|
Leperflesh posted:No, not really, because we're no longer conducting combat operations in Libya. And haven't been for weeks. That's not at all true. US military drones are still firing on targets in Libya. It sounds like the Pentagon may decide that they need to stop doing that. I'd also be shocked if the CIA "advisors" had left, but that agency has never really cared about the law.
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
t3ch3 posted:That's not at all true. US military drones are still firing on targets in Libya. It sounds like the Pentagon may decide that they need to stop doing that. They may stop doing it for all of a minute, then declare it a new intervention. Or declare that since NATO is in charge, it doesn't count. Or just ignore it entirely and dare congress to call the bluff.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
I believe we covered that the WPR means nothing and after the 60 days it will not affect US operations in Libya. The US isn't even running military operations, so Obama's promise was kept and it's not an issue blah blah blah.. I'm really curious as to what is going down in Tripoli. What could possibly be causing so much gunfire all of a sudden. Brown Moses update ahoy!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They may stop doing it for all of a minute, then declare it a new intervention. Or declare that since NATO is in charge, it doesn't count. Or just ignore it entirely and dare congress to call the bluff. I suspect they'll decide on the latter. I subscribe to the notion that this war was never legal anyway since there was never a threat posed to the United States. I mostly just wanted to point out that Leperflesh was wrong that the US currently is serving only in a "logistic" capacity in the Libyan war. I would also think that was a laughable justification since NATO is an organization effectively operated by the US military, but at least it would be a bit of a fig leaf instead of the current situation where the US military is engaged in combat operations in Libya. Lascivious Sloth posted:The US isn't even running military operations Again, yes it is.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:I'm really curious as to what is going down in Tripoli. What could possibly be causing so much gunfire all of a sudden. If the revolution has fianlly come to Tripoli, the rebels really need to make a point of liberating the Rixos Hotel as a priority. The reason we're not getting anything out of Tripoli from the reporters there is because of all the Qaddafi minders there.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:Again, yes it is. Ah, interesting. I thought we'd stopped firing with the Predators, but I guess not. The article says one option is that they'll stop using them for that tomorrow, which seems likely to me. But my point was more that there's basically no chance congress is going to pick a fight about this one. The President needs a fig leaf, yeah, and we might hear from the likes of Ron Paul, but the vast majority of members of congress will not want to gamble with their re-election chances by taking substantial action against the President's support for "democratic change in the middle east" (nevermind that it's north africa and we've yet to determine that Libya will wind up a democracy). It's too much of a gamble. Outside of congress, though, I fully expect to hear plenty of yammering from Fox News pundits and (unelected) Tea Partiers, not to mention every libertarian on the Internet. I even agree that they have a point - the Constitution clearly gives congress the responsibility for declaring war, and if we've decided that that's no longer practical in the modern world (we have), we ought to pass a constitutional amendment to make it clear.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:I suspect they'll decide on the latter. I subscribe to the notion that this war was never legal anyway since there was never a threat posed to the United States. I would love to agree with that article from the Yale Law Professor, if only he didn't use a massive amount of partisan hyperbole and chose to ignore a huge amount of facts to make his case. Obama, as head of the military, does not have to get congress to declare war for him to deploy troop in a combat role. Only congress having the power to declare war does not mean that only congress can deploy troops into a combat role. This by the way isn't a recent thing that started with Vietnam or the WPA, it's been like this since the days of Madison and Jefferson. Additionally the US acted in support of a UN resolution as a permanent member of it's security council, of which congress would have to declare the UN treaty null and void for the POTUS to be seen as overstepping his bounds of the executive branch by authorizing such force. Congress also has the option to pass legislation halting all funding for military operations in Libya, again something it has not done. Furthermore one could make a case that there was a threat to the US given Qaddafi has targeted both US troops and civilians previously, and (like now) previously congress was not consulted nor did it give approval for military action used against Libya at that time either. Yes I'm talking about the Lockerbie and Berlin attacks to make that case which I'll admit is a very weak case to make, but one that is substantially stronger than never as you and the person you quoted claim.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
