View Full Version : Obama Says He Doesn't Need Congressional Approval to Go to War
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html
In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.
“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”
“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”
The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”
Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.”
Notice how quiet the left is........
The right is none too happy with Obama on Libya but has not revolted outright.
But the left - who would be screaming if a Republican did this - is grumbling here and there but little voiced outrage.
Don't see legions of Code Pinkers surrounding the White House - well, at least the MSN ain't focusing the nightly news on them.
Well...some Tea Party Senators don't like it
May 18th, 2011
06:57 PM ET
Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline
mug.dana By: CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash
Washington (CNN) – As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.
"Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response," wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.
The letter was signed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
The GOP senators said they believe the president already violated part of the War Powers Act – which says the president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.
But the president did follow the provision in the 1973 law requiring him to provide information to Congress about committing U.S. forces. Now the question is whether he will abide by the part of the War Powers Act which says he must get Congressional permission within 60 days.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Tuesday that he is "talking to the administration" about what exactly Congress and the White House might do to abide by that looming 60-day deadline Friday with regard to Libya.
"We want to make sure we're not stretching anything inappropriate. So we're looking at some language," Kerry said as he entered a weekly policy lunch in the Capitol with Democratic senators. "We're really looking at it very seriously to keep everyone on the same page."
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a vocal advocate of U.S. military support for the Libyan rebels, has been in talks for weeks with Democrats and Republicans about a resolution backing the Libya mission – but perhaps something short of voting on a War Powers resolution. He said Tuesday that congressional leadership has not shown an "inclination" to vote on something.
McCain said he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional and therefore he doesn't believe the president needs congressional authorization to continue the mission.
"I've never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, either Republican or Democrat," McCain said.
But Sen. Rand Paul told CNN congress should not let any president get away with launching military action without congressional approval, and that he and his colleagues may go to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling on whether the president is in violation of the law.
"There is a law. It's on the books, and in plain reading of the War Powers Act, he appears to be in violation of the War Powers Act," said Paul.
Paul said they will also attempt to push "legislative remedies" on the Senate floor, but acknowledges that may be hard to accomplish since Democrats control the schedule.
"To me it's the most important debate we'll ever have up here. If we're going to send someone, your son or my son to war, its important that it be done properly, and its important that if there are constitutional restraints, we obey them," said Paul.
CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/republican-senators-press-president-on-war-powers-deadline/?iref=allsearch
And some on the left are upset......
New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?
May 18, 2011
Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
Published on American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org)
Source URL: http://www.aclu.org/new-authorization-worldwide-war-without-end
http://www.aclu.org/print/new-authorization-worldwide-war-without-end
This guy is unbelievable.
Surgicalcric
05-21-2011, 10:47
This guy is unbelievable.
Which one, McCain or BHO? :munchin
Which one, McCain or BHO? :munchin
Mostly Obama but in reality both, and any one else who disagrees with the need for Congressional approval. ;)
Mostly Obama but in reality both, and any one else who disagrees with the need for Congressional approval. ;)
I disagree. I believe a President does need to be able to deploy troops quickly to meet certain situations.
But we are now into our third month on this "situation" and no real explanation is coming from the administration - and other than the resolution - no real debate in congress.
I disagree. I believe a President does need to be able to deploy troops quickly to meet certain situations.
But we are now into our third month on this "situation" and no real explanation is coming from the administration - and other than the resolution - no real debate in congress.
Well, I see your point...and there instances when it is probably necessary. Problem is then, as you mentioned, there is no real explanation or debate. Considering how "transparent" this current administration is...well, it's a problem.
Does the need outweigh the rest?
Blitzzz (RIP)
05-21-2011, 11:30
Regardless of a president's competency, the POTUS needs a fist to strike the face of offenders. The POTUS should not have cart blanche to commit the entire military to satisfy an issue.
The Army or Navy(Marines) should have several Regimental Combat Teams (BCTs) assigned to the POTUS's will.
