IMO, he's in clear violation of the law

[DominionSeraph]

Determining if the majority is behind the rebels doesn't matter?

1. Isn't easy
2. Doesn't matter

Those look the same to you?

Look, you're really gonna have to learn to read if you want to engage me. I don't care about your ancillary feelings, so don't insert them.
Respond to what I write, don't vomit all over the screen.
If you wish to go on after you've responded, that's fine. It's just that if you cannot pull the trigger on an actual response, you're wasting my time.

Only respond to a point of mine directly if you're prepared to play in my world. You going off and playing with yourself does not challenge me.

Bombing another country or another people is an act of war. It has ever since we've been able to blow shit up.

Define "war." What is not not war?

(predicting epic confusion and juvenile flailing)

 

[Craig234]

The Supreme Court never stepped in and disallowed the Executive to engage in "adventures". This implies that it has the Constitutional authority to do so.

That's not correct, IMO.

It's possible for a President to do something unconstitutional and not be held accountable.

The Supreme Court doesn't go around watching the President and declaring things unconstitutional on its own.

A law isn't necessarily in full force just because it's passed. If it were, Congress could grab all power for itself simply by declaring all checks on its laws illegal. Any check on that law would be in violation of that law.
The other two branches simply aren't going to obey that one.

As I said, as I understand it the War Powers Act has not been tested in the courts, for the most part.

It might be the unconstitutional power grab you suggest; and it might be the constitutional exercise of its sole right to declare war.

I've already discussed the changing nature of 'war' since the time it was written.

 

[bfdd]

Seraph, you're kidding right? War is any conflict in which two parties engage in combat(generally armed because who the fuck starts a big fight without a weapon?). There are varying degrees of war, but war is clearly defined. So if you're predicting more flailing, it's because you subconsciously know you're an idiot.


Also, if we're unsure of who we're supporting or what makeup of the population they are we DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE HELPING THEM. Thanks for even making MORE of a case against the fucking conflict.

PS. I am all for helping peoples revolutions. We were founded on such, but Libya is not so cut and dry.

 

[senseamp]

We are not at war with Libya. If we were at war with them, Gadaffi would already be dead or hiding in a hole somewhere.

 

[Fern]

We are not at war with Libya. If we were at war with them, Gadaffi would already be dead or hiding in a hole somewhere.

We've bombed his house now about 2 times IIRC.

I'm pretty sure he is hiding.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

We are not at war with Libya. If we were at war with them, Gadaffi would already be dead or hiding in a hole somewhere.

Yes because that's how war is defined... killing the leader. How long did it take us to get Saddam again?

 

[CycloWizard]

So lack of proscription is now prescription? Just when, pray tell, did that change?

Here, let me fix that for you to reflect your actual process:



Get better logic.

Will my point be made more firmly on your logical foundation if I include some picture of anime unicorns pooping rainbows? Fine.

 

[bfdd]

he's not pooping anything, that's vomiting

 

[DominionSeraph]

That's not correct, IMO.

It's possible for a President to do something unconstitutional and not be held accountable.

The Supreme Court doesn't go around watching the President and declaring things unconstitutional on its own.

You're right. After looking around a bit, it seems to be a political question, not a judicial one.

That brings up a question -- Congress has the sole power to impeach, but what if they impeach (and convict) for a violation of an unconstitutional law?
This law only applies to the President, so it can never come before SCOTUS except through a Presidential conviction, but Congress' impeachment trial isn't reviewable by SCOTUS. (AFAIK. They've refused to review things surrounding impeachment based on the grounds that it's a power given solely to Congress.) It would have to be a separate criminal trial, but then... what's the crime?
I don't think the government has a mechanism within itself to deal with this.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Will my point be made more firmly on your logical foundation if I include some picture of anime unicorns pooping rainbows? Fine.

1. That's not anime.
2. Rainbow Dash is a pegasus pony, not a unicorn.
3. Still not anime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1GRj6CNSGg

4. None of your post corrected your logic.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Seraph, you're kidding right? War is any conflict in which two parties engage in combat.

So two children fighting on a playground is a war?