The fact that past US administrations have committed war crimes and/or illegally attacked foreign countries does not excuse the actions of the current President, the UN resolution authorizes but does not compel the use of force, and the fact that Congress has not decided to force the President to respect the laws it has passed does not render those laws void. I think the "US interests were threatened" is the least plausible excuse, but it does happen to be the one Obama cited in his letter to Congress in March.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:The fact that past US administrations have committed war crimes and/or illegally attacked foreign countries does not excuse the actions of the current President, the UN resolution authorizes but does not compel the use of force, and the fact that Congress has not decided to force the President to respect the laws it has passed does not render those laws void. I think the "US interests were threatened" is the least plausible excuse, but it does happen to be the one Obama cited in his letter to Congress in March. So Jefferson was wrong for using military force in the first barbary war when congress never voted on an official declaration of war? I bring up that piece of history because it really is the go to point illustrating how the division of controlling the armed forces that exists between the executive and legislative branch is handled in situations where force is needed, yet an official declaration of war is not. It also illustrates that the POTUS did not have to get congressional authorization to deploy US troops into a defensive role when it came to protecting US interests. In a similar manner Obama didn't have to get congressional authorization to deploy US troops because protecting Libyan civilians by deploying US troops in a defensive role, as authorized by the UN resolution, is in the interests of the US due to it being a permanent member of the UN security council.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
There's a very long history of the executive expanding its powers beyond what is constitutionally permissible, going back to Washington, although it didn't really pick up steam until Roosevelt. I don't think pointing to such acts is particularly helpful because it legitimizes the imperial presidency through precedent.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
Let's see, in the Barbary Wars, Jefferson was responding to a declaration of war against the US, protecting US ships that were being attacked, using ships and funds Congress had specifically allocated for that purpose, and still admitted that he wasn't Constitutionally authorized to do any of this, but "eh, what the gently caress I'm gonna do it anyway". And that was all before Congress passed the WPR. So I'd say that's a bit different than the current situation. As for the UN, it gives the United States authorization to use force in Libya, not the President. And the United States could decide against joining the fight in Libya, even though it is a member of the security council. I shouldn't need to point this out, since there are two permanent members of the security council who decided exactly that. Joementum fucked around with this message at 01:29 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Also, I remember the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts under President John Adams. Just because a thing happened while a Founding Father was president doesn't make it constitutional.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
NATO posted:Strikes on Tripoli, Al-Khums and Sirte Welp. There goes the Libyan Navy. The TNC should send its captured ships to harass Brega or to interdict the road between it and El Agheila. Cutting off the supply line to Brega is the simplest way for the Rebels to win, and maybe the only one; I don't see them capable yet to take it by force.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Wasn't CQ threatening to bomb more civilians, spread weapons among loyalist civilians, and turn the thing into a Vietnam Part Two back when we were still pondering a no fly zone? And wasn't he threatening (and now trying) to attack aid ships? And threatening to attack passenger aircraft and boats in the Mediterranean? Because that would have happened even if the US in particular wasn't involved. I'd say those threats against Mediterranean traffic are pretty much a declaration of war against NATO-member civilians if not the countries themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:Welp. There goes the Libyan Navy. Wouldn't that be putting civilians at risk - therefore making such Naval sorties potential targets for NATO themselves? I'm not that knowledgeable as to the specifics of that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Wouldn't that be putting civilians at risk - therefore making such Naval sorties potential targets for NATO themselves? I'm not that knowledgeable as to the specifics of that, though. Many, if not all, of the civilians in Brega fled to Benghazi during the rebels' first big push to Sirte, because of fear of retribution from Qaddafi supporters. Essentially, Brega is filled with Qaddafi paramilitaries and soldiers.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
Legal or not the intervention in Libya is justified, regardless of past precedent in what the US has pushed as justified. To argue it isn't legal or to say it's imperialistic is so far removed from reality I can't believe anyone would take you seriously if you pushed that opinion in real life.  quote:
Yes, blame Israel...  quote:Hezbollah has issued a statement condemning the US sanctions on Syria: How convenient that Hezbollah support a Shi'a president. More hypocracy from extremist groups. quote:Reuters news agency has reported that NATO aircraft sank eight warships belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces in overnight attacks, the alliance said on Friday. quote:Ibrahim also said that its Oil Minister Shokri Ghanem had not defected as was widely reported but was instead on an official trip abroad.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah, after changing hands at least three (?) times, there might not be (m)any civilians in Brega or El Agheila. Besides, attacking a coastal desert road might not be counted as "endangering civilians", I would guess.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
"Are you gonna aim those guns at civilians?" "No." "Sounds good to me."
