General discussion

Obama to be impeached?

He's about to cross the 60 day limit in Libya permitted to a President by the War Powers Act without Congressional approval. That is an impeachable offense.

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Obama to be impeached?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Obama to be impeached?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
(NT) You want Joe running the show?
- Collapse -
(NT) About now? Yeah, I could deal with it.
- Collapse -
(NT) Be careful what you wish for.
- Collapse -
Are the US still involved?

I thought it had been passed on to the other Nato countries and a couple of Arab states.

Mark

- Collapse -
Are you confusing NATO with

the UN?

- Collapse -
Nope

Since the US passed responsibility on to the other Nato nations, what is the US's involvement now, other than logistic support?

Mark

- Collapse -
Deadline missed

Looks like it's time for Congress to give withdrawal orders to the commanders directly, bypassing Obama. It won't happen though. Congress lacks the willpower and courage to do so, not to mention the partisan bickering is more important to them than upholding the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html

President Obama missed a legal deadline Friday - set in a 1973 law - that required him to obtain congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya.Friday was the 60th day since Obama formally notified Congress that U.S. planes would strike targets in Libya, a bid to protect civilians from the government of strongman Moammar Gaddafi. Under the Nixon-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain congressional authorization of military action within 60 days or else begin withdrawing forces.Neither happened.

- Collapse -
Tomorrow this will be totally irrelvant

We'll all be caught up in the Rolling Rapture (Rolling Black Out?)....Begins at 6pm local time. (predicting the end of the world is getting pretty accurate...right down to the hour)

- Collapse -
Wow, so he's going to be impeached?

Exactly what commanders? What military operations in Libya? What plane strikes over Libya?

I really don't know. That's why I'm asking.

The Republicans are chickening out?

Mark

- Collapse -
homework done for you.

Don't you look up anything for yourself? Most is continuing airstrikes. The commander in charge is named in here. Don't expect specifics. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if NATO is involved, that somehow relieves the President from the War Powers Act here in the US concerning use of our soldiers, planes and equipment that are part of the alliance. NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
You can find some of what you want to know at the NATO link above.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/NATO-Says-Libyas-Leader-is-Hiding--122382754.html

Bracken commented Friday after NATO said it had launched a series of
airstrikes that targeted warships used by pro-government forces. NATO
said it hit vessels that were in the ports of Sirte, al-Khums and the
capital, Tripoli. An alliance official, Libyan operations
Deputy Commander Rear Admiral Russell Harding, said NATO had "no choice
but to take decisive action" after pro-Gadhafi forces carried out mining
operations and escalated their use of maritime force.

=======================

- Collapse -
Why should I

when I have you and Ed to do my homework for me.

Still, I suspect, despite yours and Ed's wishes otherwise, that this is not an impeachment situation. Any Republican Senators called for it yet?

Mark

- Collapse -
This is the second time James has blown smoke.....

.....about an Obama impeachment. There wasn't anything to it the first time either, as disappointing as that may be for James.

- Collapse -
those smokey law breakers

Josh must approve of such.

- Collapse -
Question of whose responsibility

As I understand your point, since Congress has not passed even a resolution about using force there, the President is suppose to start withdrawing troops?

- Collapse -
Lots of suppositions

NATO was setup as a mutual defense treaty, not a mutual make war on others treaty. This isn't a matter of Libya attacking a member of NATO. Our credibility would actually be improved by Congress forcing the President to abide by our laws. A treaty with foreign nations does not nullify our national laws, which take precedent.

Since all "war" decisions rest ultimately with Congress, once the president's authority in an area limited by them has been breached, legally Congress should be able to take direct charge of such matters.

Abrogation of responsibility, while it may create a legal void, does not by necessity create any legal right for another. If Congress fails to authorize further action, that does not constitute approval, and Obama should begin withdrawal of any troops or equipment (even if loaned) that would constitute involvement in such action.

- Collapse -
Does your Republican Congressman ...

read the SE forum?

Or do you have to contact him personally and ask him to do his job? In that case, what was his reply to you, surely one of his most devoted voters?

Kees

- Collapse -
They need to read a book
- Collapse -
Sounds like it has been around since Washington

I am reading the War Powers Act and I am firmly convinced that lawyers should not be allowed to run for public office.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

The act states in 4(c) that President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

OK, that's fairly straight-forward. Of course that can't be right. 5 really confuses the issue.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), 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,

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.


