Libya air raids hit Gadhafi stronghold of Sirte

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Libya air raids hit Gadhafi stronghold of Sirte

RAS LANOUF, Libya – International air raids targeted Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte for the first time Sunday night as rebels made a high-speed advance toward the regime stronghold, a formidable obstacle that must be overcome for the government opponents to reach the capital Tripoli.

A heavy bombardment of Tripoli also began after nightfall, with at least nine loud explosions and anti-aircraft fire heard, an Associated Press reporter in the city said.

Earlier in the day, rebels regained two key oil complexes along the coastal highway that runs from the opposition-held eastern half of the country toward Sirte and beyond that, to the capital. Moving quickly westward, the advance retraced the steps of the rebels' first march toward the capital. But this time, the world's most powerful air forces have eased the way by pounding Gadhafi's forces for the past week.

Sirte is strategically located about halfway between the rebel-held east and the Gadhafi-controlled west along the coastal highway. It is considered a bastion of support for Gadhafi that will be difficult for the rebels to take and the entrances to the city have reportedly been mined. If the rebels could overcome it, momentum for a march on the capital would skyrocket.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

its looking like the anti gaddafi folks might just be able to remove him thanks to the air invasion by other countries. i understand everyone here, or seems like everyone, doesn't agree that this is an invasion....but....without the air support, the so called rebels, could not advance like they are doing. you have foreign warbirds basically controlling a civil war.

hopefully, this will be over sooner rather than later...and not turn into a decades long struggle like iraq.
 
It's an unconscionable action by the so-called "allies", intervening in an internal Libyan power struggle. I noticed that the hypocrites haven't intervened in other situations in the name of "humanity".

What Obama has done is shameful and of very dubious legality, IMO.
 
Want to know the difference between this and Iraq? Before we got involved, the people of Libya actually undertook to overthrow their own dictator. Same in Egypt and Tunisia. The Iraqi people did not. The Iraqi people sat on their asses and did NOTHING. They didn't want their freedom so bad that they were willing to risk death to gain it. At least in this case we are backing a group of people who WANT their freedom rather than telling people they should want their freedom and then trying to force it on them at the end of a bayonet.
 
Socrtease said:
Want to know the difference between this and Iraq? Before we got involved, the people of Libya actually undertook to overthrow their own dictator. Same in Egypt and Tunisia. The Iraqi people did not. The Iraqi people sat on their asses and did NOTHING. They didn't want their freedom so bad that they were willing to risk death to gain it. At least in this case we are backing a group of people who WANT their freedom rather than telling people they should want their freedom and then trying to force it on them at the end of a bayonet.
Click to expand...

they did nothing? i guess saddam locked up all those citizens because they backed him.....

imo, the reality now is that the people in the middle east see that tyrants like saddam can and will be brought down. you can't compare iraq with egypt, libya etc on an equal playing field. there are comparisons, no doubt, but they are not equal. we almost a decade later in time, social media is huge now....to say that if iraq would not have risen up, given the new tech of social media, is pure speculation. granted, its speculation either way. further, we did spread democracy in iraq, and like it or not (not saying 100% correlation) bush did say that iraq was also about spreading democracy in the ME. i don't think taking down saddam and our situation in iraq since is the direct cause, but there is an argument it could be an indirect cause.
 
Rtber said:
It's an unconscionable action by the so-called "allies", intervening in an internal Libyan power struggle. I noticed that the hypocrites haven't intervened in other situations in the name of "humanity".

What Obama has done is shameful and of very dubious legality, IMO.
Click to expand...

under what laws do you believe this action is legally dubious?
 
Yurt said:
they did nothing? i guess saddam locked up all those citizens because they backed him.....

imo, the reality now is that the people in the middle east see that tyrants like saddam can and will be brought down. you can't compare iraq with egypt, libya etc on an equal playing field. there are comparisons, no doubt, but they are not equal. we almost a decade later in time, social media is huge now....to say that if iraq would not have risen up, given the new tech of social media, is pure speculation. granted, its speculation either way. further, we did spread democracy in iraq, and like it or not (not saying 100% correlation) bush did say that iraq was also about spreading democracy in the ME. i don't think taking down saddam and our situation in iraq since is the direct cause, but there is an argument it could be an indirect cause.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see that argument. Are you able to make it at all? Or is that just 100% pure speculation from a Bush-centric point of view?
 