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:Let's see, in the Barbary Wars, Jefferson was responding to a declaration of war against the US, protecting US ships that were being attacked, using ships and funds Congress had specifically allocated for that purpose, and still admitted that he wasn't Constitutionally authorized to do any of this, but "eh, what the gently caress I'm gonna do it anyway". And that was all before Congress passed the WPR. So I'd say that's a bit different than the current situation. Jefferson ordered US frigates into hostile waters to protect US interests, and those frigates were ordered by and paid for by congress to use at the presidents discretion much like the (overly) massive navy we have today is ordered by and paid for by congress yet the now massive navy can still be used at the discretion of the president to act in a defensive manner without an act of congress in defense of US interests. Furthermore, that quote you just linked about how Jefferson commented on it being a manner of the legislation exclusively. Check out just six lines above that where he states, "Unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel being disabled from committing hostilities, was liberated with it's crew." Right there sets president about how and in what manner the president can use the military provided that congress agrees to pay for it... which they have done and continue to do so I might add. Use them for defense, and use them to disable an enemy from endangering US interests only which is EXACTLY the only things Obama has done here. Now you are correct that the UN resolution only gave authorization for the US to use force, and that the US is not obliged in any way to us it if it chose not to like Russia and China have decided not to. However that does not mean congress has to sign off on the use of such force given that previously congress did order and purchase troops that the president, in accordance with the US constitution, may use at his discretion that which congress has agreed to supply him with. Furthermore congress, in previous sessions, did ratify both the UN and NATO treaties wherein the use of force is already authorized to be used in matters of self defense when it comes to US and it's allies interests. Getting back to the UN resolution only authorizing the use of force and not mandating it, the president is well within his powers to use such force if he feels that it is in defense of US interests both in trade and in terms of honoring past treaties (such as the NATO one) given that no such action supersedes the US constitution in doing so. Oh and King Dopplepopolos, unilaterally suspending something like the first amendment is wildly different than interrupting article 2 section 2 and article 1 section 8 in a manner in which people may not agree with you. This is why I think both t3ch3 and the person he quoted is wrong here, but it's not as if I think their arguments made in regards to the interpretation of those two sections is invalid. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 06:23 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 06:18
|
|
|
I'd just like to point out to those of you debating whether the US went through the proper channels or not when deciding to protect Libya: While it's true that maybe the decision was not taken in a constitutional way, the reason for that was (what was believed to be) an impending human massacre within a very short time frame. Going through the proper channels would have taken more time and possibly caused a huge amount of Libyan civilian deaths. I believe the lives of those people were valued higher than the constitutionality of the decision. It is very, very rare to find yourself in a situation where the decisions are so black-and-white as this time, and were such a huge impact can be made on the fate of a country with such relatively little money and effort. The laws were created in a time were a highly time pressured situation like this couldn't really occur. Today, the situation is much different. My personal opinion is that if there is a law standing in the way of taking a decision like this with as quick a response time as happened this time, then it is that law which needs to be revised, because the world has changed and this was the correct decision taken in an appropriate manner.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Legal or not the intervention in Libya is justified, regardless of past precedent in what the US has pushed as justified. To argue it isn't legal or to say it's imperialistic is so far removed from reality I can't believe anyone would take you seriously if you pushed that opinion in real life. I couldn't agree with you more and that's the real problem I have with organisations like Stop the War. I supported them on Afghanistan and Iraq, but their 'stop colonising Libya!' schtic is a load of old crap. Gaddafi was killing his own people completely at random. The people of Libya wanted us to intervene - they asked for our help. I just don't see how people can justify their opposition to the intervention in Libya when you hear and see what was going on before we got our arses in gear and decided to stop an absolute massacre.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
