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.

[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?