the extent. In this instance I consider the halted/postponed genocide more important than the how, and clearly you don't. If we understand each other on this I'm happy to agree to disagree. It's 100% your right to worry about your own nations best interests first. I just don't feel the damage the decision may have done domestically is greater than the harm that was prevented. Admittedly we assess the domestic damage quite differently.

President Obama knows it is his Constitutional duty to do all I have previously described (see my quotation of candidate Obama from an earlier post) and failed his duty to perform those actions. A very different situation from Adams and an irrational, unrealistic, impossible crusade to end slavery.

So far as the initial commitment of forces after the passing of the UN resolution, getting congress to approve the action in time was I think equally impossible. There was basically a 3 day window of time before Gaddafi would have had the entire thing over and done with. I don't see congress reaching a conclusion that quickly, much less anyone having the time to persuade the congress of the importance of the mission.

To be fair, I am equally at a loss as you to why nothing has been brought forward or passed in the time since then... I think it's a very valid criticism. I just don't think it trumps stopping a genocide. None the less, I agree the American people should be angry that they aren't being treated like adults and allowed to make that decision themselves. I just don't think that justified anger leads to the conclusion that the entire mission is a mistake.

Name a dictator caught or killed by sniper team during a war.

I remember a very recent ending of a top leader of enemy forces that the entire western world is at war with. No snipers that time, but spec ops all the way.

Also ineffective. Good luck to us playing "whack-a-mole."

Unmanned drones in Northern Pakistan have managed to whack many a mole, and our intel in Tripoli is at the least no worse. Truly though the time to strike was much sooner when Gaddafi was a little bolder with public appearances.

I agree that ground forces are really the fastest and most certain road to Gaddafi's removal, but it's also the most costly in dollars, lives and goodwill. I'm not gonna condemn any nation willing to pay that price, I'll be happy to thank them for his removal so long as they are willing to hand things over to the Libyans again afterward.

[bcglorf]

Rest assured, had a Republican done what Barack has done, Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) would be screaming for his head.

And there I'd quite agree with you. I don't consider myself part of the media.

I think Bush's decision to go into Iraq was a good one, despite any laundry list of complaints that are made about how he went about getting congressional approval. I think the same of Obama and Libya.

I've got much longer list of faults for both as well, but on the points of Libya and Iraq, I think you presidents have on the whole done the world a good turn and deserve commendations, not condemnation.

[ladajo]

It is not just ecoonmic, it is all means possible.

I know, but I was commenting about one aspect.

I really don't expect the Chinese leadership is so meglomaniacal as to want to destroy the U.S. It would be really messy and a lot of people might get more than their "hair mussed."

I guess it depends on how you define destroy.

[rjaypeters]

I remember a very recent ending of a top leader of enemy forces that the entire western world is at war with. No snipers that time, but spec ops all the way.

The U.S. spent years and millions of dollars looking for you-know-who. Do we have the same resources and time to find Mr. Gaddafi?

Unmanned drones in Northern Pakistan have managed to whack many a mole, and our intel in Tripoli is at the least no worse. Truly though the time to strike was much sooner when Gaddafi was a little bolder with public appearances.

Our intel in Western Libya is an order of magnitude, at least, less effective than in Afghanistan/Pakistan because nobody has been spending "years and millions of dollars looking for" Mr. Gaddafi. Millions of dollars, yes. Years? No.

I agree that ground forces are really the fastest and most certain road to Gaddafi's removal, but it's also the most costly in dollars, lives and goodwill. I'm not gonna condemn any nation willing to pay that price, I'll be happy to thank them for his removal so long as they are willing to hand things over to the Libyans again afterward.

Would you condemn the mercenaries who did the same job? I saw a figure of $US33B for the amount of Libyan money frozen in foreign accounts. A tiny fraction would buy an effective force which is readily available in our, unfortunately, armed-camp of a world.

The other nice thing about mercenaries is once you pay them their due, they will usually go away.

I don't see any nation or alliance stepping up to the plate with ground forces.

Today's development was Russia offering a "golden bridge", perhaps, to Mr. Gaddafi. That may be our best option now. Other than setting the awful precedent of letting dictators off the hook. Which really torques my jaw and violates international law, to boot.

[rjaypeters]

Ron Paul House Floor Speech: Republic Almost Completely Dead

A good but sad speech. Wait for, or skip to 2:00 for the part about war powers in the U.S.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-house- ... tely-dead/

Emperor Obama, anyone?

Edit: Done wrote my Senators since the Bill has cleared the House. Doubt it will make any difference, but despair is a sin.

[TDPerk]

"They dramatically increase the probability that Barack does in fact have an American father, and is therefore within the technical requirements of Article II."

Article II nowhere requires having an American father.

[bcglorf]

The U.S. spent years and millions of dollars looking for you-know-who. Do we have the same resources and time to find Mr. Gaddafi?

I'm sure there are plenty of guys like those here that would be more than willing to help out. Put 50 million on his head and see how many of his generals are loyal and confident enough in his victory they won't cut a deal to see him gone.

Would you condemn the mercenaries who did the same job?

No, I'd not condemn them for offing Gaddafi. If the mercenaries in question were Congolese or Sudanese genocidaires, I would stop short of praising them though.

The other nice thing about mercenaries is once you pay them their due, they will usually go away.

I'm not sure that's been the general experience. More often than go away they just become someone else's worry or problem. That's kind of where our trouble with that other fellow all started.

Today's development was Russia offering a "golden bridge", perhaps, to Mr. Gaddafi. That may be our best option now.

Or just wait for things fall down around him...

[rjaypeters]

Words fail...almost.

GOP Pulls Libya War Powers Resolution from the Floor Because it Might Pass
June 1, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

Quote:"The House Republican leadership is worried that Congress might stand up to the Obama Administration and assert its constitutional prerogative as the only branch of government that can declare war. The House was scheduled to vote this afternoon on a a privileged resolution from Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] directing the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. But the House leadership has pulled it from the floor because, according to Republican aides who spoke with Fox News, “it became clear that it might succeed.”

[Snip]

And a separate problem. Last paragraph, emphasis mine:

"House Republicans have been actively working to expand presidential war powers. They recently added language to the annual Defense authorization bill that expands presidential authority to use military force without consent from Congress against virtually anybody suspected of being a terrorist, anywhere in the world (including domestically), indefinitely. Obviously, the growing support for Kucinich’s resolution is a significant challenge to their unilateral-executive-war-power agenda. So, it’s been postponed, supposedly “in an effort to compel more information and consultation’ from the Administration,” but actually just to give the Republican leadership more time to twist arms."

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... Might-Pass

Does anyone know a country where the people speak some dialect of the English language and respect the rule of law?

[Betruger]

Whiskey tango..