schadenfraud posted:I couldn't agree with you more and that's the real problem I have with organisations like Stop the War. I supported them on Afghanistan and Iraq, but their 'stop colonising Libya!' schtic is a load of old crap. Gaddafi was killing his own people completely at random. The people of Libya wanted us to intervene - they asked for our help. I just don't see how people can justify their opposition to the intervention in Libya when you hear and see what was going on before we got our arses in gear and decided to stop an absolute massacre. Sometimes when you have a good argument, you want to start using it in places where it doesn't really fit. So a lot of people just dust off the good reasons they had to oppose Iraq and figure it's good enough for any US involvement in the Middle East, or anywhere. Similarly, with Mubarak you saw the standby "he was just a US puppet from the day he went into power" argument, which maybe had some teeth if not as much as some wanted, but then the same people said the same thing without thinking when things heated up in Libya. Or who said, "We're only supporting the rebels so we can get the oil flowing!" when the status quo was Libya selling happily to the West. Those more ridiculous standbys got dropped or refined after a few weeks, but they show the mindset: make mind up first, figure out reasons later.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
May 20th Live Blogs Feb17.info AJE quote:Reuters news agency has reported that NATO aircraft sank eight warships belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces in overnight attacks, the alliance said on Friday. quote:AP - NATO airstrikes resumed in Tripoli overnight on Thursday, targeting the seaport, and flames and smoke could be seen rising from the area. This is probably a reaction to that boat full of explosives and two dummies the Gaddafi forces abandoned near Misrata. There's a suggestion it was planned for a USS Cole style attack, and with the rebels seemingly getting closer to a push towards Sirte on the coastal roads they probably wanted to ensure Gaddafi couldn't use his ships to attack the rebels. Here's the Wednesday update for Misrata based off various sources of information, plus a map of the area: quote:Wednesday, there was a last stand of regime troops in Tawerga, shelling Free Libyan Forces, then retreating in the direction of Sirt. Tawergha fell on Thursday.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
Thanks for doing your best to keep this thread worthwhile and readable.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 09:48
|
|
|
Few more updates, first about the NATO attacks last night:quote:NATO targets Libyan Navy in Tripoli, Al Khums and Sirte quote:The RAF took part in last night's raids on Gaddafi's ships, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed. So it does seem like Gaddafi was trying to use booby trapped boats to sink NATO ships after all. quote:Russia called on Friday for a U.N. and African Union peacekeeping force to stem violence in war-torn Libya, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said. quote:US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has now also said that Gaddafi’s wife and daughter have fled Libya across the border into Tunisia. quote:Here is an Associated Press report on the fate of missing South African photographer Anton Hammerl (left), whose family believe he was killed in the Libyan desert by Muammar Gaddafi's forces. He suffered a wound to his stomach in April after coming under attack with other journalists.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
Here's the latest map of Libya: Interesting Tweet from a BBC journalist in Misrata: quote:hardingbbc: are gadaffi's forces deliberately aiming to miss? rebels starting to think so. lots of grad fire west of misrata - but all off target. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 13:08 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
Good to confirmation on that, though I'm still curious about the circumstances surrounding it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
Are all rebel forces pushed out of/being held away from the northeast now, as the map suggests?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 14:53
|
|
SoroScrew
|
From what I understand the rebels are pretty much holding the road between Brega and Ajdabiya, and Gaddafi's forces have been building up in Brega. I think NATO is telling the rebels forces to hold that position, especially as whenever there is fighting NATO responds very quickly. For example, yesterday I read a report that a few rebels vehicles had headed towards Brega, Gaddafi's forces chased them back down the road, and NATO bombed Gaddafi's forces. Rebel forces then moved forward, and took up positions closer to Brega, suggesting it was something that NATO and the rebels planned together. Another piece of recent news from Brega came from Al Jazeera, which said a large number of rebel troops and equipment were starting to be moved closer to Brega, suggesting they are preparing for a big push. What I think will happen is that the Misrata rebels will cut off the main roads to the west of Misrata, then move troops towards Sirte, and then you'll see Gaddafi's forces in Brega being blown to poo poo by NATO and the rebels surging towards Sirte from the East. The Misrata rebels don't have many built up areas to fight in now, so I expect most the fighting to take place in open desert and roads, making Gaddafi's forces easy targets for NATO aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
The Guardian posted a summary of the days events:quote:• More than 20 people are reported to have been killed in the largest and most widespread demonstration in Syria since protesters took to the streets 10 weeks ago. Most of the casualties took place in Homs but there are reports of violence across Syria. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Good to confirmation on that, though I'm still curious about the circumstances surrounding it. [/quote] I wouldn't call that confirmation, she could just be repeating hearsay. I'll believe it when I see his wife.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
NPR's morning hour today with the BBC World Service had a bit on it with Syria. A BBC reporter was talking to Syrian refugees in Lebanon about what had happened, including a 70-year-old woman who was shot in the leg as she tried to cross the border. A Syrian state official was interviewed afterwards and claimed that the reported shelling and shooting in the story were because of smugglers in the area and that there were no protests. Edit: BBC World Service player link (Dunno if it'll work right): Full program here Taerkar fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
