No, he is doing too much to sway the folks in the GOP direction. But the Senate might. The Dems really want to get rid of him!Scupperer wrote: Do you honestly think the House has enough backbone to push for an impeachment over this?
Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...
This is a trivial question and you are not really reading what I am writing....ANTIcarrot wrote:and kindly answer the question of what point to you personally does government oppression becaome so unacceptable that the outside world should intervene if it is reasonably safe and practical to do so?
The point at which it becomes unacceptable is when the outside world decides it is unacceptable.
In a similar way, the point at which an objective of regime change is acceptable is when the outside world decides the objective of regime change is acceptable.
So far, 2/3rds of the Security Council [on behalf of the outside world] have said Libyan civilians should be protected from their state.
So where's the mandate to murder Ghaddafi?
D'you get it yet? This 'international law' idea? Where people objectively and unambiguously agree the aim of a thing before they think they have the mandate to act on their own compulsions?
Last edited by chrismb on Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is no conflict declared.ladajo wrote:The question is simple and direct.
Where in international law does it say a Head of State can not be killed in a conflict?
I can pull the UN treaties if you like, but if you are saying it is lawful for heads of state to take pot shots at each other, then this thread has clearly run its course and dropped off the cliff of sanity.
Lybia has a declared internal conflict, that is impacting its international (ie.: other states) neighbours.
The UN (of which Lybia is a member, not that it matters hugely) has recognized that the Lybian conflict has impacted members of the UN, AND has violated the UN declared core values of Universal Human Rights. Therefore, the UN has voted, and adopted a resolution to limit and hopefully prevent further use of Lybian Government sanctioned attacks using its military and internal security forces against civilians that are not combatants (as defined by international conventions, customary law, and multiple treatys).
In all this, show me where any of it says that you can not kill the leader of a state as part of said conflict?
I am all ears and eyes. Learn me oh great one.
The UN (of which Lybia is a member, not that it matters hugely) has recognized that the Lybian conflict has impacted members of the UN, AND has violated the UN declared core values of Universal Human Rights. Therefore, the UN has voted, and adopted a resolution to limit and hopefully prevent further use of Lybian Government sanctioned attacks using its military and internal security forces against civilians that are not combatants (as defined by international conventions, customary law, and multiple treatys).
In all this, show me where any of it says that you can not kill the leader of a state as part of said conflict?
I am all ears and eyes. Learn me oh great one.
If Gadaffi is killed by a cruise missle, (accidently on purpose), the only reason a Libian would want to retaliate against the US is because they were cheated out of killing him themselves!
Strictly speaking, the US isn't engaged in a war with Libya, this is an a$$ kicking contest and Gadaffi is a one legged contestant, its target practise. Obama can claim he is merely fullfilling NATO treaty obligations. Other NATO countries soldiers are routinely commanded by US military officers, the legalities get murky when alliance partners are involved.
Strictly speaking, the US isn't engaged in a war with Libya, this is an a$$ kicking contest and Gadaffi is a one legged contestant, its target practise. Obama can claim he is merely fullfilling NATO treaty obligations. Other NATO countries soldiers are routinely commanded by US military officers, the legalities get murky when alliance partners are involved.
CHoff
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
In fact, the UN developed an "RtoP," meaning "Responsibility to Protect," resolution over the last decade. It was adopted in 2009. This is now the upshot of that. The point about protecting Libyan civilians from Ghaddafi's attacks is being made repeatedly by the UN coalition. Basically R2P can lead to what we are seeing here: intervention in the internal affairs of states. We're in a post-Westphalian world.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Well, I think a great many people in Libya had good reason to revolt. Their leader was not particularly sane, and they have had no opportunity to elect anyone else peacefully for the last three to four decades. Intervening in Libya backs up both the UN R2P statements and the values of democracy and freedom that Western rhetoric often emphasizes. Doing nothing could make the West and the UN look hypocritical and toothless.
However, the current conflicts around the globe are characterized by having many factions, and the situation in Libya is certainly one. It's quite possible that one of the factions which is currently supporting the rebels will seize power in the anarchy of Ghaddafi's likely departure, and end up being as bad or worse than him. To prevent that, the Western powers might end up being drawn further in, with ground troops etc.
