lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« on: November 27, 2011, 11:36:21 am » |
|
(with apologies to Professor Glenn Reynolds!) ...the White House would ignore the War Powers Act. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval. “Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
... and they were right! A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.” “The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.” From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
|
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2011, 11:55:41 am » |
|
Is this a rerun?
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2011, 02:39:26 pm » |
|
...the government would target US citizens! http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.htmlObama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with USU.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.
The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.
The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.Something about this sounds awfully Bushy...
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2011, 03:39:24 pm » |
|
Yeah...Bush would never have caught him!
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2011, 06:22:26 pm » |
|
...the government would target US citizens!
Do you mean Republican attempts to imprison them for life without a trial? Something about this sounds awfully Bushy... Now that's something Bush/Cheney were chomping at the bit to do!
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2011, 07:00:41 pm » |
|
Do you mean Republican attempts to imprison them for life without a trial?
Now that's something Bush/Cheney were chomping at the bit to do!
Republican you say? http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detentionPresident Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite DetentionAdministration Also Announces It Will Use Military Commissions For New Terrorism Cases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – President Obama today issued an executive order that permits ongoing indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees while establishing a periodic administrative review process for them. The administration also announced it will lift the ban on bringing new military commissions charges against detainees that don’t already have ongoing cases in the substandard system.
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2011, 07:02:50 pm » |
|
Hmmm...I read all of that. Nothing about US citizens!
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2011, 07:35:14 pm » |
|
Hmmm...I read all of that. Nothing about US citizens!
You are correct! That article had nothing to do with US citizens! My mistake, I mixed it with another one. We know after all that there is no threat of that happening to US citizens!
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2011, 08:03:06 pm » |
|
You are correct! That article had nothing to do with US citizens! My mistake, I mixed it with another one. We know after all that there is no threat of that happening to US citizens! Only if your republican comrades (my new word ) don't get their way!
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2011, 03:33:34 pm » |
|
Only if your republican comrades (my new word ) don't get their way! Better check that Senate vote again!
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2011, 04:33:38 pm » |
|
Better check that Senate vote again!
I never said a few blue dogs and panderers didn't vote for it. Thankfully, it will be vetoed at the expense of the entire defense appropriations bill. I wonder why the Republicans hate the troops so much?
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2011, 06:54:57 pm » |
|
...the President would use signing statements to avoid laws passed by Congress. And they were right! http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibusObama says he’s not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisionsPresident Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.
After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.
Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, broke the record for most signing statements by a president.
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2011, 08:14:25 pm » |
|
...the President would use signing statements to avoid laws passed by Congress. And they were right! http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibusObama says he’s not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisionsPresident Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.
After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.
Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, broke the record for most signing statements by a president.Good for him!
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2011, 04:48:29 pm » |
|
Good for him!
My how times change! But on the other hand, he did decide after the fact that he, Cheney, Gonzales and others were exempt, so maybe it's not the shameless, flagrant, self-serving, arrogant, brazen and utter contempt for the rule of law that seems to characterize his and Mr. Cheney's approach to, say, the Constitution, and the literally countless congressional acts he's signed into law and then negated with "signing statements."
Remember those articles of impeachment you supported? http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,19118.msg282916.html#msg282916Article XXVI Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Ah those were the days!
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2011, 06:21:29 pm » |
|
How many times did Bush do that with his signing statements? Were you clamboring for impeachment then? The difference is Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He knows the Constitution and what violates it. He's a better person and President than Bush, who was stupid and had no idea what the Constitution contained.
|
|
|
|
|
|