Is congressional declaration of war against America required before a public school teacher can insert themselves in the combat, that insertion being "warfare"?

Also, if we're unsure of who we're supporting or what makeup of the population they are we DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE HELPING THEM. Thanks for even making MORE of a case against the fucking conflict.

Why do you so eagerly throw patterns into your worldview?
This is generalized theory of warfare. Apply it gently, don't rip out segments and thrust them into crevasses where they don't belong.

Suppress your emotions. You will never approach my level if you must constantly bring your thinking into to the concrete to get an emotional fix.

Also, what conflict? It's a civil war -- the conflict is between the two sides, and I don't think the Libyans care about any "case" you have with that.
Our involvement is one-sided -- Gadaffi cannot take any fight to us.
We are dropping ordinance as we see fit -- it doesn't matter at all what they think about it.

Shaking your fist at the sky as the rains flood your house does not mean that you are at war with God. The barrier of nonexistence is too vast to cross. Similarly with Libya: the materiel gap is too wide for Gadaffi to cross.

PS. I am all for helping peoples revolutions. We were founded on such, but Libya is not so cut and dry.

It doesn't need to be.
If one will only stand up for one's ideals when there's an absolute guarantee of profit, that's not much of a set of ideals, eh?

Libya is a great opportunity. It's not a foreign instigated revolution, it's against a brutal dictator, and we're in a position to aid with really no risk to us. Whether or not it comes up roses, it shows that we care to act even when it's not in our own immediate self-interest.

 

[Craig234]

You're right. After looking around a bit, it seems to be a political question, not a judicial one.

That brings up a question -- Congress has the sole power to impeach, but what if they impeach (and convict) for a violation of an unconstitutional law?
This law only applies to the President, so it can never come before SCOTUS except through a Presidential conviction, but Congress' impeachment trial isn't reviewable by SCOTUS. (AFAIK. They've refused to review things surrounding impeachment based on the grounds that it's a power given solely to Congress.) It would have to be a separate criminal trial, but then... what's the crime?
I don't think the government has a mechanism within itself to deal with this.

It doesn't have a mechanism for that. But you can always find scenarios not covered. What if the President has the military send troops into Congress and order them how to vote? What if the Supreme Court just rules crazy, directly against what the law says? These are 'constitutional crises'.

A more believable one is 'what if the President ignores a Supreme Court ruling'?

In fact, both times Presidents have been impeached, it's been on hyped up charges.

 

[bfdd]

Seraph, the Libyan government has been fighting AQ ever since Ghadaffi started making concessions to the west. He said that AQ was stirring this shit up for the most part, then we find out an estimated third of the rebels are AQ and we are trying to weed then out so we can train and arm the rebels. This tells me two things one the amount of rebels actually fighting is quit small and two we have no idea who we are really dealing with. So I am not throwing my ideals aside for profit, I just not seeing the tiny picture you are.

Lets not forget the hypocrisy either. There are places that were.far off worse than Libya and we are doing nothing. The reasons I see for us going in are that the French got worried about their interests and like good allies we went along with it. we wanted to jump in on the glory of the Arab Spring to try and repair image within the region. It's going to be a costly mistake.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Seraph, the Libyan government has been fighting AQ ever since Ghadaffi started making concessions to the west. He said that AQ was stirring this shit up for the most part, then we find out an estimated third of the rebels are AQ and we are trying to weed then out so we can train and arm the rebels. This tells me two things one the amount of rebels actually fighting is quit small and two we have no idea who we are really dealing with. So I am not throwing my ideals aside for profit, I just not seeing the tiny picture you are.

Lets not forget the hypocrisy either. There are places that were.far off worse than Libya and we are doing nothing. The reasons I see for us going in are that the French got worried about their interests and like good allies we went along with it. we wanted to jump in on the glory of the Arab Spring to try and repair image within the region. It's going to be a costly mistake.

Islam is prone to extremism. You can't get around that. But Gadaffi is insane. To let him have his way would have probably resulted in a bunker mentality for Libyans, which likely would have triggered more religiosity as a coping mechanism.

