Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?

[Giambattista]

Indeed, Bill Clinton use cruise missiles against Taliban encampments long before the invasion of Afghanistan. But then he also screwed up and blew up a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, 'cos the Intel was that it was a nerve gas factory. He probably killed a bunch of people who couldn't get the drugs they needed because of that. But that wasn't war either.

Look, it's nice to consider such errors in history, but that doesn't excuse current errors. 2 Wrongs...

Obama has usurped the sovereignty of our Constitutional government, especially by deferring to the UN instead of the Congress, and he has violated the sovereignty of another nation.
There is no excuse for Obama's action.

Then again, being an honest person, Obama is really just a puppet himself.

 

[pjdude1219]

Look, it's nice to consider such errors in history, but that doesn't excuse current errors. 2 Wrongs...

2 wronga the supreme court doing its job is a wrong.

Obama has usurped the sovereignty of our Constitutional government, especially by deferring to the UN instead of the Congress, and he has violated the sovereignty of another nation.

I forgot your the nut job who thinks that Obama is a usurper because the majority that elected him doesn't agree with your politics. no Obama acted with in the constitution. just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional

There is no excuse for Obama's action.

true but there is no need to as it was a legal act

Then again, being an honest person, Obama is really just a puppet himself.

and that gets you put firmly in nut job land

 

[Giambattista]

I get it your miffed that liberals thought dubya and company should have been held accountable for their many crimes but that doesn't mean obama has done anything impeachable here.

W and Co. should have been held accountable. Period.
So should Obama.
The only thing I'm "miffed" about is the hypocrisy on either side.

And what is the difference between what W did and Obama did? The one main difference seems to be that Obama declined to confer or get any kind of authorization from Congress.

As far as the War Powers nonsense:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya

I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country -- especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense -- but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when -- during the campaign -- he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Obama's answer seems dispositive to me on the Libya question: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." And he went on to say that the President could constitutionally deploy the military only "in instances of self-defense." Nobody is arguing -- nor can one rationally argue -- that the situation in Libya constitutes either an act of "self-defense" or the "stopping of an actual or imminent threat to the nation." How, then, can Obama's campaign position possibly be reconciled with his ordering military action in Libya without Congressional approval (something, it should be said, he has not yet done)?
​

​

​

Obama's War on Libya: A Constitutional View

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution has been regularly cited as justification for the President to act with a seemingly free reign in the realm of foreign policy -- including the initiation of foreign wars. But, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the power to declare war, and this power is placed solely in the hands of Congress.

Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States." What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.

Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized."

Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense."

...
...​

Here's the quick overview of how this all plays out:

• In Constitutional terms, the United States is currently at war with Libya.
• Libya is not invading the United States, nor has it threatened to do so.
• Congress has not declared war. Barack Obama did.

Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it's reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.

The only question you should have to ask for this would be -- "where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?"

It doesn't. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation. More on that in a future article, of course.

James Madison had something to say about such a plan when he wrote:

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

War Powers resolution or no war powers resolution -- without a Congressional declaration, the president is not authorized to start an offensive military campaign. Period.

Joe Biden Warned In 2007 That He'd Impeach Bush For Waging War Without Congressional Approval

 

[Giambattista]

I forgot your the nut job who thinks that Obama is a usurper because the majority that elected him doesn't agree with your politics. no Obama acted with in the constitution. just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional
true but there is no need to as it was a legal act

Then again, being an honest person, Obama is really just a puppet himself

and that gets you put firmly in nut job land

Can I call you names because of your poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation?
Can I say you firmly belong in Dildo-Land? Or that you're brainwashed?

By the way, you like my new look, avatar and all?

 

[Tiassa]

(shit)

As far as this thread is concerned, it seems most of the respondents are supportive of this action, and make excuses for Obama based on the actions of previous presidents.
The predictable stance on either side seems to be "It's okay, as long as it's OUR guy doing it."

One doesn't have to like Obama's decision in order to think it's different from Bush's outlook on things.

I'm reluctant to give my outright endorsement because I've wanted Qadafi since I was freaking twelve.

A quarter century. That's two-thirds of my life.

For me, it's not that Obama's doing it, but how he does it. I can't allow myself to say it's okay, as long as it's the guy I've wanted for twenty-five years.

The Colonel is my Number One.

Whatever happens now, this must go well. And I don't think it will. That is the problem I face.

It is, apparently, Qadafi's turn. I don't get to say whether it's right or wrong. I want him finished too badly to make an objective moral assessment of this intervention. They better do it right, and I don't think they will.

But there is no constituional question, as far as I am concerned. This was done under the purview of the United Nations and our contribution thereunto. That is not a congressional matter. It falls under State and Defense, and inevitably the Executive.

But we don't get to shoot him. We don't get to end him. We are not at war.

It's actually quite simple this time.

And the Marine deployments make sense. The question is whether or not the jobs they are given are the right ones. That is, the idea of emergency rescue and humanitarian assistance is great, and who better than the Corps?