Yurt said:
so this is going to be the same discussion that you think we had last week? you're just going to repeat yourself ad nauseum?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with you, just ponder this:

One thing Americans do not like, and which many find repugnant, is outright hypocrisy. It eats at the American sense of right and wrong for anyone, much less the President of the United States, to take one position when it is to their advantage (in a Presidential campaign) and then once they acquire the Presidential power, take a completely different position. When this happens voters have every right to feel like they have been duped.

Although some argue that President Obama has the right as Commander in Chief to conduct wars at his whim, the Constitution rests the “sole” power to declare war in the Congress. Moreover, being the President and being called the Commander in Chief does not make or create power for the President to conduct wars.

In fact, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifies: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the Several States, when called into Service of the United States.” Interpreting Article II, Section 2 by its ordinary and plain language, the President is not the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy or anything else until he is “called into actual service of the United States.”

In other words, until an actual war is declared by Congress, there is nothing for the President to command and he is the chief of nothing. Just because there is some ceremonial referral to the President of the United States as Commander in Chief by the media or when he visits military bases or our troops overseas does not make him an actual Commander in Chief in any military sense until “called into actual service” by an act of Congress declaring war.

Barack Obama has involved the United States in a war with Libya in violation of the United States Constitution and in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all had a clear understanding of the War Powers Act during Obama’s campaign for the Presidency but now that they are in power they choose to take an opposite position to that which they previously articulated.

For example, in 2007 Barack Obama told The Boston Globe: “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.” One is hard pressed to see how the President can construe the brutality of Muammar Gaddafi as an “actual or imminent threat to the nation”.

While running for President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told The Boston Globe: “…the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any type of strategic bombing - against [another country] without Congressional authorization.”

In similar fashion, Vice President Joe Biden stated: “Congress’s responsibilities could not be clearer. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

Section 3 of the War Powers Act of 1973 specifically states: “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.” There is no exception in the War Powers Act for Obama.

The fact that Gaddafi was terrorizing and slaughtering his own people and there was global condemnation of his brutality did not give Obama the right to circumvent Congress and decide to go to war on his own. By the same token, the fact that former President Bill Clinton conducted an illegal and unconstitutional military intervention in the Kosovo Civil War, then in the province of Serbia, did not grant any right to Barack Obama beyond that granted him in the Constitution. Serbia, like Libya, did not present a threat to the United States, but in both cases the Democratic President went to war with those nations anyway. Nor does the 1986 attack on Gaddafi, ordered by President Reagan, grant the authority to declare war to Obama.

The Washington Times newspaper has it right. An editorial headline states: “Obama’s illegal war. Congress, not the UN, should authorize force against Libya.” The Washington Times said: “Removing Muammar Gaddafi from power would probably advance the cause of freedom, but the United Nations has no legal authority to take a step of this magnitude. By bowing to the will of the UN Security Council, President Obama is diluting the sovereign power of the United States.”

http://www.theknoxvillejournal.com/...as-Hypocrisy-Violation-of-War-Powers-Act.html
 
Onceler said:
I'd love to see that argument. Are you able to make it at all? Or is that just 100% pure speculation from a Bush-centric point of view?
Click to expand...

No answer on this one? I was genuinely curious to see if you really had an argument for it, or if you were just throwing it out there because you love Bush so much....
 
Rtber said:
I'm not going to argue with you, just ponder this:

One thing Americans do not like, and which many find repugnant, is outright hypocrisy. It eats at the American sense of right and wrong for anyone, much less the President of the United States, to take one position when it is to their advantage (in a Presidential campaign) and then once they acquire the Presidential power, take a completely different position. When this happens voters have every right to feel like they have been duped.

Although some argue that President Obama has the right as Commander in Chief to conduct wars at his whim, the Constitution rests the “sole” power to declare war in the Congress. Moreover, being the President and being called the Commander in Chief does not make or create power for the President to conduct wars.

In fact, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifies: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the Several States, when called into Service of the United States.” Interpreting Article II, Section 2 by its ordinary and plain language, the President is not the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy or anything else until he is “called into actual service of the United States.”

