Official notification

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE


March 21, 2011



Dear Mr. Speaker:
(Dear Mr. President:)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.




BARACK OBAMA
 
So, are you satisfied now?

i don't see how he can be satisfied. using his understanding of the war powers act....notification or consultation after the fact is not in line with a plain reading of the law. that said, i'm not sure our president has authority to launch such actions. however, the congress has given the president to launch actions for decades and it didn't matter if the president was a pub or a lib.
 
The military action against Libya is perfectly constitutional. As I pointed out yesterday, Jefferson and Madison took exactly the same course of action, even against the same country, during the First and Second Barbary War - again, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The Constitution clearly grants this power to the President in Article II, Section II of the Constitution.

I respect Ron Paul, but he's wrong on this issue.
 
Acting while Congress was in recess, without constitutional authority, Barack Obama authorized the deployment of over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles and has violated the sovereignty of Libya.

Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution assigns the power to declare war solely to Congress.

Section 3 of the War Powers Act specifically addresses what Barack Obama has done.

The War Powers Act is meaningless if it violates the Constitution. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces according to Article II, Section II of the Constitution. If the War Powers Act conflicts with this article, the War Powers Act is invalid.
 
i don't see how he can be satisfied. using his understanding of the war powers act....notification or consultation after the fact is not in line with a plain reading of the law. that said, i'm not sure our president has authority to launch such actions. however, the congress has given the president to launch actions for decades and it didn't matter if the president was a pub or a lib.
Just when has a Republican president acted or used the military without PRIOR knowledge of the Congress, when there was no direct threat or attack.?
 
Last edited:
The military action against Libya is perfectly constitutional. As I pointed out yesterday, Jefferson and Madison took exactly the same course of action, even against the same country, during the First and Second Barbary War - again, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The Constitution clearly grants this power to the President in Article II, Section II of the Constitution.

I respect Ron Paul, but he's wrong on this issue.
Lets get real here mate...Its not the 1800's and Jefferson is not president

There was no War Powers Act then and the whole reason there is one now was to limit a president in using our military at his own discretion...

Libya was not a danger to us by any stretch and did not attack us in any way...

Try again.
 
The War Powers Act is meaningless if it violates the Constitution. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces according to Article II, Section II of the Constitution. If the War Powers Act conflicts with this article, the War Powers Act is invalid.
Sorry....the War Powers Act is certainly not invalid until the SCOTUS says it is....
 
Just when has a Republican president acted or used the military without PRIOR knowledge of the Congress, when there was no direct threat or attack.?

I keep telling you reagan did it, and you keep ignoring that fact.

Here’s a history flashback to April 15, 1986, when President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi in response to Gadhafi’s direct order to carry out a terrorist bombing in Germany that killed two U.S. Soldiers, and wounded 50 others at a nightclub. Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli, and was roundly criticized for it by Democrats and those on the Left. Reagan ordered the attack without seeking Congressional approval in advance.

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/...spone-to-gadhafi-terror-attack-video-4151986/
 
I keep telling you reagan did it, and you keep ignoring that fact.

Here’s a history flashback to April 15, 1986, when President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi in response to Gadhafi’s direct order to carry out a terrorist bombing in Germany that killed two U.S. Soldiers, and wounded 50 others at a nightclub. Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli, and was roundly criticized for it by Democrats and those on the Left. Reagan ordered the attack without seeking Congressional approval in advance.

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/...spone-to-gadhafi-terror-attack-video-4151986/

Yeah, you keep repeating your leftwing blogger bullshit over and over, so I'll try it again...

On March 24, 1986, Libya launched six SA-5 missiles against the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which was conducting maneuvers nearby in the Mediterranean. The attacks failed, and in subsequent strikes and counterstrikes, the Americans sunk two Libyan vessels.

On April 5, 1986, a bomb exploded in Berlin's La Belle discotheque, killing a U.S. soldier and a Turkish civilian, and injuring some 200 others, including 63 U.S. soldiers.

Ten days later, late in the evening of April 15, the United States prepared for air strikes against Libyan ground targets in five areas: the Aziziya barracks, known as a command and control post for terrorist activities; the military facilities at the Tripoli international airport; the Side Bilal base, said to be a facility for training terrorists in underwater sabotage; the Jamahariya military barracks in Benghazi, another terrorist command post; and the Benina air base southeast of Benghazi.

You might prefer to ignore what happened 12 days before the discotheque bombing, I don't...
1...Libya attacked the Navy Fleet in the Med....
2...Libya bombed the discotheque
3...Reagan approved air strikes in Libya....

These are the historical facts...
Obama circumstances and Reagans are NOT the same....they're hardly similar.

