War Criminal in the Oval Office

[chuck34]

So it's now been over 90 days since we started hostilities in Lybia. The War Powers Act clearly says

Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)

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, (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. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Therefore Mr. Obama should have reported to Congress about his actions 30 days ago. Failing that, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, he had 30 more days to pull out due to some sort of "unavoidable military necessity". Well yesterday was 90 days.

When will Speaker Boehner be presenting the articles of impeachment?

[donKey jote]

:z

[Dave B]

I thought this was going to be about the illegal detention and torture camp which Bush set up and Obama failed to close. If any other country ran such a prison, and held people captive for years without even charging them, it would be described as a war crime.

[odykas]

I thought this would be related to George W. Bush.

[Eki]

I thought this would be related to George W. Bush.
Well, it should be.

[Rollo]

Has Obama broken the law? The White House doesn't seem to think so, and the Congress does. Should he have gone to Congress to obtain the necessary paperwork for the operation in Libya? Absolutely. It's important for the highest official in the land to follow protocols even if they don't think they apply because it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think Obama should have most definitely gone to the Congress seeking permission under the War Powers Act 1973. The fact that he didn't makes him look like an A-Grade pratt.

Is Obama a "War Criminal"? No.
War Crimes are violations of the rules of war; usually resulting in serious breaches of international humanitarian law.

The fact that no-one in the media in the United States is using this phrase indicates that this is a matter of chuck34's personal opinion, and it just doesn't stand up to the accepted definition of what a "War Crime" is.


When will Speaker Boehner be presenting the articles of impeachment?

No.

It would be extremely difficult to prove under Article Two, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution a case of "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors".
There have only ever been 18 cases of impeachment proceedings brought against US Officials. 2 resigned and only 7 were actually convicted.

[Bob Riebe]

There is no reason to be in Libya and Pres. Obama is making a fool of himself, but if any politicians start throwing around labels, or have a hair-trigger fit, it will only make more shallow the hole Pres. Obama is digging for himself.

Bush was really no better, nor worse than Obama, on these matters.

Neither one wants to fight a war in the manner that costs fewest lives, kill them till it hurts them, but both are caused/causing undo deaths by playing politics at the expense of soldiers, and civilians.

[Dave B]

I remember when, over here, Cameron called for a "no fly zone". Many of us said it would quickly descend into a conflict, then a war. And so it appears to be, with the usual blundering and civilian deaths, the bottomless pit of money being spent at a time when the UK and the USA are in financial difficulties, and no sign of any endgame or exit strategy.

The usual bloody mess, and from where I'm sitting there's precious little difference between Bush/Blair and Obama/Cameron when it comes to these matters.

[Eki]

Is Obama a "War Criminal"? No.
War Crimes are violations of the rules of war; usually resulting in serious breaches of international humanitarian law.


The Treaty of London defined three types of crimes, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. You can't say that Obama has done crimes against peace, since there was no peace in Libya. Bush on the other hand did a crime against peace when he invaded Iraq, since there was peace in Iraq.

War-responsibility trials in Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War-responsibility_trials_in_Finland)


Finns initially thought that the trials would be for conventional war crimes. However, as the Moscow Declaration of October 30, 1943 made clear, the Allied powers intended to prosecute for other actions as well.
The Allied Control Commission and the Communist Party of Finland raised the issue of the trials repeatedly during the spring and summer of 1945. When the Treaty of London (London Charter) August 8, 1945 defined three types of crimes, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, it became evident that Finland couldn't be the only country fighting on the German side where leaders wouldn't be convicted. On September 11th the parliament passed a law enabling prosecution of those responsible for war. The Supreme Court of Finland and leading judicial experts protested the law as conflicting with the constitution of Finland and contrary to Western judicial principles, but they didn't comment on the political necessity of it. Also the Finnish public regarded it as a mockery of the rule of law. Juho Kusti Paasikivi, who was the prime minister of Finland at the time, is known to have stated that the conditions of the armistice concerning this matter disregarded all laws.
Shortly thereafter, the War Crimes Section of the British Foreign Office issued a statement that the British government wouldn't wish to prosecute Finnish political leadership for crimes against peace.