Inconsistency in approach probably isn't a big deal. We are not the center of everyone else's world. Our absence may be striking in our minds, but the rest of the world is used to us not being around.
When you run over a pothole do you think to yourself, "Where are the Mongolians to help us fix these?"

 

[CycloWizard]

he's not pooping anything, that's vomiting

You missed the subtlety of context... :hmm:

 

[CycloWizard]

1. That's not anime.
2. Rainbow Dash is a pegasus pony, not a unicorn.
3. Still not anime.
4. None of your post corrected your logic.

1. I was mocking you.
2. Still mocking you.
3. Yep, still mocking you.
4. It did not need correction.

 

[DominionSeraph]

4. It did not need correction.

Mine was descriptive. Yours was prescriptive. You connected them and called the whole thing mine.

That's two errors -- going normative without a basis and failing to realize that it was your mind that was making that connection.

Try to keep up.

 

[CycloWizard]

Mine was descriptive. Yours was prescriptive. You connected them and called the whole thing mine.

That's two errors -- going normative without a basis and failing to realize that it was your mind that was making that connection.

Try to keep up.

You'll do better sticking to words containing one or, at the outside, two syllables. We simpletons simply can't comprehend the wonders of your anime-riddled brain.

 

[DominionSeraph]

We simpletons simply can't comprehend the wonders of your brain.

I'm not gonna reach out to you blind. There are just too many wrong paths you could've taken for me to accurately guess at where you dead-ended.

Try to explain where you're having difficulties making the connection between your, "By that logic," and my explanation in which I point out that that has nothing to do with my logic.
Are you not seeing how my description of a neutral moral stance does not prescribe action? If I say, "There is a glass on my desk. It has no moral value, no sentimental value, and minimal financial value, so it is ok if it falls to the floor and breaks," and you respond, "By that logic, we should break every glass in the world," do you see how the latter twists the former's passive into the active and adds a normative (should)?

 

[bfdd]

Seraph, Libya has been opening up to the west over the last.couple of years. http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2008/01/human-rights-gaddafi-libya and this is a source that is critical. Hey look who was giving Libya and Ghadaffi props, none other than Sarkozy. Here is another talking about one of the ways in 2009 the Libyan government was trying to fight extremists http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11/09/libya.jihadi.code/index.html look I am not going to say I know for sure I am right, but there is enough to go e me some doubts about who we are helping. Ghadaffi is a piece of shit no doubt, but if we're going to take out every piece of shit we will always be at war.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not gonna reach out to you blind. There are just too many wrong paths you could've taken for me to accurately guess at where you dead-ended.

Try to explain where you're having difficulties making the connection between your, "By that logic," and my explanation in which I point out that that has nothing to do with my logic.
Are you not seeing how my description of a neutral moral stance does not prescribe action? If I say, "There is a glass on my desk. It has no moral value, no sentimental value, and minimal financial value, so it is ok if it falls to the floor and breaks," and you respond, "By that logic, we should break every glass in the world," do you see how the latter twists the former's passive into the active and adds a normative (should)?

OK, let's start from the beginning. You said the following:

By the ideals of our own Declaration of Independence, the Libyan government became illegitimate. Those fighting for it are thus unpeopled. So there is nothing to declare war against. Congress doesn't even come into the picture.

Just as we do not have to declare war against grass for the Army to drive tanks across a field, or declare war against fish for the Navy to lob some 5 inch shells into the ocean, we may employ weapons against the unpeopled with no moral consequence.
If they wanted the protections afforded by morality, they should've stayed within the bounds of civilization.

The first paragraph indicates that you think the Libyan government is illegitimate, therefore there is no need to declare war for hostilities involving Libya. For some reason, you think this makes Libya, "unpeopled," which Merriam-Webster defines as, "not filled with or occupied by people <an unpeopled wilderness>." This indicates to me that you either used a word you didn't understand (i.e. unpeopled), or you truly believe that the land commonly referred to as "Libya" was suddenly devoid of population. The former explanation offers initial appeal bye tying in to your history of chronic pseudo-intellectualism, where you incorrectly utilize multisyllabic words combined with anime or other images to make a statement which is absurd to the learned reader.