Basically, we have no idea where this will lead. In terms of long term geopolitical strategy, intervening could be a mistake, but not intervening could also be a mistake. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I do share the concern that the U.S. and the U.K. are in a poor financial position and can barely afford another major conflict right now.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Well, I think a great many people in Libya had good reason to revolt. Their leader was not particularly sane, and they have had no opportunity to elect anyone else peacefully for the last three to four decades. Intervening in Libya backs up both the UN R2P statements and the values of democracy and freedom that Western rhetoric often emphasizes. Doing nothing could make the West and the UN look hypocritical and toothless.
However, the current conflicts around the globe are characterized by having many factions, and the situation in Libya is certainly one. It's quite possible that one of the factions which is currently supporting the rebels will seize power in the anarchy of Ghaddafi's likely departure, and end up being as bad or worse than him. To prevent that, the Western powers might end up being drawn further in, with ground troops etc.
Basically, we have no idea where this will lead. In terms of long term geopolitical strategy, intervening could be a mistake, but not intervening could also be a mistake. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I do share the concern that the U.S. and the U.K. are in a poor financial position and can barely afford another major conflict right now.
Well we know one thing-- that "no mercy" quuote was used dishonestly. It was referring to those who didn't put down their weapons.
More importantly, if some worry that Bush bent the rules in going to war with Iraq, this doesn't just bend them, it staples, folds, and mutilates them. We've moved from a no-fly zone, supposedly to help save the people, to now attacks on logistics targets with the explicit goal of removing the leadership--without a declaration of war or even an enabling bill from Congress or for that matter the UN, because if you can define "safety of people" to mean "overthrow the government" congrats, you might as well just state that the president now has an unlimited right to declare war when and where he desires.
I mean, after all the concern about Cheney's ideas for unitary presidential authority, the implications the "Obama doctrine" have go far, far beyond anything Cheney even hinted at.
Not to mention we have absolutely no real idea for an exit strategy, what to do if they can't secure control, what to do if the central government keeps winning...I mean, when you talk about open ended committments, this is one of them.
More importantly, if some worry that Bush bent the rules in going to war with Iraq, this doesn't just bend them, it staples, folds, and mutilates them. We've moved from a no-fly zone, supposedly to help save the people, to now attacks on logistics targets with the explicit goal of removing the leadership--without a declaration of war or even an enabling bill from Congress or for that matter the UN, because if you can define "safety of people" to mean "overthrow the government" congrats, you might as well just state that the president now has an unlimited right to declare war when and where he desires.
I mean, after all the concern about Cheney's ideas for unitary presidential authority, the implications the "Obama doctrine" have go far, far beyond anything Cheney even hinted at.
Not to mention we have absolutely no real idea for an exit strategy, what to do if they can't secure control, what to do if the central government keeps winning...I mean, when you talk about open ended committments, this is one of them.
Check out my blog-- not just about fusion, but anything that attracts this 40 something historians interest.
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
I got answers from one of my Senators (DeMint) and my Congressional Representative. From Sen. DeMint:
"Dear Mr. Peters,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the involvement of the United States in Libya. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
As you know, on March 19, 2011, President Obama ordered the U.S. military to take part in enforcing U.N. Resolution 1973 by creating a no-fly zone over Libya and attacking ground targets. In his address to the nation on March 28, 2011, President Obama stated that action was necessary to protect Libyan civilians who were facing an immediate threat of violence from forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi's oppression of Libyan citizens deserves the condemnation of the United States and the international community. President Obama sought the approval of the international community, but he acted without the authorization of Congress, in clear violation of the War Powers law, which has been U.S. law since 1973. Further, an estimate of the total cost, duration, and goal of U.S military involvement in Libya has not been not been provided, nor is there consensus from military or diplomatic leaders on the composition of the Libyan opposition benefiting from our actions. These issues must be brought to Congress and debated before the American people.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rest assured that I will press these issues in the Senate. I am grateful for the dedication and selflessness of our armed forces, and I believe that all Americans deserve leadership and accountability in our foreign engagements.
Thanks again for sharing your views with me. Please contact me again in the future about anything important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of South Carolina.
Sincerely,
Jim DeMint
United States Senator"
And Representative Tim Scott:
"Dear Mr. Peters:
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about recent events in Libya including United States military action. I appreciate hearing from you.
I am extremely troubled by the leadership of Moammar Gadhafi, his history of supporting terrorism, and the years of attacks on his own people. We want the Libyan people to advance to democracy and prosperity, but history tells us that such transformations are difficult, rare and create many dangers. We must do what we can to ensure that as the government moves toward a new era of liberty, extremists do not take over. While we can make positive contributions to the process, our ability to drive events is limited.
