Obama attempting to declare drone attacks as non-hostile

[DeusExMachina]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

The legitimacy of this administration is falling apart. He is gathering a team of lawyers that will argue for him that dropping a bomb from a drone is not a hostile act in order to extend action in Libya past Sunday.

A Vietnam-era law limits military action without congressional support to 60 days. After Sunday he will be in violation of the law.

[Clint45]

In a 32-page document delivered to Congress this week, the White House said that US forces involved in the Nato campaign were merely playing a supporting role. That role, it said, did not match the definition of "hostilities" as described under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. "US military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision," it said. The US role in Libya involves helping Nato aircraft with refuelling operations and assisting with intelligence-gathering, said the White House. The Obama administration insists that the US is not engaged in sustained fighting or "active exchanges of fire with hostile forces" that put US troops at risk.


This appears to be a minor support role to help NATO enforce a no fly restriction over Libyan airspace.


It is nothing like our military's role in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor is it like our role in Somalia or Bosnia. As long as there is a strict limitation on the amount of troops and equipment being used I don't have a problem with this. It would be a stretch to say that use of an armed drone to destroy jets on the ground in conjunction with a NATO peacekeeping operation constitutes an "act of war."

[spyder]

So..... if lets say, China, Russia, or any other country sent a drone in to attack the US, Obama wouldn't have a problem with it? Yep, lets just open that door....

[palepainter]

It would be a stretch to say that use of an armed drone to destroy jets on the ground in conjunction with a NATO peacekeeping operation constitutes an "act of war."
To some extent I agree, no feet on the ground yet. But, turn the tables. I am sure, Libya considers it an act of war. Not like I really care about that either. However, if someone were to drop a bomb or missile into the US to get rid of surveillance drones, it would probably be considered an act of war.

In the end, it will be determined whether or not the constitution was violated regardless of our own opinions on what justifies this as an act of war.

[jerrymrc]

My take is that if you are blowing things up, dropping bombs, shooting at stuff and people in another country and the trigger, joystick, or bomb/bullet came from the USA and is controlled by a US service member then it is an act of war.

Any other twist one might try and put on it is nothing but BS in my mind.

your ether shooting at another country or your not. Millions of dollars spent per month on this say we are.[Rant1]

[Ridge]

"US military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision," it said.

That's a pretty popular thing with the left...saying the law couldn't comprehend this kind of technology, so it is exempt.

[Byte Stryke]

On Thursday, John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives said: "The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we've got drone attacks under way.
"We're spending $10 million a day. We're part of an effort to drop bombs on Gaddafi's compounds. It just doesn't pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities."


^this^

[Irving]

Just like the Mexican drug cartels driving military vehicles across our southern boarder isn't war. Thin ice.

[Scanker19]

I'm just glad we're doing so well as a country we can afford to spend a few extra bucks on another nice country. I'm so glad we paid off our debt.

[XJ]

Is the USMC still "sea-basing" for missions, or did that end back in March?

[Hoosier]

It's clearly an act of war.

Why it hasn't gone to Congress and received funding already I don't understand.

The cost of operations in Libya is a rounding error compared to the amount of money lost, stolen, and wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we can get Gadhaffi dead while .EU nations pick up most (or at least some!) of the tab, then it sounds like a great deal to me. The button pushers in the AF and Navy didn't have any good targets to blow up since '03, let them get their reaper and tomahawk on.

H.

[scratchy]

Would it be hostilities if a belligerent nation flew a drone over DC and unloaded on the mall? How about if they just passively launched an ICBM. Obama's "not engaged in hostilities" fails the smell test.

[colocowboy01]

So..... if lets say, China, Russia, or any other country sent a drone in to attack the US, Obama wouldn't have a problem with it? Yep, lets just open that door....


I thought, on this forum, we were not supposed to ask what if this were happening to our country. That kind of thinking is equated with being liberal and anti-American. We are only supposed to ask if we can kill more foreign people, since that is the "conservative" response.


Spyder, I think Obami would have to have a problem with it because there are enough of us Americans that would force him and Congress to respond accordingly.

[Ronin13]

He's over due, violating law, and congress isn't sending him to the gallows? Since when did congress allow a president to defy them? I clearly remember reading in History class that congress is the only body in this country that can declare war, and thanks to the post-Vietnam legislation the Pres. can only engage in hostilities for 60-days. Congress: WAKE UP!

[hollohas]

Justice Department lawyers and Pentagon lawyers have advised the President that the Libya military action is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, so has much of Congress...but the President is going ahead anyway. $800 million spent so far...doesn't seem like limited involvement to me. Bama is wrong.

What really fries me is that his supporters still support him even though he is doing the opposite of what he promised them. He said he was going to end the wars but all he has done is get involved in another. What kind of CRAZY people continue to blindly support a guy who constantly and openly lies to them? And that's who we are up against to save our country...crazy people. Can't reason with crazy people.

[sniper7]

If he is going to drop bombs I sure wish it was one of the great big ones.

[Byte Stryke]

Treasonous

[Ronin13]

Treasonous

True, but the exception is that most- I'd venture to even say 80%- are just laying there on their belly with their legs secured and ready to take it just like in the showers at San Quentin... no one is really resisting or saying anything about this political sodomy that Barry is committing... big problem in this soldier's eyes and we need to wake the f*** up!

[TFOGGER]

We're just launching "love missiles" at the Libyans...

http://cdn3.benzinga.com/files/weiner.jpg

[Ronin13]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/congress-obama-at-brink-on-libya-war/

Further head butting continues and it may mean the end of NATO... Well we're pretty much screwed either way I guess. But this could mean that congress will put Obama on the spot for breaking the law, but doubtful much will come of it because he'll hide behind some stupid legal jargon and claim that it's not a breach of law.

[cstone]

Maybe President Obama will find a Marine Lt. Col. and a GS-9 secretary (administrative assistant) to shred all of the documents and pretend the administration didn't know what was going on.

The bombing in Libya will continue until morale improves. That is all.

[MED]

He has 60 days to blow-up anything he wants in Libya. The BS to justify any operation after 60 days is an effort to circumvent the limit. The limit is there for a reason; to explain the cost to the public's representatives. If this sitting president wishes to continue operations, get the approval and funding to do so.

[Ronin13]

He has 60 days to blow-up anything he wants in Libya. The BS to justify any operation after 60 days is an effort to circumvent the limit. The limit is there for a reason; to explain the cost to the public's representatives. If this sitting president wishes to continue operations, get the approval and funding to do so otherwise get the **** out if you aren't going to follow the rules!.

Fixed... I'm sure we can all agree.[Beer]

[Byte Stryke]

Fixed... I'm sure we can all agree.[Beer]


no arguments here.

[BigMat]

It would be a stretch to say that use of an armed drone to destroy jets on the ground in conjunction with a NATO peacekeeping operation constitutes an "act of war."


If they were Mexican Drones and US planes on the ground, I have a feeling you would be seeing things differently. I would say the is most certainly an act of war. No-Fly zone means "No-Fly," not "No-Planes."


Edit- this has been addressed, I skipped ahead.

[colocowboy01]

The problem is there are only a few of us that understand that Obami is violating the law, and even less that really care. Many of the Obami supporters just claim, "it is for the best of the country".


We should take the funding for the not-a-war in Libya out of the welfare budget and see if it gets a reaction from the liberals.

[Singlestack]

What is it with Libtard politicians and difficulty with the English language? Firing hellfires via Predators isn't an act of war??? Huh???[NoEvil]

Made me think of Clinton saying "...it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"....

Singlestack