He/She would have the ability to make quick correction internationally as sen fit. Follow on troops would be Congressionally approved.
greenberetTFS
05-21-2011, 11:45
I disagree. I believe a President does need to be able to deploy troops quickly to meet certain situations.
But we are now into our third month on this "situation" and no real explanation is coming from the administration - and other than the resolution - no real debate in congress.
I agree with Pete on this one.............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
It's not a question of if POTUS can deploy troops, he can. However, the timeline remians the same, without congressional approval regardless of what degree of US military involvement he has 60 days to get permission to continue. More importantly, why are we stopping muslims from killing muslims again?
Which one, McCain or BHO? :munchin
Both, but McCain takes the cake for me and makes me really wonder if he shouldn't have made his residence in Hanoi. McCain is a disgrace, he doesn't agree with the War Powers Act so he won't work to enforce it and it appears that he and others are trying to side step it.
With misguided representation like McCain's the President isn't subject to checks and balances we might as well have a Monarch, Emporer or Dictator running the show. Which to a growing degree we do...it is why we have Obama Care, No Border control and a economy in the sewer.
I agree, McCain is skipping without a rope and has for a very long time. Sadly, I think it was better that Barry got elected, can you imagine how much further to the left we'd be this next election cycle if McCain had been elected? I believe the term maverick is a nicer way of saying nutjob.
I agree, McCain is skipping without a rope and has for a very long time. Sadly, I think it was better that Barry got elected, can you imagine how much further to the left we'd be this next election cycle if McCain had been elected? I believe the term maverick is a nicer way of saying nutjob.
Yeah, I'm glad I lay down my softail on the dirt road coming up the mountain last Tuesday. Can you imagine how fucked up it would be if I had have wrecked it on the highway?:rolleyes:
In what will come as a shock to the Tea Party and yet probably not rival the recent royal wedding in London for viewership, Republican Congressman Buck McKeon and Republican Senator John McCain plan to crown President Barack Obama King of America. They're not kidding, and this is no stunt.
Here's what noted Republican Abraham Lincoln once wrote on the subject:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't." The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."
But what if you can create laws that violate the Constitution, and then obey those laws, the Constitution be damned? And what if being a Republican today means striving to expand presidential power as far as possible -- in fact beyond the power ever held by any king? And what if being a Democrat today means the very same thing?
Then you get something like H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and in particular Section 1034:
"Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities."
Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. This language would put into law the perilous policies now acted upon outside of the law. President Obama's war in Libya is absolutely unconstitutional, and nobody is about to do anything about that; so perhaps this doesn't matter. But with this language on the books, Obama and every future president would be able to legally, albeit unconstitutionally, justify launching any war at pleasure.
This new "legal" language would get presidents around the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution, which does not permit unauthorized wars when the United States has not been attacked, which requires the reporting of information to Congress that, in the case of Libya, has not been reported, and which only permits wars -- when it does permit wars -- for 60 days, a deadline that has now been reached in Libya. According to the War Powers Resolution:
"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."
In addition:
"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
In the case of Libya, Obama carefully avoided any consultation with Congress but took the time to consult with just about everybody else around the world.
The War Powers Resolution also requires that:
"[T]he President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth --
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement."
Obama's report to Congress on Libya fell short of A and B and did not even attempt C.
When it comes to the now-surpassed 60-day-limit, the law is clear:
"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States."
The War Powers Act, in allowing 60-day unconstitutional wars is itself, of course, a step back from the Constitution as its authors, most readers, and President Lincoln have understood it. The Constitution devotes Article I to bestowing the vast majority of governmental power on Congress, including here:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . . . To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
In tiny little Article II, the U.S. Constitution establishes the duties of the president:
"[H]e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
What else shall he do?
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Let's go to constitutional scholar, Barack Hussein Obama for an explanation of this supreme law of the land:
"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." -- candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007.
"No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are . . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers." -- candidate Barack Obama, August 1, 2007.
David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24882
Dozer523
05-21-2011, 22:17
Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the Mayaguas, Granada, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few. Have these people been asleep since 1941?
Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the Mayaguas, Granada, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few. Have these people been asleep since 1941?
The people in those countries?
Dozer523
05-22-2011, 06:51
The people in those countries? We have not declared war since December 8, 1941.
We have not declared war since December 8, 1941.
Police Actions, I know.
And now we're 14+ trillion in debt, about 6k have given the ultimate sacrifice, we're now in at least 3 theaters of active war (that we know of), we are likely assisting AQ terrorists in Libya and our Agitator in Chief stirs up more hornets by the day.
It is working so well.
Police Actions, I know.
And now we're 14+ trillion in debt, about 6k have given the ultimate sacrifice, we're now in at least 3 theaters of active war (that we know of), we are likely assisting AQ terrorists in Libya and our Agitator in Chief stirs up more hornets by the day.
It is working so well.
Well, now it is.
Back when W was in charge, it was all fucked up. But the Demwits have short memories.
Well, now it is.
Back when W was in charge, it was all fucked up. But the Demwits have short memories.
Obama's edicts are in singular form (I, Me, Mine, etc.) and that makes it all good ;)
All the previous mentioned conflicts (from Korea on) were taken before congress and approved at some point prior to the 60 day cutoff. This Libya thing cannot even be compared to any of them since there is obviously no case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Every President since 73 has violated to some degree the WPA however, none have been as egregious as Barry's. I am totally on board for stomping or undermining any of those countries whose population faces towards a metiorite on the arabian penninsula and prays. However, I believe it should be done in accordance with our laws which already give great leway in that regard.
Also, Paslow, you're spot on, that we would even consider giving anyone in the rebel camp equipment is insane. It wasn't until very recently the main stream media even acknowledged the muslim brotherhood, followed shortly thereafter by providing excuses on their "secular" intent. If we have some munitions that are about to reach the end of their shelf life and we want to dump it somewhere (primed and ready to go high order) I completely support using Libya....or egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, well you get the picture. We should be encouraging them to kill each other, not supplying them the means to do so.
Congress has only declared war 5 times in US History - but funded many more through either Congressional resolution or through support of a UNSCR.
OBTW - our longest war was against the Apache and lasted some 42+ years. ;)
Richard :munchin
Congress has only declared war 5 times in US History - but supported many more through either Congressional resolution or through support of a UNSCR.
OBTW - our longest war was against the Apache and lasted some 42+ years. ;)
Richard :munchin
Who said that one's over with, Qui Mo' Sabe?
Who said that one's over with, Qui Mo' Sabe?
Grover Cleveland in 1886. ;)
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
05-22-2011, 15:08
Grover Cleveland in 1886. ;)
Richard :munchin
I think your one of the few who can keep up with Dusty.........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Grover Cleveland in 1886. ;)
Richard :munchin
Grover forgot to tell the Apaches:
Publication: Journal of the Southwest
Publication Date: 22-MAR-01
In 1889, the Apache Kid, a notorious Western Apache outlaw, fled south to hide in the Sierra Madre, where he formed a gang comprised mostly of Chiricahuas. In addition, a small number of Western Apaches broke out of San Carlos in the 1890s and headed south into the Sierra Madre, perhaps joining the others already there. The old Western Apache scout, Sherman Curley, told my father of the many times he served with the army during the '90s in pursuit of "renegade" Apaches who were thought to have broken out of the San Carlos reservation or who had come north from Mexico to raid ranches in southern Arizona.
Mexican folklore is rich in stories of these people, stretching all the way from the border towns of Naco and Agua Prieta, two hundred miles south to Yecora and Sahuaripa where the Mountain Pima live. The stories are told even farther south than that--as far south as the Barranca del Cobrc, Tarahumara Indian country.
Within twenty years of the surrender of Geronimo, settlers began to populate the Sierra Madre, and as they did so, they made more and more frequent contact with the Apaches there. Contact led inevitably to friction, and conflict soon broke out again. Tension built throughout the teens and early twenties, coming to a head in 1927 with a sensational murder and kidnapping near the village of Nacori Chico, about seventy-five miles south of the sister border towns of Douglas, Arizona, and Agua Prieta, Sonora.
