Boehner gives Obama Friday deadline on Libyan deployment

[werepossum]

There is one caveat to all this - the "alert strike package". My understanding is that an alert strike package is a flight of aircraft equipped with ground strike ordnance, either in the air or ready for quick launch, on alert to carry out ground strike missions on very short notice for fleeting targets. If this is correct, then clearly Obama is in violation of the WPA in continuing this beyond sixty days and was arguably in violation at the beginning. (I'd argue that the President needs considerable latitude in beginning hostilities, but it's far from clear to me that he has that latitude by law.) The rest of the current mission - electronic warfare assistance; aerial refueling; strategic lift capability; personnel recovery and search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support - I think could be argued are not war, but operations other than war in support of allies by treaty, even though clearly they are in violation of the letter of the War Powers Act.

 

[umbrella39]

Targets in Yemen are Al Qaeda, you have a problem with that?
It was Ok when Bush targeted Al Qaeda but if Obama does it it's wrong?
I would have figured that you of all people would be pleased we are still killing terrorists. Am I wrong?

Spidey doesn't know who the fuck he is mad at unless he is yelling at the mirror.

 

[Pens1566]

There is one caveat to all this - the "alert strike package". My understanding is that an alert strike package is a flight of aircraft equipped with ground strike ordnance, either in the air or ready for quick launch, on alert to carry out ground strike missions on very short notice for fleeting targets. If this is correct, then clearly Obama is in violation of the WPA in continuing this beyond sixty days and was arguably in violation at the beginning. (I'd argue that the President needs considerable latitude in beginning hostilities, but it's far from clear to me that he has that latitude by law.) The rest of the current mission - electronic warfare assistance; aerial refueling; strategic lift capability; personnel recovery and search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support - I think could be argued are not war, but operations other than war in support of allies by treaty, even though clearly they are in violation of the letter of the War Powers Act.

By that definition, every president in office since we've had carriers deployed in the med or south pacific has been in violation.

 

[werepossum]

By that definition, every president in office since we've had carriers deployed in the med or south pacific has been in violation.

No. It's pretty clear that one has to be operating within another nation's territory, airspace, and/or territorial waters.

 

[theeedude]

No. It's pretty clear that one has to be operating within another nation's territory, airspace, and/or territorial waters.

Are we refueling those planes in Libya's waters?

 

[Fern]

Kind of pointless to compare this to large scale military actions like Vietnam or Iraq. If you want to establish hypocrisy the best comparison would be when Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya in 1986. I was in college at the time and can't recall any protests then, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Bombing Libya was an action taken directly in response to Qaddafy's Berlin disco bombing which killed several American service members and injured many more. At that time, Berlin was under US command/control per the Tripartite agreement and populated by many Americans on our base(s) there.

10 days after the bombing attack when it was confirmed Qaddafy was responsible we retaliated.

I see no similarities of substance between that bombing and our current actions in Libya etc.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Are we refueling those planes in Libya's waters?

I doubt it, but some of the actions such as drone overflights, electronic warfare, and recce have to be taking place in Libya's territory to be useful. My point though was that there is at least a weak argument that these actions do not represent war, but rather enforcement of a UN mandate using operations other than war, with the exception of the alert strike package which cannot be considered as other than war. There is historically a bit of gray area regarding operations in UN mandates; sending peace keepers for example obviously does not require a declaration of war (although it does need to be authorized by Congress.)

I am not in favor of that argument, mind you. I much prefer that the President follow the law and ask Congress to authorize military force.

 

[werepossum]

Bombing Libya was an action taken directly in response to Qaddafy's Berlin disco bombing which killed several American service members and injured many more. At that time, Berlin was under US command/control per the Tripartite agreement and populated by many Americans on our base(s) there.

10 days after the bombing attack when it was confirmed Qaddafy was responsible we retaliated.

I see no similarities of substance between that bombing and our current actions in Libya etc.

Fern

Bombing Libya was obviously within Reagan's authority, as it was triggered by an attack by a nation on American soldiers and did not extend beyond sixty days. It might however be wise, in view of ever-increasing provocations, to have a national debate as to whether it SHOULD be within the President's authority. On one hand, the War Powers Act allows the President to act swiftly and with authority, removing (at least theoretically) politics from national defense which is always the case when Congress makes the decision to authorize military force. On the other hand, the War Powers Act allows the President to easily get us into wars that we might better avoid.

 

[nobodyknows]

Not at all. You see my use of "illegal war". I'm using the libtard language against them for they are the true enemy.

Your last name isn't McCarthy by chance is it?

 

[Red Dawn]

The War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional which is why EVERY president tends to ignore the thing.

About the only thing congress can do is threaten to cut funds, but even that is questionable since the President is commander and chief etc etc.

Boehner just needs to push Obama to give more details and provide the American people with more details on our goals and objectives. What is our exit strategy etc etc.

You mean hold him to a higher standard than his predecessor. I actually agree with you.

IMO since Nam American Presidents knew how to fight the good war (with the exception of GW Dumbfuck) Reagan knew to cut and run in Lebanon and then kick ass in Greneda. The Real Bush was smart enough to take on a weak ass Panamanian Dictator and then go after Hussien without fucking his own country in the ass. Clinton was smart enought to cut and run in Somalia and then prevent WW3 in Europe by kicking the fuck out of the Serbs. GW Dumbfuck....well he was the exception. Obama is just following the smart path in Libya like his fellow successful counterparts. I can see Reagan, the Real Bush and Clinton doing exactly what he is doing if they were in his position.

 

[Red Dawn]

Your last name isn't McCarthy by chance is it?

No it's probably the same as his Father and Mother/Aunt

 

[Red Dawn]

Bombing Libya was an action taken directly in response to Qaddafy's Berlin disco bombing which killed several American service members and injured many more. At that time, Berlin was under US command/control per the Tripartite agreement and populated by many Americans on our base(s) there.

10 days after the bombing attack when it was confirmed Qaddafy was responsible we retaliated.

I see no similarities of substance between that bombing and our current actions in Libya etc.

Fern

Was it actually confirmed?

 

[Fern]

Was it actually confirmed?

AFAIK it was. I don't think it's disputed.

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

AFAIK it was. I don't think it's disputed.

Fern

Hmm I was under a different impression and that it was the PLO and not Libya who was behind it.