But using that as a platform for an invasion or occupation? At that point, I believe we require a declaration of war.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt that somewhere among those Marines are a sniper or three who will eventually be painting targets. I mean, shit, we're the United States of America. What kind of humanitarian mission do we go on that doesn't involve blowing up a lot more shit than we already have?

I expect this will go poorly.

 

[Giambattista]

But there is no constituional question, as far as I am concerned. This was done under the purview of the United Nations and our contribution thereunto. That is not a congressional matter. It falls under State and Defense, and inevitably the Executive.

That's the flaw in your thinking. The United Nations makes null and void our Constitutional checks and balances.

Like I said, why do we even bother having a government. Let the UN and multi-national corporations rule over us. We're more than halfway to neo-serfdom as it is. Let's just be honest and admit it.

The NWO has good intentions.

 

[iceaura]

W and Co. should have been held accountable. Period.

So let's see you work on that, loudly and publicly - impeachment is possible still, for W and Cheney, and conviction would remove much of their legal armor and societal privileges. Their crimes were so much more serious than Obama's so far (Obama has been mainly just continuing their setup in milder and less batshit form), and convicting them would be of so much more benefit to the country at so much less cost in governing capablity, that it's basically a no-brainer for step one.

But failing that: after so many years of trying getting absolutely no help at all from the Teabagger crowd with the Republican takeover and the consequences of the Reaganite agenda, it's hard to take you guys seriously when you get bent out of shape about Obama's comparatively minor rule-bendings. Where have you been? If you don't like the unitary executive stuff, saddle up - it's a long road back to the 1970s.

 

[Giambattista]

...
... it's hard to take you guys seriously when you get bent out of shape about Obama's comparatively minor rule-bendings. Where have you been? If you don't like the unitary executive stuff, saddle up - it's a long road back to the 1970s.

Who's "you guys"? Why is it that when someone is opposed to Obama, they're suddenly "you guys" or defenses invoking the name Reagan/Bush, etc, get thrown around as if it's one or the other, all or nothing? What is this two-sided battle of the ideologies or demagogues, as if there are only two options?

If you can find anywhere in my posts that I have supported Bush, Cheney, or any of the neocon clique, I would be quite surprised.

Bush is no longer in the White House, and his actions don't justify what Obama does.

And what does "unitary executive" mean, exactly?

 

[Giambattista]

What's more, Obama's hasty, unconstitutional actions have basically committed US forces until the issue is resolved.
It's pretty hard to launch fighter jets and missile strikes on a country, and say after the fact that you don't really intend anything more. You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

And what is this issue? Hillary has made it pretty clear that the issue isn't over until Gadhaffi/Qadaffi or however you want to spell it, is ousted.

The president, who just wrapped up a five-day trip to Latin America, has insisted that the goal of the U.N.-sanctioned military mission is strictly to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Specifically, the mission is meant to prevent a slaughter of Libyan rebels and other civilians by forces loyal to strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

Obama, however, has also said the administration's ultimate objective is Gadhafi's removal from power. U.S. officials have indicated they hope the dictator will be removed quickly by forces currently loyal to him, though they haven't publicly called for a coup.

"Gadhafi has a decision to make and the people around him each have decisions to make," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday. "We would certainly encourage that they make the right decision."

So it's a peace keeping mission, but the ultimate goal is regime change?

And a no-fly zone ---> bombardment --> eventual ground campaign ---> removal of a sitting head of government is only a peace keeping mission? When do they call it what it is: a war? It sure looks like one to me.


You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

Lord knows this can easily fan the flames of terrorism, whether real, staged, or imagined. Which only makes the imperative for a full invasion that much more likely.
"Ooops, I just like, accidentally broke a bunch of vases in this china shop. Sorry! Oh, by the way, could you do your duty and pay for all that? After all, it was done on company time."

I love this. Use a feeble excuse to get your foot in the door, and then cause havoc beyond the point of no return. Then you can do this :shrug: and say, "We have no choice now but to see this through to the end."

Especially if there are backlashes, violent ones, because of this.

 

[iceaura]

Who's "you guys"? -

The Teabagger types who draw Hitler moustaches on Obama, and think they were properly opposed back in the W times but don't know what "unitary executive" refers to.

What's more, Obama's hasty, unconstitutional actions have basically committed US forces until the issue is resolved.
It's pretty hard to launch fighter jets and missile strikes on a country, and say after the fact that you don't really intend anything more. You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

The US enforced no-fly zones over Iraq for Clinton's entire tenure, without invading. We left the former Yugoslavia after serious airstrikes without the issue being resolved - just stopped rocketing and bombing.

 

[spidergoat]

What's more, Obama's hasty, unconstitutional actions have basically committed US forces until the issue is resolved.
It's pretty hard to launch fighter jets and missile strikes on a country, and say after the fact that you don't really intend anything more. You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

And what is this issue? Hillary has made it pretty clear that the issue isn't over until Gadhaffi/Qadaffi or however you want to spell it, is ousted.



So it's a peace keeping mission, but the ultimate goal is regime change?

And a no-fly zone ---> bombardment --> eventual ground campaign ---> removal of a sitting head of government is only a peace keeping mission? When do they call it what it is: a war? It sure looks like one to me.