While traveling along a remote mountain road in the Sierra Madre, a Mexican family by the name of Fimbres was attacked by a small group of Sierra Madre Apaches. The attackers killed the wife, Maria Dolores Fimbres, and kidnapped her three-year-old son, Gerardo. It was over in seconds. Maria was mounted on a horse, but her husband Francisco was walking and had fallen behind. He watched helplessly from one hundred feet down the trail. Immediately he mounted a massive manhunt in the mountains.
Newspapers on both sides of the border picked up the story, and it even ran in New York and California papers. While living in Tucson and beginning his work among the Western Apaches, my father heard of these events and went to Mexico with an experienced guide to find out about the Sierra Madre Apaches before they were all gone. It was said that Mexican ranchers were shooting them on sight.
After three years of fruitless searching, in April 1930, the Mexicans finally found and attacked a Sierra Madre Apache camp. A man and two women were killed, but there was no sign of the kidnapped boy, by now six years old and probably completely adapted to his life with the Apaches. Two weeks later at the spot where the three Apaches were shot, Gerardo's body was found, killed by the Apaches in revenge.
News of these events spread quickly. It was soon open season on Apaches in Mexico--if they could be found. Elusive as the Sierra Madre Apaches were, reservation Apaches in the United States knew all too well of their existence. Chiricahuas at the Mescalero reservation in New Mexico were certain they knew who this group was: their relatives who had stayed behind in Mexico when Geronimo surrendered in 1886.
As this section begins, it is November 1932, slightly less than a year since Grennie's return from his last trip to Mexico. He has made a trip to Mescalero and is talking with an old Chiricahua Apache named Sam Kenoi. This chapter uses the format of The Apache Diaries in which the narrative is handed back and forth between Grennie's diary and my diary.
GRENVILLE'S DIARY
Nov. 16, 1932, Mescalero Agency
Visiting here, I met Sam Kenoi, a Ndendaa'i Apache. I told him about hearing about there still being some Chiricahua in the Sierra Madre and he was very anxious to know if I knew the names of any of them. He knew of them apparently and from what can be gathered, the renegades now in the Sierra Madre must all be Ndendaa'i.
NEIL'S DIARY
Sam knows of their existence, even of one of the individual names (it was Adilnadzi*d, mentioned in a later conversation) but apparently no more than that.
At this point Grennie assumes that all the Sierra Madre Apache are Ndendaa'i, the southernmost of the Chiricahuas. In fact, there were some Western Apaches: some of them captured when the Sierra Madre Apaches raided San Carlos and Fort Apache in the early twentieth century; and some of them Western Apache renegades who had broken out of the reservation in the 1890s.
As much as the Chiricahuas at Mescalero might have wanted it, as of 1932 they have had no recorded contact with the Sierra Madre Apaches. For Sam Kenoi and other Chiricahuas, knowledge of long-lost relatives in the old homeland would mean hope for the end to a separation, long thought to be permanent; but that hope is growing dimmer, for the final act in the drama of the Sierra Madre Apaches is opening in Mexico even as my father and Sam are talking.
Since the fateful battle of April 1930 that claimed the lives of three Apaches and ultimately, Gerardo Fimbres, no sighting in Mexico has been reported. From the footprints left at the scene of the fight, the Mexican attackers could tell that there were survivors--most of them just children.
Following the death of Gerardo, the most hard-bitten of the Mexicans commit themselves to a campaign of extermination. The government has washed its hands of the matter. The Sierra Madre, as always, is outside the law, and it is open season on Apaches.
In April 1932, only four months after Grennie left Mexico, an Apache camp is discovered and attacked, blood is shed, and a child is captured. The news eventually reaches Bill Curtis (my father's guide and companion during his Sierra Madre trips in 1930 and 1931) and Bill's wife writes about it to Grennie. These letters have not survived, but notes that he wrote much later do.
And they're prolly still out there...waiting for the right moment to strike...
