The quote that you referenced was specifically concerning Iran, hence, I also referenced Iran. The situation in Iran, and consequently, the quote concerning Iran, when taken in context(Iran), is different from the situation in Libya.
Originally Posted by thorough9
Yes, the different situations should be examined individually before making the decision to use military force. I never claimed that the situation with Iran is the same as Libya. However...
The fact that they were referencing Iran is extremely relevant because the language reflects the situation. Do you think that they would have used the same language concerning some small rinky-dink country...say New Foundland. Iran is a regional power, an oil exporter, and a threat to stability in the region, not to mention there are troops still in Iraq that can be directly/indirectly harmed by Iran's actions and influences. So kidd-skinned gloves/language was used.
Originally Posted by thorough9
Again, this is irrelevant. There is nothing in U.S. law that states that Iran or Libya have any special exemptions or additions to the President's legal authority to use military force without the approval of Congress. In President Obama's own (accurate) words:
"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
This has nothing to do with any specific nation. Yes, they were speaking of Iran, but the statement above references U.S. law in general. Is there some exception in which if the nation in question is Libya, then the President does have the authority to use military force, even if there is no imminent threat (answer: no)? I'll admit that I'm a bit dumbfounded that you can't seem to grasp this. There is a difference between what one thinks our actions should be, and what is legal according to the letter of the law.
No troops have been sent, and from what i've read, there never will be.
Originally Posted by thorough9
Irrelevant. The War Powers Resolution refers to any use of military force. Air strikes v. using ground troops has no bearing on the situation.
Reagan didn't need congressional authority to bomb Libya, the first time, Clinton didn't need it for Somalia, and apparently, neither does Obama.
Originally Posted by thorough9
I'd have to research those issues to determine the facts, but it is irrelevant. An un-Constitutional act is un-Constitutional, regardless of the man, or the party he represents, who had done it.
I'd hardly call bombing Libya "un-American". Sending Bombs, and a Declaration of war, which involves sending troops and loss of life are very different.
Originally Posted by thorough9
Way to twist my words. I didn't say that bombing Libya is un-American. I had said that allowing the President, any President, to use military force in order to initiate an attack without the approval of Congress is un-American. The only situation a President may do such is if he were responding to an imminent threat. Obviously, if we were in peril, or another nation had declared war on us, then the President would be well within his rights to respond. As for initiating, that should be through Congress. The bottom line is that one man should not have the power to wage war; to allow such is a grave threat to our way of life.
