When President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval (even though, to use his words, it did “not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”), the administration and its defenders claimed he had legal authority to do so for two reasons: (1) the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) authorizes the President to wage war for 60 days without Congress, and (2) the “time-limited, well defined and discrete” nature of the mission meant that it was not really a “war” under the Constitution (Deputy NSA Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Obama OLC). Those claims were specious from the start, but are unquestionably inapplicable now.

From the start, the WPR provided no such authority. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” That’s why Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman — in an article in Foreign Policy entitled “Obama’s Unconstitutional War” – wrote when the war started that the “The War Powers Resolution doesn’t authorize a single day of Libyan bombing” and that “in taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama’s administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency.”
...
But even for those who chose to cling to the fiction that the presidential war in Libya was authorized by the WPR, that fiction is now coming to a crashing end. Friday will mark the 60th day of the war without Congress, and there are no plans for authorization to be provided. By all appearances, the White House isn’t even bothering to pretend to seek one. A handful of GOP Senators — ones who of course showed no interest whatsoever during the Bush years in demanding presidential adherence to the law — are now demanding a vote on Libya, but it’s highly likely that the Democrats who control the Senate won’t allow one. Instead, the law will simply be ignored by the President who declared, when bashing George Bush on the campaign trail to throngs of cheering progressives: “No more ignoring the law when it’s inconvenient. That is not who we are.”

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations.

Syria broke one of the Geneva Conventions laws of war by using chemical weapons. Obama said around a year ago the use of chemical weapons would "cross a red line" and assumingly provoke a US response. I highly doubt any ground troops are used. Any attack will be from the air.

Syria broke one of the Geneva Conventions laws of war by using chemical weapons. Obama said around a year ago the use of chemical weapons would "cross a red line" and assumingly provoke a US response. I highly doubt any ground troops are used. Any attack will be from the air.

Whoever used/uses chemical weapons fully deserves whatever UN strike that comes their way. And an earlier post is correct the use of chems last year should have prompted the same response as the current one.

The obvious solution is not to get involved in Syria's civil war imo.

america: world police

let them kill each other. who cares. let another country spend money and resources helping a rebel group.

america: world police

let them kill each other. who cares. let another country spend money and resources helping a rebel group.

The Vatican is against any armed intervention, pointing to the havoc caused by the U.S.-led war to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003.

(And they could just as easily point to the disaster area that Libya is now thanks to imperialist intervention.)

n 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

am i the only one who thinks that the rebels are capable of gassing themselves in order to gain international support?

im not saying thats what happened, but it doesnt seem to be a far fetched scenario. i watch movies and fluff.

Either way could be a potential deployment to Syria maybe.... One of my seccos is a lil too excited for that potential!

Anyone in the military who is "excited" at the prospect of entering a conflict and "getting to kill people" should be barred from service.

Now, if they are "excited" because they believe we are overdue in protecting innocent people from harm, I might disagree with them but wouldn't disqualify them from service.

One of my main biases against people in the military is based on the few I have met who actually enjoyed killing people and went into the military so they could have the opportunity to do it legally.

I met one such sicko in the Marines who was particularly enamored with the Vietnam stories of making necklaces from the ears of his victims. He thought that would be awesome and couldn't wait to be deployed. I keep hoping our psych exams screen these people out now... but then we end up with the random village massacre in Afghanistan, so who knows.