War Against Libya Constitutionally Illegal; Obama Now Impeachable

The U.N. literally has NO bearing on whether a U.S. military action is Constitutional or not.

I love your profile picture onemalefla

But Bush had WMD's to get rid of

there's a big difference. kadaffi was massacring his own people. we didn't go into Libya under false pretenses, but because they begged for help from the UN.

American is not the protector of earth ..

That is irrelevant. He did not take this statement back

"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," he insisted.

"While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war."

"Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent," the Ohio congressman added.

"The last thing we need is to be embroiled in yet another intervention in another Muslim country. The American people have had enough. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. Then bombs began to fall in Pakistan, then Yemen, and soon it seems bombs could be falling in Libya. Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually," Kucinich concluded."

Either he is right or he is wrong, which is it?

I am only excited for defenders of the constitution. We need more politicians that take the constitution seriously.

i've lost all respect for kucinich, he's shown himself to be just as callous as any other libertarian.

yeah they would be exactly one sided as they're both the same candidate. isolationist cowards. i've lost any respect for kucinich.

Then I suppose Dennis Kucinich is a right wing nut? Sorry can't have it both ways. Either you are for the constitution, like it or not; or you are for shredding the document. Which is it oh anointed one?

wow that was quite a retort there, you managed to find some spelling errors...good for you. so realy you dont care about anyone but your self and only want action when its for your benifit. well I think most people dont really care about that kind of greedy uncaring attitude. and please refrain from any more spelling leasons cause frankly my dear I dont give a damn.....

May I quote Dennis Kucinich

"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," he insisted.

"While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war."

"Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent," the Ohio congressman added.

"The last thing we need is to be embroiled in yet another intervention in another Muslim country. The American people have had enough. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. Then bombs began to fall in Pakistan, then Yemen, and soon it seems bombs could be falling in Libya. Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually," Kucinich concluded.

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader also said the president was committing "war crimes" in the attack against Libya.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader told Democracy Now! Thursday.

If we're going to act with international authority (however flawed that may be), perhaps the international community should equally share the costs?

By the way, the only reason your argument works is because China and Russia were brave enough to not vote on the issue........not exactly an international consensus.

Not if they violate the UN Charter and the Constitution! There, I said it. And you can stick your "fucking retard" remark right up your ass!

except that bush never bothered to get a UN resolution to do so and infact violated the resolutions that the UN had already passed in regard to saddam and his regime...but I soppose thats to much history for your revisionist memory HUH?

Let me get the second agument straight you think what we are doing in Libia should be done elsewhere? well Im all for that myself but that point shoots your whole "we cant be in Libia it unconstitutional" argument out of the water...jack ass....

Good Morning Vierotchka, Glad to see that we agree.... =)

As of yesterday the U.S. fired at least 124 Tomahawk missiles at Libya, how is that not an act of war?

They were fired at and dropped on air-defense installations, on airplanes which had violated the no-fly-zone, on air strips, on mlitary bases and arsenals, and on columns of tanks which were bombarding cities and civilians - all this is part of the UN mandate. As such, it is not a war on a country. Gadaffi chose to ignore the no-fly-zone and to continue slaughtering his people, refusing to obey the UN's injunctions against doing this. It is not a war on Libya, and the US is not at war with Libya.

So how many missiles have to be fired at Libya for it to be an act of war in your eyes?

we and she have explaind this ad-nausium to you and all the rest why should we continue to try and educate people who only wish to live in their little fantisy land where they think they are gonna impeach the president and that all Muslims are not to be trusted? .... you have no interest in the truth only platitudes to your insanity.

Well if you have the truth to this question than please give it: how many missiles do you have to launch at a country for it to constitute an act the war?

It is not a question of number of missiles fired at Libya, it is a matter of conditions and circumstances. You sound as if you would have largely preferred to see hundreds of thousands and even millions of Libyan civilians slaughtered by their tyrant rather than anyone, including the US, do something to prevent it. I wonder if it is because they are Muslims and not Christians...

Well then extrapolate, what conditions and circumstances constitute an act of war?

When one country attacks another country in which the people are not being slaughtered by their leaders and are not desperately begging for help, that is an act of war.

So an act of war is defined solely by the looking at the subjective character of the country that is to being attacked? That's similar to defining an act of "rape" by looking at the person being raped and their sexual history instead of the objective actions of the perpetrator.

Well said, Vierotchka.

It appears that you have conservatives either calling Obama a hypocrite, or flipping their notion of truly eliminating terror in the world, and then you have many left just blatantly confused on this issue--too worried that we are devolving into a "similar" situation, such as Iraq. Fortunately, there is little comparison.

That is NOT in any shape or form what I wrote, your wet, soggy and limp straw man notwithstanding.

Your definition of an "act of war" defined the action based on the party it was perpetrated against instead of the action itself.

It's a simple notion to suggest that a leader is supposed to do what is best for its people--be it a dictator, or a collective group such as Congress. Further, it's a fundamental concept to say that if a majority of a leader's followers are wanting said leader out of a position of power, they should receive that right. The most obvious intervention is called for when said leader invokes acts of violence upon its own people in order to bury their protest via fear. Revolution--evolution--progress, is restricted in such cases, not to mention that there is a complete disregard for humanitarianism and leadership duty.

As I've said before: I wouldn't stand silent if I saw my neighbor beating his kids with a baseball bat--even though he IS the "leader," and he IS on his sovereign property. Intervention is called for, and that's exactly what the UN Sanctions are about. Justifying the action even more is the fact that a vast majority of these people are REQUESTING foreign aid.

waste ONE day? the whole world wasted a week while Gaddafi relentlessly pounded h the Libian people with tanks and warplanes to the point that Bengazzi almost fell....how much longer do you think the rebles could have held out against Gaddafi's air superiority? I dont think even one more day myself...gusse we should have sent you over while we wastedtome getting a bill passed through houses that have not even passed a new budget yet, Im sure you could have held off Gaddafi's forces till we cleard this in a manner you would have prefered. pompus ass hole.

I am sorry bud but you are much more of pompus ass hole for your suggestion that one day it would have taken to make this military action constitutional is too difficult for and beneath you and anyone else.

Moreover, how long do you think this operation was in the pipeline? How many weeks do you to think were deliberated over this? You think the pentagon and intelligence agencies woke up and were taken by surprise to find Gaddafi's at war with the rebels?

There was weeks before military action took place and they were planning on maneuvering through the U.N. They could have stopped by congress for one day during this period before the action so it won't have added time.

Good Morning tverdell Scroll down and see what I had to say.

If Obama was impeached I'd call it divine justice for failing to prosecute tortures from the previous administration.

Great Reply, however the congress is No longer controlled by Democrats.

True. But he could have easily gotten a declaration of war. The republicans LOVE war.

I can agree with that. But republicans also want BO out of office at any cost.

Yeah but now he gave them an excuse and means to do it. Where he could have been bullet proof. And also scored big political points by being the President to return to the Constitution.

You are correct. I just think instead of going along with BO, they would have cried foul. And with that there would have never been any help for the Libyan people.

The Republicans were all fired up for war. John McCain and many other powerful Republicans were on record saying not only to help in Libya but to take out Gaddafi and institute a regime change.

The Republicans were so publicly committed to it to the point where they could not cry foul if Obama had pushed for a declaration of war.