• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Today is the day (60 day mark for Libya)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
blackangst1 said:
Last bombing was today. So yes.
Click to expand...

Try again.
British Maj. Gen. John Lorimer, a communications officer, said British warplanes hit two corvette warships in the Khoms harbor and "successfully targeted a facility in the dockyard constructing fast inflatable boats, which Libyan forces have used several times in their efforts to mine Misrata and attack vessels in the area."
Click to expand...
 
First said:
There's no indication he's breaking the law though so it's not particularly interesting. It seems like a bunch of partisan Senators trying to limit executive branch powers. They're certainly within their rights to do so, but nothing particularly illegal seems to be going on.
Click to expand...

Good then I expect that the "Iraq War is unconstitutional, Bush is a war criminal" argument will cease.
 
First said:
Seriously though, link?
Click to expand...
The only link I can find mentioning nationality of the attackers is a Fox News story which reads: "British Maj. Gen. John Lorimer, a communications officer, said British warplanes hit two corvette warships in the Khoms harbor and "successfully targeted a facility in the dockyard constructing fast inflatable boats, which Libyan forces have used several times in their efforts to mine Misrata and attack vessels in the area."

No word of any direct U.S. actions today.
 
^ I haven't followed the story closely enough, but I'm honestly curious if we're out of Libya, because I could have sworn we left weeks ago.
 
First said:
^ I haven't followed the story closely enough, but I'm honestly curious if we're out of Libya, because I could have sworn we left weeks ago.
Click to expand...

We transferred the leadership of the effort to NATO, but continued a strong 'support role' in the operation.

We could use a better mechanism than the current War Powers Act for fulfilling the constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare War.

Having the issue just be ignored because it's convenient isn't much of a solution to protect from later abuse when precedents are set.
 
First said:
Well yes, how could a sovereign nation "be" NATO? We're a part of it. But AFAIK we're out of Libya militarily. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see any evidence that we're still there, certainly not in terms of combat operations.
Click to expand...

Well, we were still bombing confirmed by AP and the WH as of a month ago, even after the US supposedly turned over control to NATO. Im not sure why you would assume we're out.

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/US_Planes_Still_Bombing_Libya_119800844.html
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/ap-libya-limited-airstrikes-041311/
 
Last edited:
Actually Obama was in violation of war powers act from DAY ONE. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the temporary war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

But rule of law doesn't mean much at that level. That's for you.
 
Zebo said:
Actually Obama was in violation of war powers act from DAY ONE. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the temporary war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Click to expand...

You're right. One more reason for updating the law that did not meet the need here.
 
First said:
Yup.

I can answer it pretty easily; we should have done something about it. Next.
Click to expand...
So, you support America intervening, with the blood of our soldiers and at the cost of our tax dollars, to stop genocide wherever it might be occurring in the world or overthrowing any oppressive government? Lets see... that would mean crushing The Taliban, Saddam fanboys, most of Africa, (Red) China, a few central Asian states, the Balkans, most of The Middle East, we cannot do that, nor should we.

how could a sovereign nation "be" NATO? We're a part of it
Click to expand...
We are the public face of NATO, when you see protesters out in the streets, are they chanting "Death to NATO" or burning NATO flags? No, they are calling for the destruction of our republic and burning the American flag. We also finance more of NATO's military expenditures than the rest of the members combined.
 
werepossum said:
If it goes on beyond today without Congressional approval, there's every indication that he's breaking the law. Only Congress can declare war. The War Powers Act was a recognition that Congress often moves more slowly than the pace of modern warfare, and thus that the President needs to be able to move immediately to effectively do his job of leading our armed forces. If the President can wage war beyond the War Powers Act, Congress' Constitutional power is negated totally. If the War Powers Act is found to be unconstitutional, then the President has no authority to enter any conflict without prior Congressional approval. Either way, Obama needs Congressional approval, in a formal bill or motion.
Click to expand...

Did we declare war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam?
 
Zebo said:
Actually Obama was in violation of war powers act from DAY ONE. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the temporary war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

But rule of law doesn't mean much at that level. That's for you.
Click to expand...

Yup, you are right. He has been in violation of the resolution from the outset.
 
Craig234 said:
You're right. One more reason for updating the law that did not meet the need here.
Click to expand...

Need for what? The need to use this 1 trillion dollar a year behemoth we have created I guess which does nothing to better peoples lives, indeed, it's about destruction of them, and creating blow-back to perpetuate itself. I am finally beginning to realize the intellectual atmosphere of this country when it comes to the question of war is so narrow and totally contradicts the dogma that democracies are inherently peaceful when it's the democracies of USA and the west constantly starting wars. Left and right, party doesn't matter just different a different squad of cheerleaders for war. Looking back all the way to Kosovo and lies told there all the way through Libya as it seems Kadafi has significant material support never reported it seems we just can't stop making excuses to go kill people and you want to loosen that framework further and make it easier? Easier for unilateral action? More unaccountable to the people? More imperial presidency? Not me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top