Obama DID NOT respond to an attack or even a threat against the US or our troops...THAT is the fact of the matter.:fu:
 
Lame comeback, Onceler. I, personally, have no issue with what Obama is doing in Libya (not a huge fan of interventionism, but I see no harm in it, and the Arab League and UN support it), but Bravo's arguments are actually pretty well-founded...
 
Lame comeback, Onceler. I, personally, have no issue with what Obama is doing in Libya (not a huge fan of interventionism, but I see no harm in it, and the Arab League and UN support it), but Bravo's arguments are actually pretty well-founded...

Bravo is pathetic. He drank gallons of koolaid during Iraq, then tried to pawn it off onto Democrats when it went south. He has spent the 1st 2 years of Obama's admin lambasting him for having a soft foreign policy and being reluctant to use force, and then agrees w/ the idea of impeachment when the U.S. participates in a UN-authorized NFZ for Libya.

His only consideration for any action or decision is whether it's done by a Democrat, or Republican. That's it.

As I have stated, I have only supported one military action by the U.S. in my lifetime (that I can think of), and that was under a Republican President...
 
Thats all hes got, King....in short, nothing....

Its just what they do......
Jarod gets going when the going gets tough
Apple starts with the sexual innuendos
Topspin starts with the ged bullshit
Christie starts trying to spin a comparison to some Repub.
TCLib just repeats himself over and over, interspersed with his pet slams for Conservatives and links to earlier posts
Lorax gets personal, trys to be clever, and as a last resort, mis-states, mis-characterizes and lies.
And they all try to pass off Huffington or DailyKOS or some other far-left opinions as proof they are somehow right...

They all have their own little shtick they do...everything but address the facts you post, or make an attempt to refute your logic.
 
Bravo is pathetic. He drank gallons of koolaid during Iraq, then tried to pawn it off onto Democrats when it went south. He has spent the 1st 2 years of Obama's admin lambasting him for having a soft foreign policy and being reluctant to use force, and then agrees w/ the idea of impeachment when the U.S. participates in a UN-authorized NFZ for Libya.

His only consideration for any action or decision is whether it's done by a Democrat, or Republican. That's it.

As I have stated, I have only supported one military action by the U.S. in my lifetime (that I can think of), and that was under a Republican President...
In reality, I seldom mention Obama but I certainly talk about his policys and issues...
In the issue at hand, I do agree with his overstepping his authority, but impeachment wasn't my idea and isn't my idea, but rather the idea of a bunch of his fellow Democrats....personally I think its bogus and silly and just ain't gonna happen....

I don't second guess any Presidents decisions but I do question the circumstances and reasons for his actions and if they were legal and reasonable and logical....keeping in mind, I'm not privy to the same intelligence he is......

The attempt to compare Bush (Iraq), Reagan (Libya), and Obama (Libya) is ridiculous....
the circumstances surrounding each are completely different.....
 
I am clever; I don't try to be. It's just a natural thing.
Yes...I agree (to a degree)

I thought 3 and 4 in the dictionary were especially on the mark
]
3. smart in a superficial way
4. Brit informal sly; cunning

Resembling Taichiliberal in a big way....smart, but not especially intelligent...
 
Yeah, you keep repeating your leftwing blogger bullshit over and over, so I'll try it again...

On March 24, 1986, Libya launched six SA-5 missiles against the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which was conducting maneuvers nearby in the Mediterranean. The attacks failed, and in subsequent strikes and counterstrikes, the Americans sunk two Libyan vessels.

On April 5, 1986, a bomb exploded in Berlin's La Belle discotheque, killing a U.S. soldier and a Turkish civilian, and injuring some 200 others, including 63 U.S. soldiers.

Ten days later, late in the evening of April 15, the United States prepared for air strikes against Libyan ground targets in five areas: the Aziziya barracks, known as a command and control post for terrorist activities; the military facilities at the Tripoli international airport; the Side Bilal base, said to be a facility for training terrorists in underwater sabotage; the Jamahariya military barracks in Benghazi, another terrorist command post; and the Benina air base southeast of Benghazi.

You might prefer to ignore what happened 12 days before the discotheque bombing, I don't...
1...Libya attacked the Navy Fleet in the Med....
2...Libya bombed the discotheque
3...Reagan approved air strikes in Libya....

These are the historical facts...
Obama circumstances and Reagans are NOT the same....they're hardly similar.

Obama DID NOT respond to an attack or even a threat against the US or our troops...THAT is the fact of the matter.:fu:

Stop moving the goalposts, dunderhead.

The question is whether Obama should have notified Congress beforehand, and BS artists like you are saying he should be impeached for not doing so.

reagan did NOT notify Congress before bombing Libya, but now you're trying to deflect from that fact by including a reason for his actions.

I don't support the attack, but I'm also not spewing your brand of BS, which is condemning Obama for doing the same thing reagan did.
 
Back
Top