While the US has an ethical obligation to support those who seek freedom and the democratic values we enjoy as Americans, it is unacceptable for our commander-in-chief to neglect his responsibility to detail our role with the military mission and to not seek Congressional blessing of US military action. The American people deserve clear, rational, strong leadership.
Rest assured I will be seeking these answers from our President as Congress considers any further action regarding Libya.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Tim Scott
Member of Congress"
Since Sen. Graham actively supports intervening in Libya, I don't expect he will answer as positively as those above, if at all.
"Dear Mr. Peters,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the involvement of the United States in Libya. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
As you know, on March 19, 2011, President Obama ordered the U.S. military to take part in enforcing U.N. Resolution 1973 by creating a no-fly zone over Libya and attacking ground targets. In his address to the nation on March 28, 2011, President Obama stated that action was necessary to protect Libyan civilians who were facing an immediate threat of violence from forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi's oppression of Libyan citizens deserves the condemnation of the United States and the international community. President Obama sought the approval of the international community, but he acted without the authorization of Congress, in clear violation of the War Powers law, which has been U.S. law since 1973. Further, an estimate of the total cost, duration, and goal of U.S military involvement in Libya has not been not been provided, nor is there consensus from military or diplomatic leaders on the composition of the Libyan opposition benefiting from our actions. These issues must be brought to Congress and debated before the American people.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rest assured that I will press these issues in the Senate. I am grateful for the dedication and selflessness of our armed forces, and I believe that all Americans deserve leadership and accountability in our foreign engagements.
Thanks again for sharing your views with me. Please contact me again in the future about anything important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of South Carolina.
Sincerely,
Jim DeMint
United States Senator"
And Representative Tim Scott:
"Dear Mr. Peters:
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about recent events in Libya including United States military action. I appreciate hearing from you.
I am extremely troubled by the leadership of Moammar Gadhafi, his history of supporting terrorism, and the years of attacks on his own people. We want the Libyan people to advance to democracy and prosperity, but history tells us that such transformations are difficult, rare and create many dangers. We must do what we can to ensure that as the government moves toward a new era of liberty, extremists do not take over. While we can make positive contributions to the process, our ability to drive events is limited.
While the US has an ethical obligation to support those who seek freedom and the democratic values we enjoy as Americans, it is unacceptable for our commander-in-chief to neglect his responsibility to detail our role with the military mission and to not seek Congressional blessing of US military action. The American people deserve clear, rational, strong leadership.
Rest assured I will be seeking these answers from our President as Congress considers any further action regarding Libya.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Tim Scott
Member of Congress"
Since Sen. Graham actively supports intervening in Libya, I don't expect he will answer as positively as those above, if at all.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
President Obama's Libya Intervention Hits 60-Day Legal Limit
"The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there's little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed.
Exactly two months ago, Obama notified Congress of his unilateral decision to engage in "limited military action" to help defend the Libyan people from attacks by their leader, Moammar Gadhafi.
But under federal law -- the War Powers Resolution of 1973 -- Obama is only allowed to keep U.S. forces engaged in hostilities for 60 days, unless Congress declares war, authorizes funding for the effort or extends the deadline.
Congress has not enacted legislation authorizing military involvement in Libya, and the White House has not made a public effort to comply with the rule. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-pr ... d=13642002
"The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there's little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed.
Exactly two months ago, Obama notified Congress of his unilateral decision to engage in "limited military action" to help defend the Libyan people from attacks by their leader, Moammar Gadhafi.
But under federal law -- the War Powers Resolution of 1973 -- Obama is only allowed to keep U.S. forces engaged in hostilities for 60 days, unless Congress declares war, authorizes funding for the effort or extends the deadline.
Congress has not enacted legislation authorizing military involvement in Libya, and the White House has not made a public effort to comply with the rule. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-pr ... d=13642002
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
Where was the legal mandate to send troops into sovereign Pakistani territory and kill Osama Bin Laden, using this kind of logic Obama could get impeached for having done so. There is evidence that Ghaddafi has sent assasins into other countries, including the US, to kill former Libian citizens for speaking out against his regime. Then there's his support for terrorists, I think if push comes to shove Obama has a solid case on this one.
CHoff