Problem is then, as you mentioned, there is no real explanation or debate.Is this the president's fault or congress's? Checks and balances work only if the opposing branches do their jobs.
Grover forgot to tell the Apaches.
Probably a mistake by Grover's translator (who it is rumored had a 1-1 in Mescalero and maybe a liter of Mescal in him, too) or just another one of those "peace with honor" initiatives we seem to embrace whenever our national ADHD kicks in and we lose interest in some war, police action, insurgency, or the like. :D
Here are the campaign streamers.
Indian Campaign. There were 14 Indian Campaigns that covered the period 1790 to 1891. The streamer is red with two black stripes. Red is a sacred color with all Indians and is usually considered symbolic of strength and success. The color red, symbolic of war, is also a symbol of day and the Sun god. The color black, symbolic of death and mourning, is also a symbol of night and the Underworld god. The following inscriptions in yellow are authorized:
APACHES 1873, 1885 - 1886
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/streamers_doc.aspx
The 'official' wars with the Apache lasted 1840-1886.
So...was the 501st PIR really a SECRET Apache Force for the US Army? :p
Richard :munchin
Probably a mistake by Grover's translator (who it is rumored had a 1-1 in Mescalero and maybe a liter of Mescal in him, too) or just another one of those "peace with honor" initiatives we seem to embrace whenever our national ADHD kicks in and we lose interest in some war, police action, insurgency, or the like. :D
Here are the campaign streamers.
Indian Campaign. There were 14 Indian Campaigns that covered the period 1790 to 1891. The streamer is red with two black stripes. Red is a sacred color with all Indians and is usually considered symbolic of strength and success. The color red, symbolic of war, is also a symbol of day and the Sun god. The color black, symbolic of death and mourning, is also a symbol of night and the Underworld god. The following inscriptions in yellow are authorized:
APACHES 1873, 1885 - 1886
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/streamers_doc.aspx
The 'official' wars with the Apache lasted 1840-1886.
So...was the 501st PIR really a SECRET Apache Force for the US Army? :p
Richard :munchin
If I told you I'd have to scalp you.
If I told you I'd have to scalp you.
Better hurry up - Ma Nature's already working on it! ;)
Richard :munchin
Is this the president's fault or congress's? Checks and balances work only if the opposing branches do their jobs.
If he doesn't require Congressional approval that's a moot point.
If he doesn't require Congressional approval that's a mute point.
Yeah. Moot, too.:D
(Richard's busy.) :D
Yeah. Moot, too.:D
(Richard's busy.) :D
Damn it!
You make a fine understudy. :D
incarcerated
06-02-2011, 00:07
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/06/libya-war-fit-king
Libya: A War Fit for a King
By Steve Chapman
Created Jun 1 2011 - 8:35pm
Remember back in your high school civics class, when you were taught about the constitutional division of authority in matters of war? When you learned that the president has all the powers of an emperor, and Congress has all the powers of a potted plant?
Neither do I. But the people occupying high office in Washington went to a different school. They have done their best to prove that when it comes to using military force, neither the law nor the Constitution means a thing.
More than two months ago, President Obama abruptly took the nation to war against Libya, a country that had not attacked us or threatened us. His ostensible purpose was to protect Libyan civilians from the government of Moammar Gadhafi, which is at war with insurgents.
Obama acted after getting authorization from the United Nations, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, rather than Congress, which is. Specifically, the framers stipulated that Congress has the power to "declare war," giving it the chief responsibility except when the president needed to act quickly to repel an attack.
But in the ensuing centuries, presidents of both parties have often trampled over their original limits, and Congress has usually let them. This has not gone over well with all lawmakers -- like the senator who said in 2007 that the president has no right to go to war on his own, barring an actual or potential attack.
His name was Barack Obama. But President Obama has thoroughly repudiated the naive and simplistic notions voiced by Sen. Obama. In some ways, he has also been even more aggressive than his predecessors in doing whatever he pleases.
