Can Obama order troops to bomb another country?

[Rochard]

On a few non adult boards it seems there is a lot of discussion about if the President of the United States can order the US Military to attack another country without approval from Congress.

What does GFY think?

[pristine]

who cares

[baddog]

NATO trumps the Constitution.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Yes and no. In the case of Libya no.

[BV]

They attacked us right? (shot down one of our planes) He just has to notify Congress in 48 hours.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...3----000-.html

Congress itself can also declare war, but remember that the president can veto their decision.

[kane]

The way I understand it he can only do so if they pose a imminent danger to the US. However, I think in the case of Libya we did it as part of a UN security council resolution so he doesn't need authority since we are part of the UN.

[arock10]

lol iraq?

[jimmy-3-way]

*waves to all the morons who haven't paying attention for say...50 years of creeping executive power*

[SleazyDream]

Originally Posted by pristine

who cares

i do

[jimmy-3-way]

Originally Posted by arock10

lol iraq?

lol afghanistan, lol sudan, lol bosnia, lol all the other ones I can't think of.

[JosephFM]

First everybody was bitching he was doing nothing to help the Libyan people get rid of that crazy fuck and now that something is being done they are bitching about it too.

F@king politics.

Then again, why are we helping the Lybian people from getting massacred and not doing something about genocide going on other African countries? Oh wait, Lybia is too close to Europe and they need their oil.

Hell, Qhadafi might be a crazy fuck but at least he's "anti al-qaeda".

Who knows what's going to happen now.

[TylerBang]

Originally Posted by Rochard

On a few non adult boards it seems there is a lot of discussion about if the President of the United States can order the US Military to attack another country without approval from Congress.

What does GFY think?

I think it depends on the scope of the attack. A series of air strikes as part of an international rapid reaction or no-fly zone is not on the same scale as mobilizing divisions of Marines and Soldiers and launching an all out war because years ago the bad guy was menacing someone. I think if we see Obama talking about how gadhaffi threatened his Kenyan daddy once and how he wants to be a 'war president' like Bush used to say, or he starts mobilizing whole divisions then we will see the anti-war people marching in cities again.
I do expect to see Pres. O. in front of Congress soon if the situation escalates.

[Rangermoore]

Maybe this will clear up your question... Basically the President has 90 days without getting approval from congress. He just has to "Notify Congress within 48hrs"

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

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

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by Rangermoore

Maybe this will clear up your question... Basically the President has 90 days without getting approval from congress. He just has to "Notify Congress within 48hrs"

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541?1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

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

That does not give him authorization to just bomb anyone.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by TylerBang

I think it depends on the scope of the attack. A series of air strikes as part of an international rapid reaction or no-fly zone is not on the same scale as mobilizing divisions of Marines and Soldiers and launching an all out war because years ago the bad guy was menacing someone. I think if we see Obama talking about how gadhaffi threatened his Kenyan daddy once and how he wants to be a 'war president' like Bush used to say, or he starts mobilizing whole divisions then we will see the anti-war people marching in cities again.
I do expect to see Pres. O. in front of Congress soon if the situation escalates.

Scope of the attack has NOTHING to do with.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by JosephFM

First everybody was bitching he was doing nothing to help the Libyan people get rid of that crazy fuck and now that something is being done they are bitching about it too.

F@king politics.

Then again, why are we helping the Lybian people from getting massacred and not doing something about genocide going on other African countries? Oh wait, Lybia is too close to Europe and they need their oil.

Hell, Qhadafi might be a crazy fuck but at least he's "anti al-qaeda".

Who knows what's going to happen now.

Got to love it huh?

Obama at one point blasted Bush saying the President didn't have the right to engage in military action without approval from Congress, but now he's doing it himself. I find that ironic.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by TylerBang

I think it depends on the scope of the attack. A series of air strikes as part of an international rapid reaction or no-fly zone is not on the same scale as mobilizing divisions of Marines and Soldiers and launching an all out war because years ago the bad guy was menacing someone. I think if we see Obama talking about how gadhaffi threatened his Kenyan daddy once and how he wants to be a 'war president' like Bush used to say, or he starts mobilizing whole divisions then we will see the anti-war people marching in cities again.
I do expect to see Pres. O. in front of Congress soon if the situation escalates.

At what point in time did Kennedy get permission to send troops to Vietnam? This was a "military conflict" where no one declared war that ended up with tens of thousands of Americans dead.

[Rangermoore]

Originally Posted by Rochard

At what point in time did Kennedy get permission to send troops to Vietnam? This was a "military conflict" where no one declared war that ended up with tens of thousands of Americans dead.

Good point..!

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Rangermoore

Good point..!

Seems to me like Presidents do this all the time, so why are we making a stink about it now?

No one said anything when Clinton bombed another country? Why is this any difference?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

On a few non adult boards it seems there is a lot of discussion about if the President of the United States can order the US Military to attack another country without approval from Congress.

What does GFY think?

Did Reagan have Congressional approval when he bombed Libya?

[Agent 488]

obama = hitler.

[Eldon Hoke]

Obama does not make decisions. He is just a puppet.

[sperbonzo]

Well, I'm not sure. But I DO know that there is one guy that is definitely against what the president is doing right now.

"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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."

*Senator Barack Obama, 2007*


.

[sperbonzo]

And here is Joe Biden, saying that if Bush bombs Iran without congressional approval, he should be impeached.


.


.

[PStarks]

I just find it amusing how no matter who gets voted in the country seems to stay on the same track. Maybe we should stop talking so much shit about the tinfoil hat shadow gov people?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Well, I'm not sure. But I DO know that there is one guy that is definitely against what the president is doing right now.

"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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."

*Senator Barack Obama, 2007*


.