However, the second paragraph is disturbing in that it indicates you perhaps did know what unpeopled really means, yet you somehow equate humanity (or, at least, personhood) with the legitimacy of local government. Thus, if one perceives a government as illegitimate, those humans living within its political boundaries are no longer regarded as persons and are devoid of any rights which belong to "all men," according to the Declaration of Independence which you initially cited. The basis for this argument appears to be simply that the government is illegitimate according to your personal definition of legitimacy.

That you hold such a position is both appalling and reprehensible. Therefore, in an effort to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your position, I mocked it by making a less-ridiculous proposition which absolutely obeyed your own rules for allowing the expenditure of military ordinance without congressional input: I stated that 60% of the globe (as that's the approximate fraction which exists in international waters) exists in an area of illegitimate government, so we should shoot that up as well. You quickly countered with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual garbage, just as I knew you would, rather than reading for understanding. Do you now see what I did there, or shall I continue?

 

[davmat787]

Why do you guys even bother with Seraph? He/She/It is not interested in conversation, only in trying to make itself appear intellectually superior, and failing miserably to do so at the same time. No matter what you say, DS will equate it to some nonsense (miners gems anyone?) and then rage against that erroneous mental construct rather than engaging in honest debate and exchange.

DS has said multiple times that AT is merely a toilet afterall.

 

[DominionSeraph]

OK, let's start from the beginning. You said the following:

The first paragraph indicates that you think the Libyan government is illegitimate, therefore there is no need to declare war for hostilities involving Libya. For some reason, you think this makes Libya, "unpeopled," which Merriam-Webster defines as, "not filled with or occupied by people <an unpeopled wilderness>." This indicates to me that you either used a word you didn't understand (i.e. unpeopled), or you truly believe that the land commonly referred to as "Libya" was suddenly devoid of population.

However, the second paragraph is disturbing in that it indicates you perhaps did know what unpeopled really means, yet you somehow equate humanity (or, at least, personhood) with the legitimacy of local government. Thus, if one perceives a government as illegitimate, those humans living within its political boundaries are no longer regarded as persons and are devoid of any rights which belong to "all men," according to the Declaration of Independence which you initially cited. The basis for this argument appears to be simply that the government is illegitimate according to your personal definition of legitimacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dehumanize

The context was a moral one. The term "people" with its moral accouterments is most strongly assigned to the ingroup. Values are lessened the greater the distance from the center, until you have things that are no longer valued as people at all.
If a person gets there by their own actions, they have "unpeopled" themselves.
I didn't feel like rewriting everything as a subjective scheme or tacking on some lengthy adjective phrase, so I threw on a mathematical prefix.

un-1 &#8194;
a prefix meaning &#8220;not,&#8221;

people-people=0
People unpeopled are no longer people.

Now that you know, can you follow the negation?

Thus, if one perceives a government as illegitimate, those humans living within its political boundaries are no longer regarded as persons and are devoid of any rights which belong to "all men," according to the Declaration of Independence which you initially cited.

Those supporting an immoral government are devoid of any rights except those we deign to grant them, yes.

The Declaration of Independence was not properly qualified in this. "Right to life" is in fact contradicted by the support for armed revolt. If you are killing the other guy, you are not granting that he has an absolute right to live, eh?
It was a document for the formation of an ingroup. It did not fully expound the perspective for the relation to outgroups.
They state that the Colonies have the full power to levy war, so their philosophical perspective must've allowed for a valuation that would allow for warfare.

The basis for this argument appears to be simply that the government is illegitimate according to your personal definition of legitimacy.

Mhmmm.
Valuations are subjective. You can't get around that.
Valuations of external definitions are still personal valuations, so it is not improper to add the subject. If we were to go into your perspective, it would be your perspective. Yup, we have a subject!

That you hold such a position is both appalling and reprehensible. Therefore, in an effort to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your position, I mocked it by making a less-ridiculous proposition which absolutely obeyed your own rules for allowing the expenditure of military ordinance without congressional input: I stated that 60&#37; of the globe (as that's the approximate fraction which exists in international waters) exists in an area of illegitimate government, so we should shoot that up as well.