A rare attempt by Congress to reassert its authority came in 1973, when it passed a law called the War Powers Resolution. It places mild restrictions on the president, requiring him to report to Congress when he puts American forces "into hostilities." If Congress doesn't give approval of the operation within 60 days, the law says, he has to bring it to a swift conclusion.
But the 60th day came and went last month without the slightest recognition by Obama. Meanwhile, the administration claims it is abiding by the law while declining to bother explaining how on earth this can be.
One possible excuse is that we are not at war in Libya. Defense Secretary Robert Gates insists the term "war" is inappropriate for what he calls a "limited kinetic action." He can call it a Hawaiian luau if he wants, but the fact remains that the U.S. is apparently still flying missions over Libya and hitting military targets.
The War Powers Resolution does not contain a giant, honking exception for such activities. In fact, the authors seemed to have Libya in mind when they said the rules apply anytime American forces venture "into the territory, airspace, or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat."
It doesn't matter if our pilots are up there firing missiles or looking for topless beaches: If they are in combat aircraft over another country, the law applies.
But Obama apparently used his copy of the War Powers Resolution to housebreak the first dog. Rather than insult our intelligence with hair-splitting arguments about why the law exempts this undertaking, he has chosen to simply pay it no mind.
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith told The New York Times that "this appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution's requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress' support."
The administration has brushed off questions about its compliance with the law. But The Times says officials have said Obama "may order forces into limited military engagements on his own if he decides it is in the national interest, and that the NATO-led campaign in Libya is such a conflict."
Really? Can someone direct me to the provision of the Constitution that blesses "limited military engagements" authorized by the White House in conjunction with NATO? Or the section in the War Powers Resolution that says, "Invalid in cases when the president claims a national interest"?
The Constitution says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But when Obama executed this law, he did it with a firing squad.
incarcerated
06-02-2011, 22:59
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/164457-white-house-pushes-back-on-efforts-to-end-libya-intervention?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/164457-white-house-pushes-back-on-efforts-to-end-libya-intervention
White House pushes back on efforts to end Libya intervention
By Sam Youngman - 06/02/11 02:12 PM ET
The White House said Thursday that President Obama believes the NATO mission in Libya is succeeding, and he is opposed to ending that mission right now.
With a number of Democrats and some Republicans pushing for an end to U.S. involvement in the mission, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president believes most members agree with the mission.
"We believe that the policy is working," Carney said. "We believe the goal the president has is shared by the majority of the members of Congress."
Carney said the president has held true to his word that the U.S. would step back from its leadership position in the bombing campaign after the early days of the mission.
And, Carney said, the White House has "consulted Congress every step of the way."
U.S. and NATO efforts have been key to saving lives in Libya, Carney said.
"Beyond the consultation with Congress, I think the president believes very strongly that we're doing the right thing here," Carney said.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/speaker-boehner-throws-down-the-war-powers-act-gauntlet-on-libya.html
Speaker Boehner Throws Down the War Powers Act Gauntlet On Libya
June 02, 2011 6:33 PM
In the immortal words of the vice president, this could be a big $%^ing deal: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is throwing what one Republican calls “a legal and political hot potato at the President.”
In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:
a) Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or
b) Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.
The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”
Boehner is explicitly and formally stating that the president did not check the box on the War Powers Act before sending the US military to intervene in Libya.
The White House had no immediate comment, though earlier today White House press secretary Jay Carney said “we believe that the policy is working, we believe that the goal the president has is shared by a vast majority of members of Congress, and we have consulted with Congress every step of the way since we have initiated this policy.” Carney went on to reiterate that “our involvement militarily is limited, as the president promised, and will continue to be so, and he has made very clear, for example, that we will not be sending ground troops to Libya; that is off the table.”