In other words, until an actual war is declared by Congress, there is nothing for the President to command and he is the chief of nothing. Just because there is some ceremonial referral to the President of the United States as Commander in Chief by the media or when he visits military bases or our troops overseas does not make him an actual Commander in Chief in any military sense until “called into actual service” by an act of Congress declaring war.

Barack Obama has involved the United States in a war with Libya in violation of the United States Constitution and in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all had a clear understanding of the War Powers Act during Obama’s campaign for the Presidency but now that they are in power they choose to take an opposite position to that which they previously articulated.

For example, in 2007 Barack Obama told The Boston Globe: “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.” One is hard pressed to see how the President can construe the brutality of Muammar Gaddafi as an “actual or imminent threat to the nation”.

While running for President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told The Boston Globe: “…the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any type of strategic bombing - against [another country] without Congressional authorization.”

In similar fashion, Vice President Joe Biden stated: “Congress’s responsibilities could not be clearer. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

Section 3 of the War Powers Act of 1973 specifically states: “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.” There is no exception in the War Powers Act for Obama.

The fact that Gaddafi was terrorizing and slaughtering his own people and there was global condemnation of his brutality did not give Obama the right to circumvent Congress and decide to go to war on his own. By the same token, the fact that former President Bill Clinton conducted an illegal and unconstitutional military intervention in the Kosovo Civil War, then in the province of Serbia, did not grant any right to Barack Obama beyond that granted him in the Constitution. Serbia, like Libya, did not present a threat to the United States, but in both cases the Democratic President went to war with those nations anyway. Nor does the 1986 attack on Gaddafi, ordered by President Reagan, grant the authority to declare war to Obama.

The Washington Times newspaper has it right. An editorial headline states: “Obama’s illegal war. Congress, not the UN, should authorize force against Libya.” The Washington Times said: “Removing Muammar Gaddafi from power would probably advance the cause of freedom, but the United Nations has no legal authority to take a step of this magnitude. By bowing to the will of the UN Security Council, President Obama is diluting the sovereign power of the United States.”

http://www.theknoxvillejournal.com/...as-Hypocrisy-Violation-of-War-Powers-Act.html
Click to expand...

i "pondered"....now how does the above fit in with our discussion? you are essentially citing others, i want to know from you, how you believe the war or action is illegal.

okay post, but i would like to hear your thoughts.

to be fair- my thoughts are:

the military action in libya is not illlegal, nor is it a declaration of war. i do believe it is an invasion, as i do not understand how you can consider warbirds over a country, missiles landing in the country, not an invasion. technically, obama could be in hot water if he didn't notify congress, however, from what i've read in the news, he did after the fact. that is under the purview of the war powers act. under the constitution, imo, obama broke no law, nor did he violate the constitution.
 
You asked why I consider Obama's actions legally dubious.

Section 3 of the War Powers Act reads “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”

Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution reads “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

I believe Obama has violated both.
 
Onceler said:
What's the argument? Is there any connection or causality?
Click to expand...
The idea is that our liberation of Iraq was supposed to galvanize neighboring ME countries (most notably Iran) that change and revolution were possible, AND would gain U.S. support. The populations of those nations are more ripe for rebellion. Young men who are dissatisfied with the government they currently live under. After the first couple of years these predictions were written off as failures, as we hadn't seen any rebellions. However, they seem to be springing up like weeds now. Whether or not it ACTUALLY is caused by the Iraq invasion is mostly speculative and would be pretty much impossible to prove either way. But the argument can be made.
 
Rtber said:
You asked why I consider Obama's actions legally dubious.

Section 3 of the War Powers Act reads “The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”

Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution reads “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

I believe Obama has violated both.
Click to expand...

what do you base your belief on?
 
Yurt said:
what do you base your belief on?
Click to expand...

Section 3 of the War Powers Act, which requires a president to enter into Congressional consultation before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, which reserves to Congress the power to declare War and to define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations.
 
Rtber said:
Section 3 of the War Powers Act, which requires a president to enter into Congressional consultation before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, which reserves to Congress the power to declare War and to define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations.
Click to expand...

under the WPA....do you recall reading anything about a 48 hour period?

A1S8 has possibly been violated. as every president and every congress since WW2 has allowed the CIC to engage in war, without calling it war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top