Skip to comments.
Since when does the UN authorize the US to go to war?
Israpundit ^
| March 19, 2011
| Ted Belman
Posted on 03/20/2011 8:20:01 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Andrew C. McCarthy says Go to Congress first before warring against Libya.
On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted 10–0 (with five abstentions, including China, Russia, and Germany) to authorize the use of military force (i.e., “all necessary measures”) against Libya. Ostensibly, the resolution is designed to protect the Libyan people. But not to mince words, it is a license for war against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. It would kick hostilities off with a no-fly zone over Libya. As a practical matter, American armed forces must do the heavy lifting if the strategy is to have a prayer, and indications are that [Alleged] President Obama intends to oblige.
There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to “authorize” the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them.
Our Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war. That authority cannot be delegated to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people. The decision to go to war is the most significant one a body politic can make. Thus the Framers designed our system to make certain that the responsible officials are answerable to the people whose lives are at stake and who are expected to foot the bills.
and concludes
But there should be no debating that absent a hostile invasion of our country, a forcible attack against our interests, or a clear threat against us so imminent that Americans may be harmed unless prompt action is taken, the United States should not launch combat operations without congressional approval.
But James V. Capua in Obama and the Libya decision has a different take.
Barack Obama finally has a war he can believe in. The intervention in Libya promises to conform just about perfectly to the president’s world view. He hastened to declare in his Friday afternoon statement what it would not entail– no US troops on the ground, and somebody else will lead it. Now at first glance it might appear he is merely being cautious – limiting our exposure to minimize any unfortunate foreign or domestic fallout should the television images get unpleasant, but one cannot help but suspect that the motive is less to minimize the US role than it is to exalt that of the UN and other supra-national organizations, such as the Arab League, and all of the NGO camp followers that normally feed off such international coalitions.
Additionally, this action promises finally to use American military power in the kind of international relief and social service agency capacity Obama’s internationalist foreign policy team would like it to be, its mission unsullied by grubby considerations of national interest. One observer has already compared it to the international intervention in Kosovo, intervention that delivered the Kosovars into the hands of UN and EU caretakers, despite their declaration of independence.
[..]
Even more significantly Obama’s world view requires victims to be serviced, and not winners to be supported. As long as the Libyan rebels had a chance to prevail, they were of little value to a messianic narcissist bent on removing the “Incomplete” from his Nobel Peace Prize citation. Pitiful, battered, pleading Libyans huddled around Benghazi are the prerequisite for making this this intervention work politically. In just the same way Obama and Pelosi needed the image of sick, desperate, hard up Americans to make the case for ObamaCare, the Stimuli, and financial services “reform.”
[..]
War without victory, intervention that produces dependency, Americans shouldering the burdens but obscured in a fog of UN acronyms, a maze of rules of engagement and process that squeezes every last bit of spirit and motivation out of warriors, it may not be a strategy, but it sure as hell explains the motivation.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: breachofpowers; libya; obama; unconstitutional; usurper; warpowers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: EternalVigilance
Only congress declares war. Then the time limit is imposed so there isnt a endless war.
21
posted on
03/20/2011 8:48:20 AM PDT
by
crz
To: EternalVigilance
It’s a New World Order. Didn’t you get the memo?
22
posted on
03/20/2011 8:49:33 AM PDT
by
TADSLOS
(Tea Party. We are the party of NO! NO to more government! NO to more spending! NO to more taxation!)
To: Starboard
Looks like they were "told" about it on Friday.
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action (Kucinich calls for Obama's impeachment)
*snip*
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didnt object when [alleged] President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadnt been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
To: crz
Congress is too busy spending our money to be bothered with all that troublesome and distracting war stuff.
To: Starboard
Well, Mc Cain is saying we need to support Obomber on this.
25
posted on
03/20/2011 8:53:52 AM PDT
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
To: Las Vegas Ron
“Well, Mc Cain is saying we need to support Obomber on this.”
This would be the very same Obomber who was the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
To: davisfh
” In the end there is no more United States and the United Nations is left in charge”
And the prime candidate to lead the UN .....
Barry O’B or Billy C...........
To: EternalVigilance
It’s all part of the Soros’ funded One-World-Government, of course. The UN will be the first iteration of the world government, until supplanted by more a more ‘cooperative’ body.
Bring it...We in the hinterlands are locked and loaded.
28
posted on
03/20/2011 9:17:20 AM PDT
by
PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
To: EternalVigilance
We are dealing with a bunch of backward moslems. The deal should have been to support Mo-Am-R in return for cheap oil. There will never be any kind of democracy or freedom in any islamic country so why bother?
To: Starboard
This would be the very same Obomber who was the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace PrizeYep, that be him lol.
30
posted on
03/20/2011 9:28:50 AM PDT
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
To: EternalVigilance
War powers resolution 1973
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
So, has the clock started and does congress give a damn?
31
posted on
03/20/2011 9:48:21 AM PDT
by
Calamari
(Pass enough laws and everyone is guilty of something.)
To: EternalVigilance
32
posted on
03/20/2011 9:48:59 AM PDT
by
PzLdr
("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
To: PzLdr
I think your answer wins.
To: Calamari
So, has the clock started and does congress give a damn? Very good questions. Ones every American should be asking their Congresscritters, I'm thinkin'.
To: Starboard
It is not “our” money..its “their” money. That is the way they look at it.
35
posted on
03/20/2011 9:54:02 AM PDT
by
crz
To: paulycy; EternalVigilance
Since when does the UN authorize the US to go to war? Since one half of our fellow Americans believes in one world without borders and at least one half of the remainder do not care.
Do you remember how proud Bush Sr. was when he created a coalition that liberated Kuwait. It's been 20 years, a full generation, ago.
Everyone and his dog thinks nowadays in collectivist terms: as long as we sat down 'round table, shared our feelings, and came to a consensus --- all is well! Principles, our Constitution, the gradual submission of our courts to foreign ones --- all be d-mned 'cause we reached a consensus.
It is all about some delusional touchy-feely thing. Has someone, whether Europeans, UN, our government, even tried to tell us whom we are supporting in Libya or what kind of structure they see will emerge? The point is not whether to agree with their opinion but what is that opinion? Not a word of reasoning, but all governments are beating themselves in their populist chests, "We want to defend the pe-e-o-o-ple of Libya." Yep, all 50 tribes from each other.
I did see a point for us to be in Iraq, although I thought that Bush did a terrible job of communicating the reason for and progress in that war. But this is shear madness. I am still struggling to explain why conservatives, including Sarah Palin, would even think a second about supporting attacks on Libya. But they blame the President for not doing enough.
G-d help this country. I do think we are at the first stages of a thorough redefinition of the world, similar to the one that occurred after WW I. We may not even recognize our own country in a just a couple of years.
36
posted on
03/20/2011 9:55:59 AM PDT
by
TopQuark
To: EternalVigilance
Since when does the UN authorize the US to go to war? Since Barry said so, that's when! Get with the program or it is off to summer camp for you!
37
posted on
03/20/2011 9:56:03 AM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
To: EternalVigilance
Since Barry does not want any buck to stop at his desk. If anything goes wrong, it wasn’t him.
38
posted on
03/20/2011 9:57:10 AM PDT
by
Yaelle
To: maggief
I dont oppose all wars, Obama , then a state senator, said on Oct. 2, 2002. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
Good flashback, maggie.
39
posted on
03/20/2011 9:58:33 AM PDT
by
Fu-fu2
To: PubliusMM
We in the citys aint slackin either.
I see a UN blue helmet, I kill the man wearing it.
40
posted on
03/20/2011 9:58:42 AM PDT
by
Yorlik803
(better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson