|
Bit of news from Misrata:quote:Direct from Misratah: Sounds of fighter jets can be heard over the skies of Misratah right now, and the noise of explosions is also audible but residents are unable to pinpoint its exact source. quote:BREAKING: Reports that Gaddafi's brigade in #Misrata has been bombed by the coalition - unconfirmed. Trying to confirm..
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
There is fighting breaking out between military factions in southern Yemen right now. Don't know if it's the traditional factions that have been fighting eachother for a long time already, or if it's related to the military split from the President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Bit of news from Misrata: quote:01:11 Direct from Misratah CONFIRMED: Gaddafi’s forces which are stationed in the square near the Central Hospital have been targeted with air strikes. The fighter jets are still flying above Misratah
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:There is fighting breaking out between military factions in southern Yemen right now. Don't know if it's the traditional factions that have been fighting eachother for a long time already, or if it's related to the military split from the President. Do you have a link? There were some clashes in al-Jawf, but it's not related to this recent split. edit: Or rather, somewhat unrelated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Do you have a link? There were some clashes in al-Jawf, but it's not related to this recent split. Sorry, was watching the AJE livestream, it was only a snippet, they'll probably talk about it agian, if they verify anything from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
farraday posted:I think your context for that is a little too westernized bourgeoisie where physical butchery of animals happens steps removed from consumption, but I can't swear that it makes a difference to what you're talking about and it's not really all that relevant to the point. Mm not really. Facets of organized crime are known to train hitmen by putting them to work in a slaughterhouse, and desensitize them to killing things. It's a simple universal psychological effect. I agree with you and think that the religious and loyalty reasons are the main thing for this though - but in any case, it's a deliberately barbaric act given the religious significance. Whatever the reason it's still a somewhat symbolically cowardly act - ritual slaughter/mutilation of a defenseless well-liked 'unclean' animal in the arab world. By a supposedly sophisticated military power. This is death-cult level bullshit going on. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:There is fighting breaking out between military factions in southern Yemen right now. Don't know if it's the traditional factions that have been fighting eachother for a long time already, or if it's related to the military split from the President. Xandu posted:Do you have a link? There were some clashes in al-Jawf, but it's not related to this recent split. From AJE's Live Blog of Yemen: quote:7:09pm
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
Korak posted:Gaddhafi really does enjoy living in tents. "I fear no one! Gosh I sure am brave!" *hides behind human shields*
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
The news of Gad forces being destroyed inside Misratah is great. It might suggest that there are special forces inside the city lasering targets. It would explain why coalition forces left this type of action so late- special forces might have been infiltrating the city covertly. If not, this will prove whether or not coalition forces can pinpoint enemy vehicles inside the towns, which would be a huge boost for rebel morale and operations/organisation. vvvvvvv This is a UN sanctioned resolution to enforce a no fly zone, it's not really war. Why would Obama need congress approval? (I'm not american so have no idea how that works, honestly curious why) Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
By the way, is Obama using the 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution? Or has Congress given him an ok here (doubtful.) (I know: authorized use of force? Hahaha how quaint! A vestigial limb of the Republic period.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Narmi posted:From AJE's Live Blog of Yemen: Ah, thanks. Yeah, the presidential guard is really the last loyal force. thankfully the fighting hasn't broken out in San'aa yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:By the way, is Obama using the 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution? Or has Congress given him an ok here (doubtful.) Under the act, the President has 60 days to ask for authorization plus and extension period of some number of days -- I think 60 more. He has to notify congress within 2 days, which he did yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:The news of Gad forces being destroyed inside Misratah is great. It might suggest that there are special forces inside the city lasering targets. It would explain why coalition forces left this type of action so late- special forces might have been infiltrating the city covertly. If not, this will prove whether or not coalition forces can pinpoint enemy vehicles inside the towns, which would be a huge boost for rebel morale and operations/organisation. Yes. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp Invasions of airspace trigger the Resolution. Thanks for the link JIR499! That answers my question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:By the way, is Obama using the 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution? Or has Congress given him an ok here (doubtful.) There are those who say Obama has already violated the Constitution, and there are those who don't care that he violated anything, just that he didn't react quickly enough in Libya, and there are those who are not pleased that he's ignoring the plight of Bahrain and Yemen who face similar reprisals as the Libyans did/do. There's also some random blogger accusing him of wagging the dog to cover up the brutal murders done by some soldiers in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
Well he clearly didn't violate the Constitution. Unless you think the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:By the way, is Obama using the 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution? Or has Congress given him an ok here (doubtful.) The 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution applies only to circumstances where the country is under attack or has been seriously threatened. That doesn't apply here. Obama is entirely off the grid as to where, exactly, he's getting the authority for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well he clearly didn't violate the Constitution. Unless you think the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. There's also this http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304909
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:The 60 day window of the War Powers Resolution applies only to circumstances where the country is under attack or has been seriously threatened. That doesn't apply here. I don't know where you got that interpretation of the War Powers Resolution from, but it is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I don't know where you got that interpretation of the War Powers Resolution from, but it is wrong. Citing from the link you just provided with the text of the War Powers Resolution: quote:(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Obama does not have a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency. EDIT: Depressingly, however, this isn't really worth getting up in arms about. If Obama had followed proper procedure and gone to Congress, he would have gotten his authorization for this massive mistake, but it's just especially glaring that he clearly knows better and yet has no problem with doing things he's previously said on the record are not within the President's power. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Korak posted:Gaddhafi really does enjoy living in tents. Ghaddafi sounds like a character from Dune.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
That's why he put that nice little paragraph in his letter to Congress about Libyan instability maybe, kinda, perhaps threatening American "national security interests".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Citing from the link you just provided with the text of the War Powers Resolution: Yeah I know but that's why there is the War Powers Resolution because it is a compromise between Congress and the executive. The executive has 60 days to do things and the he must have Congressional approval. (that is a summary at least)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Went to a seminar run by two international law professors today, one stated that he thinks that the ambiguity of the resolution would allow for ground forces to be used in some capacity, as long as an argument could be made that they're not an occupying force. Both thought the actions taken are the right thing to do as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Committing forces in hostile situations is clearly within the Executive's power. Congress said it was ok.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah I know but that's why there is the War Powers Resolution because it is a compromise between Congress and the executive. Right but he still has to have any of those three things to start it, the buffer is to basically let the leader get a plan together (because going into war without a plan is the American way) and all, Obama made some mealy-mouth crap of 'well if things get bad there maybe we may kinda be in danger, so send in the bombers dudes' and that really doesn't cut it. Of course no one cares so it's all moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
You guys are reading way too much into Section two. The meat is in sections 4 5 and 6. The 60 day window action does not have to fit the stuff recited in section 2. I mean it is nice if it does of course. euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Went to a seminar run by two international law professors today, one stated that he thinks that the ambiguity of the resolution would allow for ground forces to be used in some capacity, as long as an argument could be made that they're not an occupying force. I think the coalition has already interpreted it this way. I'll have to dig for the source, but I do recall a quote from a UK military briefing that stated ground forces were not completely out of the question (paraphrase.) The door is open for special forces (possibly already happening) to provide forward air control and coordination with rebels. It could extend beyond that, but the rebels would have to be the ones holding territory at the end of the day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
I think that's how he sees it, although he also said he thinks that there are two conflicts happening right now, a NIAC between the Rebel faction (which has territorial control over Benghazi) and Libya as a whole, and an IAC between the Coalition and Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You guys are reading way too much into Section two. the meat is in sections 4 5 and 6. Maybe you'd like to quote the section where it says "The President is released from his previous obligations in using the military and can use them for whatever the gently caress he wants". Because my reading of it is that the standard prerogative still applies, and the main thrust of the first part of Sec. 4 is that you can't game the procedure by sending a bunch of armed troops into a war zone and pretend you're not initiating hostilities and the obligations of the executive to the legislature don't apply. Hell, Section 8 flatly states that the President isn't given a free hand by the resolution: quote:(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