Now it really gets interesting (confusing). SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

Then it goes downhill from there.

Obama has to do his part (which it sounds like he did) but Congress does or doesn't have to do their part to vote yes or no about withdrawal or go ahead. Like the man up above said - Is this like a pocket veto without Congress having to be gone?

Diana

- Collapse -
Here's something recent enough Congress should remember it

How they felt about the War Powers Act and Presidential powers as used by Bush starting in 2001.

- Collapse -
Link
- Collapse -
Why just Republican?

You think Democrats don't know how to read? Or don't care about law?

- Collapse -
I just thought ...

that your contacts with the Republican Congressmen of your state would be better than with the Democratic ones. Moreover, they might be more inclined to start doing something, for political reasons. So that are 2 reasons why it could be more effective.

Kees

- Collapse -
Legal more than political

While obviously politics have a big effect on the matter, in the purest sense the matter is one of legality and not political position. It shouldn't matter what one's political leanings may be, both should be advocates of upholding the laws of this nation.

- Collapse -
With limited reading, I'd agree it says if

Congress doesn't pass a resolution etc supporting it troops should begin withdrawal after the time limit is reached.

- Collapse -
Forces

If it meant troops instead of forces, it would have stated that.

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress
within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and
forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a
further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of
military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."

NYT idea of what it meant in 1984

The Constitution is actually more strict and if the War Powers Act/Resolution is not constitutional, then that stands more against the President's position than against Congressional responsibility concerning "War". Arguing over the meaning of the word
is the usual practice of all knaves throughout history who want something other than
what a law is.

- Collapse -
(NT) Do we have any armed forces in Libya?
- Collapse -
That's not easy to determine right now

I believe we are part of the air barrage, but actual US participation not so public, hiding behind terms of it being "NATO".

- Collapse -
It's breaking down into a huge mess.

As I mentioned above, most of our forces involvement is hiding behind Nato's skirts. Obama seems to think that protects him from the War Powers Act, but he's mistaken. Remember, forces don't apply just to men on the ground, but war actions being used against another, which Predator Drones certainly are weapons of war. You do not need feet on the ground within the borders of a country for it to be a violation of the War Powers Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/04/karl-rove-nato-libya-president-obamas-reelection-bid/

Mr. Obama has transferred command of the operation from the American military to NATO. And while the NATO's Supreme Commander (SACEUR) is a U.S. admiral, he receives guidance from the North Atlantic Council (NAC), composed of NATO members.

As my former colleague pointed out:

"Anyone on the Council can raise an objection about the conduct of the operation and they have a history of wading into the weeds. This was why the French walked out of the NATO discussions. They were afraid (reasonably) that moving the operation into NATO would result in watered down-rules of engagement and unwieldy decision-making. This process is even slightly more complicated because NATO set up a 'NAC-Plus' arrangement for Libya that includes Arab countries.

"To get agreement on the NATO handover, members papered over a lot of issues, and?we may end up seeing some messy debates in the NAC that impact the operation. It's a little surprising that Turkey hasn't objected already.

"There is?an element of multilateralism run amok here. One of the usual arguments for pursuing an operation through NATO is that it makes it easier for Europeans to participate. But here one of our major European partners objected and [the decision-making structure] may prolong the operation if it ties SACEUR's hands."
=========================

Our British friends give a clearer picture on who is actually engaged in war actions there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8402224/Libya-Nato-remains-split-as-Barack-Obama-announces-US-would-pull-back-this-week.html

President Obama insisted that it was time for all countries playing a part in operations to sort out how the Libya campaign would be fought. The air war has so far been dominated by US aircraft and missiles. "The exit strategy will be executed this week in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment," he said. "We'll still be in a support role. We'll still be providing jamming and intelligence and other assets that are unique to us. But this is an international effort that's designed to accomplish the goals that were set out in the [United Nations] Security Council resolution."


Hmm, Obama seems willing to put Nato under the UN Security Council while ignoring the War Powers Act of the very country in which he's been elected President. I think it's time Obama received a strong Congressional reminder that he WILL be held accountable to the law.

- Collapse -
This is such a completely ridiculous statement and typical

of its author.

Rob

CNET Forums