[chuck34]

Alright then. Everyone seems to be ok with Obama basically taking on the powers of a dictator and sending troops into war completely on his own. One of the main points of discussion when our Constitution was written, by the way. It's all Bush's fault, and so on.

I thought perhaps someone would would like to have a thoughtful, inteligent discussion. Guess not. Back to my self imposed exile then.




Back to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing.

[Robinho]

you've clearly only read half the thread and reacted to it, rather than continuing the discussion as Rollo and Dave have done

[Rollo]

Alright then. Everyone seems to be ok with Obama basically taking on the powers of a dictator and sending troops into war completely on his own.

Really? I thought I said that Obama "should have most definitely gone to the Congress seeking permission under the War Powers Act 1973". Maybe I didn't... oh well...

[Bob Riebe]

The Treaty of London defined three types of crimes, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. You can't say that Obama has done crimes against peace, since there was no peace in Libya. Bush on the other hand did a crime against peace when he invaded Iraq, since there was peace in Iraq.

War-responsibility trials in Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War-responsibility_trials_in_Finland)Libya was just as peaceful as Iraq.

[Eki]

Libya was just as peaceful as Iraq.
No it wasn't. There was a popular uprising that the military tried to squelch, and there still is.

[Bob Riebe]

No it wasn't. There was a popular uprising that the military tried to squelch, and there still is.
Saddam was ignoring UN demands given after losing a war caused by his attacking Kuwait.

Uprising, so, what has that to do with the U.S. or NATO?
Qaddafi had no agreement forced on him by losing a war. In fact he was one of the best sources of info on Al Qaeda.

Saddam was disobeying commands given after losing a war, Qaddafi had/has the right to do in his country as he pleases, and Obama only said that there was a threat, not anything actually happening; whereast of course what Obama spoke so boldly about to Libya, IS HAPPENING in Syria, as Obama, thank God sits with his thumb up his buttock hole.

Your analogy is ack-basswards.

[BDunnell]

Alright then. Everyone seems to be ok with Obama basically taking on the powers of a dictator and sending troops into war completely on his own. One of the main points of discussion when our Constitution was written, by the way. It's all Bush's fault, and so on.

I thought perhaps someone would would like to have a thoughtful, inteligent discussion. Guess not. Back to my self imposed exile then.

The one who is avoiding thoughtful, intelligent discussion is, with respect, you for applying the label 'war criminal'. Whatever one's views on the military action in Libya — and I believe it to be misguided, if more justifiable than some we could mention — there is simply no way the use of this phrase is applicable in this situation for all the reasons put to you. The random throwing-around of such terms merely serves to debase them.

[gloomyDAY]

Bunch of liberals! Obama is doing what is right for an oppressed group of people in Libya, and all you can do is bitch and moan about a just cause. You liberals (Chuck, Starter, Bob) should be ashamed to bask in the glory of a free American nation.

[Eki]

Saddam was ignoring UN demands given after losing a war caused by his attacking Kuwait.

Yet the UN didn't give the US permission to attack Iraq. Oh, and there weren't any new and functioning WMDs in Iraq and neither were they being developed.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="gloomyDAY"]Bunch of liberals! Bush did what is right for an oppressed group of people in Iraq, and all you can do is bitch and moan about a just cause. You liberals should be ashamed to bask in the glory of a free American nation.

[Bob Riebe]

Yet the UN didn't give the US permission to attack Iraq. Oh, and there weren't any new and functioning WMDs in Iraq and neither were they being developed.The U.S. did not need permission, just as NATo did not need permission. There was no reason to attack Libya, period.

Your analogy is screwed at face value.

