Posted on 03/21/2011 1:52:02 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it.
Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.
Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.
He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged – without the knowledge or approval of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yeah I was limiting the justification to wmd’s.
Then shame on you. ;*)
Actually there were wmd’s found and Iraq had months to hide other wmd evidence.
Most folks that possess 2 functioning brain cells have always known this to be true. I've talked to many wounded warriors and other OIF vets who have suffered the effects of WMD while there.
I mis-typed. I didn’t mean to limit justification for invasion of Iraq to just wmd’s. To me that was an additive factor to all the others you mentioned. Libya has no rationale.
If the rationale was to avoid slaughter in libya then the no fly zone should have been implemented weeks ago. I would have disagreed but at least understood their supposed rationale. But now there is zero rationale.
Libya has no rationale.
But now there is zero rationale.
Absolutely correct on both counts.
There is also zero rationale for Zero!
“Unlawful enemy combatants are those who are not fighting for a nation and who do not wear the nation’s uniform... Such as the terrorists from many nations rushing into Iraq to fight the Great Satan, not to help the Iraqis.”
And the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War (fighting against Franco).
Problem with your definition of an “unlawful combatant” is that it totally hinges upon what the arresting party decides constitutes a “lawful combatant”. Islamists regard all opposition to Islam, as unlawful. See how that works? You try telling a Jihadi that a doctor is a non-combatant, if the doctor is a Christian in a Muslim country.
We see the Islamists exploit that all the time to attack journalists, aid workers and other people who aren’t in uniform. Sentenced to death simply for being foreigners who aren’t there on a pro-Jihad ticket.
That’s why I disagree with you. Their barbarity is TOTALLY supported by your definition of what an unlawful combatant is.
History’s pretty clear on this.
If you encounter mercenaries or spies or other “unlawful combatants” on the battlefield then there are only two reasons to declare them to be “unlawful combatants”... you plan to interrogate them without all the niceties accorded to enlisted men and uniformed soldiers... or you want to make an example of them (or maybe summarily execute them).
That’s how Britain has played the game, that’s how America has played the game, and everyone used to know where they stood.
The Nazis and Commies twisted that principle. They didn’t bother to ask if the “enemy combatants” were “fighting for a nation” or fighting for “freedom” or fighting for revenge. If you got caught out of uniform and were a combatant of any kind, or you were a Jew, then you were dead.
The Jihadis go beyond the pale even of the Nazis - anyone who’s not actively fighting on their side is, to them, an unlawful enemy combatant or a traitor.
That is why they’ll kill journalists, aid workers, Red Cross / MSF personnel, priests, wedding parties and the like.
A final thought for you:
Ask yourself why it was ever deemed neccesary to ship even one Islamist bleeder to Gitmo (at considerable expense to the USA) if America knew all along the detainees were “unlawful combatants” who presented a threat to America or to the missions in the Middle East and were therefore outside the remit of the Geneva Convention.
In the good old days if we found ourselves in the luxury of having a big loophole to exploit in the rules of engagement, we’d exploit it IN THE BATTLEFIELD.
At what point was it ever necessary to ship even one of those sons of bitches over to Gitmo? Didn’t they have any good tin sheds in the Middle East?
I’ll give you the answer I think applies: DRAMA. Why bother treating these beggars harshly in rag-land when you can make a huge show for the cameras by shipping them to Gitmo.
I’ve just returned from my hometown where I spent these past days with my mother on the occasion of her 84th birthday. I made a point not to keep up with the news and to focus on my mother, but one thing I did pick up on is that Obama has ceded our national security to the UN.
Bumping Henry Lamb...one of our national treasures.
Thank you for all of your pings, my FRiend and my friend. You are a very dear person. ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.