JIR499 posted:Under the act, the President has 60 days to ask for authorization plus and extension period of some number of days -- I think 60 more. He has to notify congress within 2 days, which he did yesterday. Now that letter to keep them informed is pretty quaint 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Maybe you'd like to quote the section where it says "The President is released from his previous obligations in using the military and can use them for whatever the gently caress he wants". Section 8 just says that the resolution does not grant the president any new powers, which makes sense since the whole point of the resolution was to limit presidential power. It is basically a guide for judges to not construe the resolution in a certain way if the president for example finds a loophole or makes some claim that the Resolution grants him novel powers. The current use of force is within the traditional scope of use of force by the commander in chief and it is up to Congress to ratify or stop it should it go beyond sixty days. euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Section 8 just says that the resolution does not grant the president any new powers, which makes sense since the whole point of the resolution was to limit presidential power. It is basically a guide for judges to not construe the resolution in a certain way if the president for example finds a loophole or makes some claim that the Resolution grants him novel powers. I agree. Specfically, in this case, it's specifically attempting to deny the ability of the President to claim powers to send the armed forces whereever he so wishes, without regard for the traditional limitation that the armed forces be used only with the prior authorization of Congress or in the case of a national emergency. Like, for instance, the powers you're trying to claim for the President in this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
Haha, he's using the "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" phrasing at the bottom of the letter. He doesn't want to change the idea that some president may challenge the act as being unconstitutional. (Remember boys and girls, the WPR has been held by every president since Nixon to be an unlawful infringement on the executive's power by Congress, not the other way around.) Edit: thefncrow posted:I agree. Specfically, in this case, it's specifically attempting to deny the ability of the President to claim powers to send the armed forces whereever he so wishes, without regard for the traditional limitation that the armed forces be used only with the prior authorization of Congress or in the case of a national emergency. kw0134 fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
The more important point is that the President does not derive power to commit military force from the UN, which several people both here and in D&D have assumed. The President either has the power to exercise military force as he deems appropriate following its appropriation, or he has the authority as outlined by the war powers resolution. But a UNSCR neither commands nor grants the President the authority to commit force under US law, it just legitimates its use in a way that other member states cannot object.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
Attacking Libya is like walking the dog for an American President. I can't conceive of a more mundane and uncontroversial use of force. Maybe overthrowing Haiti's government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
god why would CNN let Rick Santorum have a voice
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Attacking Libya is like walking the dog for an American President. I can't conceive of a more mundane and uncontroversial use of force. Maybe overthrowing Haiti's government? Hardly uncontroversial. There are those ignorant of what it entails and the reality of the situation in Libya. We even had a poster come in here, where there is all this information to be informed, and say that it's Obama starting another war in the Middle-East (Yes he actually thought Libya is in the Middle-East.) There are also those who just don't like Obama regardless of what he does and use this as hate rhetoric. I suppose they are all short-comings of ignorant people though, not the operation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
A cool drat horse posted:god why would CNN let Rick Santorum have a voice Because balance means hearing out both insanity and reasoned debate. Then you "leave it there" and treat both positions as if they are equally valid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Hardly uncontroversial. There are those ignorant of what it entails and the reality of the situation in Libya. We even had a poster come in here, where there is all this information to be informed, and say that it's Obama starting another war in the Middle-East (Yes he actually thought Libya is in the Middle-East.) There are also those who just don't like Obama regardless of what he does and use this as hate rhetoric. I suppose they are all short-comings of ignorant people though, not the operation. I personally group North Africa with the Middle East but mainly because of the cultural similarities (Read: Islam), however there is also some opposition from informed people and this about sums up their argument: quote:Whenever you intervene in a country, whatever your intentions, you are intervening on someone's side. In this case, the United States, France and Britain are intervening in favour of a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have failed to coalesce, at least so far, into a meaningful military force. The intervention may well succeed. The question is whether the outcome will create a morally superior nation. I personally believe that intervention was a good idea, because I'd rather have a fragile political situation in Libya rather than a situation where Gaddafi is killing hundreds of suspected rebels out of revenge, but there is a somewhat decent argument against intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Hardly uncontroversial. There are those ignorant of what it entails and the reality of the situation in Libya. We even had a poster come in here, where there is all this information to be informed, and say that it's Obama starting another war in the Middle-East (Yes he actually thought Libya is in the Middle-East.) There are also those who just don't like Obama regardless of what he does and use this as hate rhetoric. I suppose they are all short-comings of ignorant people though, not the operation. It was sarcasm  Anyway my personal opinion is that the executive has WAY too much power and Congress too little w/r/t use of force. I also think Congress and especially the Senate should be reformed to be more directly democratic. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:21
|
|