And in doing so you went full retard, as that does not follow my rules at all.
Descriptive != prescriptive.

We DO shoot in that 60%, and it is morally fine to do so. We hold naval exercises and expend ordinance. This is a description. This does not prescribe that we should nuke the whole thing. That would be a positive action and would require a net positive reason. The downsides to expending our entire nuclear arsenal on the oceans rather outweighs the upsides. A good number of those downsides hit the moral sphere.

You quickly countered with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual garbage, just as I knew you would, rather than reading for understanding.

DS: "Oh darn, it looks like circumstances dictate that I should pull this hangnail. But that's ok."

CW: "HURR DURR BY THAT LOGIC WE SHOULD SKIN EVERYONE ALIVE!"

My, such a terribly complex mental path! How could I ever follow that without weeks of painstaking study???

Hey buddy, just because you are under the full confidence that you hit it out of the ballpark doesn't mean that I have to operate in accordance with that belief. I know what I wrote, I know what it meant, so it was blatantly obvious when your swing COMPLETELY missed the target. It was instantly recognizable that you were nowhere near the target area.

You not knowing that "unpeople" directed you to negate the moral value assigned to "people" does not make your logic based on the wrong definition converge with mine.
You went to crazy town. Me pointing that out is perfectly acceptable.

Do you now see what I did there, or shall I continue?

Yes, you have expanded my understanding of the path you took in making your mistakes.

Now have you seen what I've done in this post, or do we need to go over it yet again?

 

[DominionSeraph]

He/She/It is not interested in conversation, only in trying to make itself appear intellectually superior,

No, going for |appearance| would require work. To manipulate your perspectives would require me to dive down, trace out what simple little heuristics y'all use to determine whether a person is smart, and then feed you carefully crafted responses designed to wow you. So I would be disrespecting the integrity of your mind because I respected (in some direct or tangential way) your value output.
This is exactly the opposite of how I feel.
I will not lie to you. I also don't care a great deal as to what a moron thinks about me -- I can evaluate what an appropriate response should be to a person's output based on its quality level.
Judgements of betters, equals, and near-equals are useful. The judgements of monkeys don't tell me anything with a high enough confidence level to be of any use.

and failing miserably to do so at the same time.

A perspective perhaps explained by the model that I am not even trying to reach the lower echelon? If all I am doing is basically talking to the air around me, is it any wonder that you are having difficulties connecting? That all you see are disjointed partial concepts showing the trappings of the intelligentsia?

To really trace out the depths of my intelligence would require work. People not having the wherewithal to do so and thus coming up short in their judgements does not greatly affect me.
My value is independent of their failures in judgement.
And no, I do not think that all the blame necessarily lies within the observer. I acknowledge that I have not set things up to be in any way conducive to exploration. There are perhaps some here who could understand me but are not about to try as the first, second, and third thing they'd feel would be the back of my hand.
I trade some things of value for freedom to move in other arenas.

DS has said multiple times that AT is merely a toilet afterall.

Mhmmm. I also said that if a challenger appeared, I would welcome it.
CW's last post was his opening salvo, as was my last post mine. Now we'll see what he can do.

 

[Darwin333]

That's a fair point, but remember that the War Powers Act dates from the sixties or seventies, in which we had practically the same capacity to quickly assemble Congress. I suspect that as much as anything, the delay was built in to allow Congress to study the issue and see how it is playing out before they have to choose a side.

That is probably true but unlike in the 60's we currently have much greater and faster access to information for them to make an informed decision. If the President has had enough time to study the facts and commit acts of war upon a sovereign nation then I don't see why Congress can not do the same in close to the same time period.

For the record, I don't really disagree with the War Powers Act the way it is written, if someone attacks us or attacks a nation we are treaty bound to defend I have no problem with the President sending in forces while Congress assembles and gives official authorization. What I do have a problem with is using the act to attack whoever the hell the President pleases for whatever the hell reason he wants.