American politics is amazing. The Republicans will bomb a country and the Democrats will complain loudly saying it's illegal, but then four years later a Democratic does the same exact thing and has to defend himself against the same exact issue he was complaining about. Both sides do this. They've been doing it for decades.

[fatfoo]

United States has many bases in other countries.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

And here is Joe Biden, saying that if Bush bombs Iran without congressional approval, he should be impeached.


.


.

Did you hear what he said at the very end? "With 10 of our 12 divisions tied up in Iran...." When did we invade Iran?

Did I miss that?

[Kiopa_Matt]

Obama can't, but NATO can. The US is a member of NATO, so if NATO goes to war, so does the US. That's the whole basic premise of NATO.

[TheLegacy]

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

Obama can't, but NATO can. The US is a member of NATO, so if NATO goes to war, so does the US. That's the whole basic premise of NATO.

I do not know international laws - but this sounds right. US president can do it if NATO requests it.

[bjlover]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Well, I'm not sure. But I DO know that there is one guy that is definitely against what the president is doing right now.

"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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."

*Senator Barack Obama, 2007*


.

laughing smillies make you look retarded, especially when you dont even understand what NATO is

[Tom_PM]

Whatever Obama does, he's wrong. Just shorthanding the opposition parties position on this and everything else. They only know how to continue to be what they already are.

[Kiopa_Matt]

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

I do not know international laws - but this sounds right. US president can do it if NATO requests it.

I guess I'm not 100% certain either, but I think it's if NATO goes to war, the US MUST go to war as well. They don't really get a choice to sit it out. That's why you see guys like Italy, Spain, and Canada involved in the Libya strikes as well. I'm pretty sure the Canadian parliament didn't authorize the CF-18s for an offensive mission in Libya either. That's because Canada is a member of NATO, and the treaty has already passed the halls of parliament.

That's the whole premise of NATO. Attacking one member nation is the same as attacking all member nations. If NATO goes to war, all member nations go to war. Not sure how valid NATO is anymore considering the cold war ended a wee bit ago, but nonetheless...

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

I guess I'm not 100% certain either, but I think it's if NATO goes to war, the US MUST go to war as well. They don't really get a choice to sit it out. That's why you see guys like Italy, Spain, and Canada involved in the Libya strikes as well. I'm pretty sure the Canadian parliament didn't authorize the CF-18s for an offensive mission in Libya either. That's because Canada is a member of NATO, and the treaty has already passed the halls of parliament.

That's the whole premise of NATO. Attacking one member nation is the same as attacking all member nations. If NATO goes to war, all member nations go to war. Not sure how valid NATO is anymore considering the cold war ended a wee bit ago, but nonetheless...

can't be true, there is plenty of states within nato not involved with this action

think this needs to be based on an invasion

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Whatever Obama does, he's wrong. Just shorthanding the opposition parties position on this and everything else. They only know how to continue to be what they already are.

Your stupid ass did the same for bush. Double standards Ftw.

[Tom_PM]

Stupid ass comments ftw. You sure showed me.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by bjlover

laughing smillies make you look retarded, especially when you dont even understand what NATO is

What makes you look retarded is utterly missing the point of my post.


.

[Vendzilla]

So by the standards of the liberals on this forum, Obama is now a war criminal?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

I guess I'm not 100% certain either, but I think it's if NATO goes to war, the US MUST go to war as well. They don't really get a choice to sit it out. That's why you see guys like Italy, Spain, and Canada involved in the Libya strikes as well. I'm pretty sure the Canadian parliament didn't authorize the CF-18s for an offensive mission in Libya either. That's because Canada is a member of NATO, and the treaty has already passed the halls of parliament.

That's the whole premise of NATO. Attacking one member nation is the same as attacking all member nations. If NATO goes to war, all member nations go to war. Not sure how valid NATO is anymore considering the cold war ended a wee bit ago, but nonetheless...

Wasn't our joining NATO - and agreeing to their terms - agreed to by Congress?

[Barry-xlovecam]

This is thread is academic.

What member of the US Congress wants to run for reelection having voted to save the Qaddafi Dictatorship?

.

[Scootermuze]

Originally Posted by Rochard

At what point in time did Kennedy get permission to send troops to Vietnam? This was a "military conflict" where no one declared war that ended up with tens of thousands of Americans dead.

Actually it was a police action, and you're right.. War was never declared..
I'm not even sure that war was formally declared on Iraq...

[IllTestYourGirls]

NATO approval or request does not equal authority for the president of the United STATES to attack another country.

Just because "it has been done before" does not mean it is legal, correct or moral. People kill other people all the time, does that make it just and legal?

[Rochard]

War Powers Act, Title 50, Chapter 33, section 1542:

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.

I read this as "President must consult with Congress before sending armed forces into hostilities". It says consult, not get permission.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

So by the standards of the liberals on this forum, Obama is now a war criminal?

Simple answer : YES.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Can Obama order troops to bomb another country?

YES WE CAN...

[pornmasta]

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

[cykoe6]

Impeach the war criminal!!! Obama lied and people died!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Rochard

War Powers Act, Title 50, Chapter 33, section 1542:



I read this as "President must consult with Congress before sending armed forces into hostilities". It says consult, not get permission.

yea but what is 'consult' defined as?

[egonspengler3]

Originally Posted by Rochard

On a few non adult boards it seems there is a lot of discussion about if the President of the United States can order the US Military to attack another country without approval from Congress.

What does GFY think?

I say yes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ies.3B_Pardons

egon

[egonspengler3]

Originally Posted by BV

Congress itself can also declare war, but remember that the president can veto their decision.

Veto powers don't apply to declaration of war powers. Veto is only for legislation.

egon