[Eki]

The U.S. did not need permission, just as NATo did not need permission. There was no reason to attack Libya, period.

Your analogy is screwed at face value.
NATO did need permission and the UN gave it, period:

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm)


SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY

MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS


Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

[schmenke]

A similar poplar uprising, with attacks against civilians in retaliation, is currently occurring elsewhere, notably Syria, by a ruler as callous as Qaddafi.
Will the UN consider similar measures?
I doubt it :dozey:

[donKey jote]

Back to my self imposed exile then.


is that where you were? can't say I missed you :p :laugh:
2797

[BDunnell]

Bush did what is right for an oppressed group of people in Iraq, and all you can do is bitch and moan about a just cause.

Again, I say it: your support for the intervention in Iraq and your opposition to that in Libya is based not on morals, nor the reality of events in both countries; it is entirely related to the identity of the inhabitant of the White House. On what grounds have the people of Libya not been oppressed by the Gaddafi regime? I am quite sure that, had Bush told you that Gaddafi required overthrowing, you would have been right there behind it.


You liberals should be ashamed to bask in the glory of a free American nation.

I, for one, have never done much of said basking.

[airshifter]

When you have John Kerry and John McCain are co sponsors of a resolution giving authorization for the actions in Libya, it's apparent that quite a few in both major parties feel Obama is not within the authority granted to him. Any actions taken to make the use of the military legal are really just evidence that Obama went about things with the wrong approach.

It looks like Italy may be bowing out soon. France is voting on July 12 seeking the approval of parliament, and some stories seem to indicate a very limited role allowed by parliament is very likely. The UK doesn't have the funds to go it much longer without other major countries contributing. Who does this leave? And how similar to the no fly zones in Iraq after the Gulf War is this situation?

I'll give some credit for politicians trying to make right what is wrong, but Kerry and McCain should be introducing a resolution that either discontinues all support, or continues support only if the major players stay on board, openly admit they are looking for a change of rule, and work towards it. They all keep acting as if they are only there to keep innocents from being harmed, yet it's clear what the real intentions are.

Either commit, or get out.

For the US, I'd personally prefer the "get out" role. I'm sick of the rest of the world expecting the US to do the work, yet be critical of the US when doing it. That way maybe we would have articles telling us how Italy, France, or the UK performed aerial attacks that killed civilians. As it is now, it's all attached as "UN" or "NATO" missions. I guess tying to hide the deaths of innocents is part of acting under the claim of protecting them for other countries. I'd prefer people admit the scale of the conflict, which will almost always include the accidental killing of innocents. Maybe then people would realize the scope and severity of the situation.

[BDunnell]

For the US, I'd personally prefer the "get out" role. I'm sick of the rest of the world expecting the US to do the work, yet be critical of the US when doing it.

Equally, some from other countries are rather sick of reading this view on the part of some Americans who appear to expect the world's gratitude for its interventions under all circumstances. It's the 'You're either with us or against us' mentality coming forth again. And I'm not sure where the notion of the 'rest of the world' (whatever that means) wanting the US to 'do the work' comes from. Quite a lot of international opinion has, after all, been turned against unilateral US leadership in such matters.


That way maybe we would have articles telling us how Italy, France, or the UK performed aerial attacks that killed civilians.

Again, the view that the US is somehow being victimised strikes me as entirely false. When such incidents occur as a result of the actions of other nations' forces, they are reported as such.


I'd prefer people admit the scale of the conflict, which will almost always include the accidental killing of innocents. Maybe then people would realize the scope and severity of the situation.

On this, I agree with you completely. The expectation of zero collateral casualties is unrealistic and the public should be conditioned against it.

[anthonyvop]

I thought this would be related to George W. Bush.

George W. Bush is a hero and savior of Millions from tyranny, torture and death in Iraq and Afghanistan and led the ground work for today's people's uprisings in various Islamic Dictatorships.

Cities, States, Countries, Schools, Hospitals and Children should be named after him. His likeness should grace the coinage of every freedom loving country.