Last week we noted that two bipartisan actions in the House of Representatives related to Libya seemed to bode ill for congressional support for the U.S. role in military intervention there. Last month in a letter to congressional leaders, the president suggested that the US mission in Libya is now so limited he didn’t think congressional authorization necessary...
incarcerated
06-06-2011, 23:44
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/6/white-house-says-it-complied-with-war-powers-act/
White House says it complied with war powers act
Will ‘endeavor to answer’ lawmakers questions on Libya role
By Kara Rowland
The Washington Times
6:24 p.m., Monday, June 6, 2011
The White House said Monday that it has an obligation to answer lawmakers' questions about U.S. involvement in NATO's mission in Libya, but it wasn't clear if the administration will comply with a House resolution passed Friday that threatens to withhold funding unless President Obama complies with demands for more information.
Press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama hasn't violated the War Powers Resolution, which calls for the commander in chief to obtain congressional approval if U.S. forces are to be committed to action for longer than 60 days. Mr. Carney said the White House has "consulted" with Congress, which he said meets the president's obligations.
"To the extent that there are questions that need to be answered, we will, of course, endeavor to answer them," he said. "And we take seriously concern expressed by members about questions they have about our mission here."
Still, the expiration of the 60-day mark last month has roiled members of both parties, and Congress voted overwhelmingly Friday to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off. The resolution, sponsored by House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, included more than 20 questions about the cost and goals of the U.S. role in the Libya mission.
For example, the resolution seeks more information about difference between U.S. "political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities." It also calls on Mr. Obama to justify why he didn't seek congressional authorization, warning that lawmakers have a "constitutional prerogative" to withhold funding for an unauthorized use of military forces.
The White House described the resolution, which passed 268-145, as "unhelpful." Mr. Carney said the administration welcomes any expression of support Congress wishes to give - but it has sent no signal that it actually will seek approval.
A bipartisan group of senators is sponsoring a resolution in support of the operation. But critics of the move, such as Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that resolution would send the wrong message.
"This illustration of the president's go-it-alone attitude would set a dangerous precedent," Mr. Lugar wrote in a Washington Post op-ed column. "The resolution would have no force of law and would not have to be passed by the House. Nonetheless, it would be touted by the administration as evidence of congressional approval for the war."
Mr. Carney said he was "not aware" of the administration seeking any special legal guidance on compliance with the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution in this situation.
"We take seriously concern expressed by members about questions they have about our mission here," he said, stressing that the administration wants to "keep the pressure on" the regime of Col. Moammar Gadhafi and continue to support NATO allies.
incarcerated
06-12-2011, 15:47
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenconnor/2011/06/12/time_for_a_return_to_checks_and_balances/page/full/
Time for a Return to Checks and Balances
6/12/2011
Ken Connor
In December, 2007, the Boston Globe published a Q&A with then-candidate Barack Obama in which the subject of Executive War Powers was addressed. "In what circumstances, if any," Charlie Savage asked, "would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?" Mr. Obama's answer was unequivocal in its condemnation of unilateral executive action relating to war:
"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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
Senator Obama went on to address specifically the question of offensive military action Iran, again reiterating his commitment to explicit congressional authorization and suggesting that diplomacy should always precede any decision to go to war:
"As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that 'any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.' The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
My, what a difference an election makes. The Senator who made criticism of George W. Bush's "imperial presidency" a cornerstone of his campaign is now, as President, quite oblivious to his own constitutional limitations with regard to executive power. Indeed, it has been observed that President Obama's disregard for the limits of his office exceed anything conceived by his predecessor.
It's encouraging, then, that a bipartisan coalition of representatives have decided to put the Constitution ahead of politics with a resolution taking the President to task for continuing to appropriate resources to the Libyan war effort without congressional approval. Although the resolution doesn't have any real "teeth" behind it, the principle behind it is one that has been increasingly neglected in our republic.
If the Founding Fathers understood anything, it was power's tendency to concentrate itself. This is why our government is constructed the way it is, with authority distributed equally among three branches of government. In recent years, however, the federal government has conducted itself more like a three-ring circus than a constitutional republic. Our judges have gotten into the habit of legislating from the bench, our representatives have become so corrupt, decadent and inefficient that they've rendered themselves practically obsolete, and our Presidents have come to preside over a powerful, bureaucratic fiefdom that operates with virtual autonomy.