What's this about an earthquake that happened yesterday that was 8.4 on the scale yet the medias are trying to hide it? Seems completely retarded but it has been blowing up for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:• The British-based photographer Anton Hammerl has been killed in the Libyan desert. His family called the Libyan regime as "cruel" for withholding news of his death. gently caress. One of my friends here worked with that dude--there was a rally in the UK the other week at the Libyan embassy pressing for news about him, as they had at least provided some confirmation about the other journalists that had been presumed captured. He survived by two small children; wife. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
abske_fides posted:What's this about an earthquake that happened yesterday that was 8.4 on the scale yet the medias are trying to hide it? Seems completely retarded but it has been blowing up for some reason. Apparently there was an error at Strasbourg, and the quake was "only" a 5.4 Anybody fluent in Romanian ? http://www.dcnews.ro/2011/05/infp-a-anuntat-din-greseala-un-seism-de-84-e-vina-celor-de-la-strasbourg-spune-marmureanu/
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
There's been some good videos posted from Tawergha and other areas on the Patriots Of Misratah's Youtube channel in the past few days:quote:families who got stuck for 3 months and held by gaddaf's forces as hostages and human shields are finally free ..thanks to kindness of ALLAH and the courage of the lions of misratah ... quote:The freedom fighters of misratah are launching rockets toward gaddafi's forces quote:the freedom fighters are firing toward gaddafi's forces in tawrgha town ... and i would like to mention this town is empty 10 days or 2 weeks ago .. the cowards of tawrgha after they murdered and rape escaped ... to an unknown place ! quote:shows how gaddafi's forces are hiding their vehicles from the nato aircrafts ..and also another burned tank destroyed by the lions of misratah .. quote:families who got stuck for 3 months and held by gaddaf's forces as hostages and human shields are finally free ..thanks to kindness of ALLAH and the courage of the lions of misratah ... quote:children of misratah are protesting against the tyrant gaddafi .. in front of the Careers hotel Institute ...just behind GOZ AL TIEK Hotel ... quote:The freedom fighters are firing toward an approaching 4 wheel vehicles tried to attack al dafnia west entrance of misratah ...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
schadenfraud posted:I couldn't agree with you more and that's the real problem I have with organisations like Stop the War. I supported them on Afghanistan and Iraq, but their 'stop colonising Libya!' schtic is a load of old crap. Gaddafi was killing his own people completely at random. The people of Libya wanted us to intervene - they asked for our help. I just don't see how people can justify their opposition to the intervention in Libya when you hear and see what was going on before we got our arses in gear and decided to stop an absolute massacre. The Anti-War movement has been dead/useless since we withdrew from Vietnam. Being opposed to war in general, and unjust and unwarranted wars in particular, is a good thing and something that any sane or decent person can get behind. But the kind of narrow-minded, black-and-white fundamentalism that you see coming from certain Anti-War groups has pretty much killed the power that it once had. Same with Woodstock being the death knell for the hippie movement. Since Vietnam, it's all been downhill. George Orwell wrote about this human tendency to become a fundamentalist to your cause, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how previously justified, no matter how sound their argument may be at certain times, dogmatic thinking is the biggest threat to every movement, religion, and ideology. Orwell believed that ideology was good, but that it had to be tempered with consistency and skepticism. Otherwise, the pigs soon become indistinguishable from the humans. This tendency of people to become so caught up in their own ideology that they become the very monster they once fought against is the story of Gaddafi, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, and even the Taliban. Hell, it's the story of pretty much every "socialist" Arab dictator/monarchist, and has come to be the story of the right wing elements of the Zionist movement. We have yet to see how the various factions of the Muslim Brotherhood will fare once given the chance to join the democratic process. I hope they go the route they did in Turkey.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:The Anti-War movement has been dead/useless since we withdrew from Vietnam. They might have had more success against the Iraq War if the media had given them the attention they give the Tea Party. Millions worldwide and hundreds of thousands here protested, and the only thing the media could say was, "heh, silly hippies  " But a few thousand retards in tricorn hats are national news and are worth taking seriously.Edit: not to mention how much the media loving cheerleaded for that war.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Just heard that al-Jazeera cancelled most of their really good talk shows, notably Faisal al-Qassem's The Opposite Direction. Basically two guests get on and argue and sometimes almost attack each other. The point here is that people say really provocative and controversial things on there and piss off other countries governments like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. It looks like Qatar is exerting more and more editorial influence on the channel now. Xandu fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 18:57
|
|