You can't engage in that kind of assault and expect to be able to just walk away.

Lord knows this can easily fan the flames of terrorism, whether real, staged, or imagined. Which only makes the imperative for a full invasion that much more likely.
"Ooops, I just like, accidentally broke a bunch of vases in this china shop. Sorry! Oh, by the way, could you do your duty and pay for all that? After all, it was done on company time."

I love this. Use a feeble excuse to get your foot in the door, and then cause havoc beyond the point of no return. Then you can do this :shrug: and say, "We have no choice now but to see this through to the end."

Especially if there are backlashes, violent ones, because of this.

Fuck Qaddafi and all dictatorial pieces of motherfucking ass. Bring on the shit, we will kill you. And if we die in the process, it will be worth it to eventually free the world from your degenerate presence.

 

[Giambattista]

The Teabagger types who draw Hitler moustaches on Obama, and think they were properly opposed back in the W times but don't know what "unitary executive" refers to.

Teabagger: what does that mean, exactly? How does it apply to this discussion, and what kind of argument are you making here?
BTW the LaRouche people drew that moustache. I guess they're Teabaggers as well. Whatever that means...

What does "properly opposed back in the W times" mean? How is one "properly" opposed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

I don't quite get how anything there gives any president the right to wage war without consent of Congress.
You can feel free to enlighten me.
On second thought, perhaps I can see how someone would attempt to make an argument, but certainly not a very good one.

The US enforced no-fly zones over Iraq for Clinton's entire tenure, without invading. We left the former Yugoslavia after serious airstrikes without the issue being resolved - just stopped rocketing and bombing.

The No-fly zone was a holdover from the ceasefire after the First Gulf War. Right or wrong, it was merely extended through Clinton's presidency. It didn't begin in lieu of prior hostilities and war.

I just don't see how any of that justifies what our current president is doing.

 

[Giambattista]

Fuck Qaddafi and all dictatorial pieces of motherfucking ass. Bring on the shit, we will kill you. And if we die in the process, it will be worth it to eventually free the world from your degenerate presence.

Do not weep, o blind reactionary!
I think you should organize a militia, arrange a shipment of weapons to a friendly port in Libya, and take yourself over there and get in on the action, firsthand.

 

[iceaura]

I don't quite get how anything there gives any president the right to wage war without consent of Congress.
You can feel free to enlighten me.

I don't think it does. I don't think it did back when the Raganites were vesting the President with war powers, and you guys were nowhere to be seen.

You're a bit late to this party, is all - settle in, look around, drop the hysteria, realize it took a few years to dig into this hole and we'll be a long time digging back out.

 

[spidergoat]

Do not weep, o blind reactionary!
I think you should organize a militia, arrange a shipment of weapons to a friendly port in Libya, and take yourself over there and get in on the action, firsthand.

I already voted for Obama to kick ass, and he is, this is the modern militia, eviscerating big brother before it can become comfortable in it's desert perch.

 

[Giambattista]

I don't think it does. I don't think it did back when the Raganites were vesting the President with war powers, and you guys were nowhere to be seen.

You're a bit late to this party, is all - settle in, look around, drop the hysteria, realize it took a few years to dig into this hole and we'll be a long time digging back out.

I still don't get the "you guys" thing nor the Teabagger shtick. Stop calling anyone who dislikes Obama a "Teabagger". Not only is it childish, but it's getting damn old.
You should drop the fat paint brush and try to stay within the lines.

And I wasn't exactly mature enough to care about what Reagan was doing, though I'm sure I would not have approved. Look, they erased his memory anyway. Well, not the collective memory...

 

[iceaura]

Stop calling anyone who dislikes Obama a "Teabagger".

I'm not. I'm calling anyone who posts pictures of Obama with a drawn on Hitler moustache, and complains about high handed Presidential warmaking as if it were a sudden emergency without any reference to W&Cheney, a Teabagger.

But the suggestion was sincere - you want to impeach this kind of Presidency, start with W or Cheney. Low cost, big reward.

 

[chimpkin]

I think this comes under treaty actions as part of NATO...and treaty is considered law of the land under the constitution.
So it's not the UN ordering us to do this, it's a NATO action authorized by the UN.

I personally find Obama much less worthy of impeachment than W....and Obama's following a long tradition of what's called the "unitary executive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Presidents more or less use force without running to congress, basically, and always have, although the founders did not intend that they should.

For instance, Teddy Roosevelt was denied money to send Naval vessels to Japan to intimidate the Japanese into trade...but he had enough money to send the naval ships there. So he did, and basically dared congress not to give them the return fare.

There's way too much precedent to start screaming "IMPEACH!" about all that now.

 

[phlogistician]

your picture and complete left wing attitude..

'left wing attitude', ffs kid, get a grip. I'm left wing, and I agree with action against Libya.

 

[phlogistician]

Look, it's nice to consider such errors in history, but that doesn't excuse current errors. 2 Wrongs...

Not two wrongs, just two non-wars. You are barking up the wrong tree.