Obama Reportedly Sided Against 2 Top Administration Lawyers
 

Firefighter Brian McCaffrey: You see that flash of light in the corner of your eye? That's your career dissipation light. It just went into high gear. ...
Backdraft (1991)

I'm thinking congress/senate is about to slap this idiot right in the face......

Yeah obama, killing people isn't a hostile act......and you're an idiot.
TS

Obama Reportedly Sided Against 2 Top Administration Lawyers in Libya War Debate

Published June 18, 2011
| FoxNews.com
President Obama decided he had the legal authority to continue the U.S. military campaign in Libya without congressional approval over the objections of Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to The New York Times.

Instead, the president sided with other senior administration lawyers who said that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.

Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.

One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.

Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he found it "interesting that in early April the president touted the Office of Legal Counsel's legal opinion on actions in Libya, and now that the opinion doesn't fit his agenda, he chooses to ignore them."

"If dropping bombs and firing missiles on military installations are not hostilities, I don't know what is," he said. "The president's actions on Libya are nothing short of bizarre."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-libya-debate/

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional anyway. I do not understand why Republicans would take a position against Executive power just because they don't like who the current POTUS is. Totally shortsighted and foolish. Idiots!

Some say it is unconstitutional, some say it isn't and the Government has many times in the past used word play (example: Police Action/Advisory Role/Humanitarian Assistance) to avoid going through the checks and balances required to declare war.

The tools in DC can put all the legalese icing on it they want, but when bullets are flying and people are dieing it is a war.

No one person should have the power to obligate us to war.....especially when we already had (2) wars on the books.

Besides, the Libya thing is nowhere near as kinetic as, say, the Korean thing.:D

I don't see much difference between Adolph Hitler and the big O,do you?........:mad::mad::mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

A Choice
 

It appears he had a choice - so he picked the side that agreed with him.

If you believe you're right and one person tells you you're wrong and the other says you're right - well ..............

Now to do some more house cleaning so I can get more people around me who agree with me.

If there was some sort of immediate or imminent threat to the nation I could understand it, and I would guess if something like that were to occur there would still be a meeting of the minds prior to conducting hostilities.

The only potential threats I have heard about regarding Libya, is that Loyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs screwed Gaddafi out of some serious jack...which shouldn't constitute a national emergency, nor a military bailout....but he and Goldman where big Obama donors so you never no.

Or it could be reverse psychology to ge the Dims to revoke the law. :munchin :D

That's what they want you to think. :D

So I guess using this logic that since DC has so much crime that if some group of individuals decided to take out gangs that were killing innocent people that would not be considered "Hostile" and that group wouldn't need anyone's permission to do so right? Also it wouldn't be illegal following this logic.

On second thought I like this idea and these numbers are old so the rate per 100,000 in Iraq is most likely around 45 per 100,000 now.:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

Per "obama the incompetent" it's not a hostile act if you're using a drone firing missiles to kill them.

Disagree. While the President needs the flexibility to use military force as a response to rapidly emerging or changing international events, the Founders intended for Congress to be the branch that started real wars. The power to declare war wasn't just the priveledge of stating what the President had already done. Until the Supreme Court rules on the WPR one way or the other, it's the law, and Obama needs to comply.

Congress needs to reassert itself more and reassume its place as a co-equal branch of government.