President Obama has insisted that his actions thus far are in accordance with the War Powers Act, yet he has allowed the timeframe for congressional approval to expire and appears intent on an ambiguous and open-ended financial commitment to the war in Libya. At this point neither the Congress nor the American people know what to make of our involvement in Libya. Why are we there? Why Libya and not Egypt? Why not Syria? Why not Iran? Are we to satisfy ourselves with the President's assurances that "he has his reasons," and leave it at that?
Say what you want about President Bush's motives for pursuing a congressional resolution for war with Iraq, at least he secured a resolution. He respected the process. Despite this he was condemned by the Liberal Left as the most dishonest, unlawful, and villainous war-monger ever to occupy the White House. It is ironic that now those who abhorred the vast expansion of executive power under the Bush administration are witnessing its continued growth under the governance of the man who promised them hope and change.
All politics aside, the question at issue is quite simple: Does the Constitution mean what it says or not? Or perhaps the question should be, Do we care was the Constitution says, or not?
Thomas Jefferson said, "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." The exercise of checks and balances help assure that the federal government acts in the limited fashion intended. Do we want Presidents to be able to commit American lives and resources to foreign hostilities without restraint? Do we want a Congress that is impotent in the face of an executive who deliberately usurps powers that don't rightly belong to him?
If the recent action by the House of Representatives is any indication, the answer is no. This is a good thing. Perhaps it's the only thing our two parties can agree on. At least it's a start.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenconnor/2011/06/12/time_for_a_return_to_checks_and_balances/page/full/
Time for a Return to Checks and Balances
My, what a difference an election makes. The Senator who made criticism of George W. Bush's "imperial presidency" a cornerstone of his campaign is now, as President, quite oblivious to his own constitutional limitations with regard to executive power. Indeed, it has been observed that President Obama's disregard for the limits of his office exceed anything conceived by his predecessor.
Say what you want about President Bush's motives for pursuing a congressional resolution for war with Iraq, at least he secured a resolution. He respected the process. Despite this he was condemned by the Liberal Left as the most dishonest, unlawful, and villainous war-monger ever to occupy the White House. It is ironic that now those who abhorred the vast expansion of executive power under the Bush administration are witnessing its continued growth under the governance of the man who promised them hope and change.
Sad thing is, even libs who know the truth aren't ashamed.
incarcerated
06-12-2011, 22:22
Sad thing is, even libs who know the truth aren't ashamed.
Agreed. Shame is not one of their long suits: they’re all about power. When you can break the rules and get by with it, that’s power.
I think the GOP is being quiet about this right now because they desperately want BHO to be the Dem candidate for President next year. As Secretary of State, Hillary doesn’t have the economy’s blood on her hands, and can generate some of that history-making enthusiasm that carried Obama in 2008.
incarcerated
06-14-2011, 01:35
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ee00cd993c4221a5ac150a9aab17ca0 b.561&show_article=1
US Congress votes against Libya funding
Jun 14 12:10 AM US/Eastern
From AFP
The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya.
Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163.
A number of members of Congress have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at President Barack Obama's decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorization.
The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.
Sherman's text states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act."
According to the War Powers Resolution, the president must seek congressional authorization to send US troops into combat and must withdraw American forces within 60 days if Congress has not authorized the military action.
The same measure was presented in another bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security but failed to pass on June 2.
Lawmakers must still approve the appropriations bill as a whole and the measure must still be approved by the Senate.
The White House has been under rising pressure from congressional critics demanding details about US goals in Libya and questioning the likely costs and duration of the campaign, in which Washington now has a supporting role.
The House of Representatives recently passed a symbolic resolution chiding Obama for not seeking congressional approval for US involvement in Libya and giving him until June 17 to respond.
Good. We'll see if the bill passes the Senate and POTUS signs it into law. The entire Lybian mission is a debacle. We need to get serious and wholeheartedly support it, or get off the pot entirely (better choice IMO). Our current path of half-measures and ill-defined goals is going nowhere.