[555-04Q2]

So it's now been over 90 days since we started hostilities in Lybia. The War Powers Act clearly says

Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)


Therefore Mr. Obama should have reported to Congress about his actions 30 days ago. Failing that, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, he had 30 more days to pull out due to some sort of "unavoidable military necessity". Well yesterday was 90 days.

When will Speaker Boehner be presenting the articles of impeachment?

Its been full of them since the mid 60's. What the sudden problem?

[Dave B]

George W. Bush is a hero and savior of Millions from tyranny, torture and death in Iraq and Afghanistan and led the ground work for today's people's uprisings in various Islamic Dictatorships.

Cities, States, Countries, Schools, Hospitals and Children should be named after him. His likeness should grace the coinage of every freedom loving country.
I wouldn't name a dog turd after that man.

[BDunnell]

George W. Bush is a hero and savior of Millions from tyranny, torture and death in Iraq and Afghanistan and led the ground work for today's people's uprisings in various Islamic Dictatorships.

Cities, States, Countries, Schools, Hospitals and Children should be named after him. His likeness should grace the coinage of every freedom loving country.

Nurse, he's out of bed again!

[BDunnell]

I wouldn't name a dog turd after that man.

I would, however, name schools and hospitals after anthonyvop. Each would have a statue of him outside brandishing an illegally held firearm.

[555-04Q2]

George W. Bush is a hero and savior of Millions from tyranny, torture and death in Iraq and Afghanistan and led the ground work for today's people's uprisings in various Islamic Dictatorships.

Cities, States, Countries, Schools, Hospitals and Children should be named after him. His likeness should grace the coinage of every freedom loving country.

You are either: (please tick appropriate box)

A. Taking the p!$$
B. Stark raving mad
C. American
D. A fellow "C" grade student

[BDunnell]

C. American

Quite seriously, let's not tar all with anything like the same brush. Even though anthonyvop would presumably consider those who disagree with him dangerous infidels unworthy of American citizenship, we should never forget the millions upon millions of charming, moderate Americans — Republicans included — of whom such extreme views as we see here from certain individuals are utterly unrepresentative.

[555-04Q2]

Quite seriously, let's not tar all with anything like the same brush. Even though anthonyvop would presumably consider those who disagree with him dangerous infidels unworthy of American citizenship, we should never forget the millions upon millions of charming, moderate Americans — Republicans included — of whom such extreme views as we see here from certain individuals are utterly unrepresentative.

:confused: Now you are taking the p!$$.

[BDunnell]

:confused: Now you are taking the p!$$.

Far from it.

Unfortunately, such extreme views as I refer to have gained increasing currency and prominence in recent years.

[markabilly]

Why not both? They're both cut from the same cloth. They think just because they are President of the United States that the rules don't apply to them.

No both george and george JR., followed the law on this subject. Billy Clinton and Obama did not.

[markabilly]

Really? I thought I said that Obama "should have most definitely gone to the Congress seeking permission under the War Powers Act 1973". Maybe I didn't... oh well...

No, you have changed your story.

In the prior thread, where this was discussed in toto, you tried to defend Obama.

No, the attacks are NOT authorized by any law applicable to the USA. Go find the thread.
UN don't mean shot as all we can do is devote no more than one thousand UNARMED peacekeepers to the efforts for a short period of time.


Because these attacks and killings are NOT lawful under US law, they are an illegal. premeditated killings.....in other words, murder.

That is the difference between Bush Senior, Bush Jr, and the muslim-christian named Obama. Like it or not, the Bushes followed the law, acting with fully legal powers, and Obama completely ignored the law.

Impeachment is not only an option, it is mandated under the US Constitution.

[markabilly]

So it's now been over 90 days since we started hostilities in Lybia. The War Powers Act clearly says

Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)


Therefore Mr. Obama should have reported to Congress about his actions 30 days ago. Failing that, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, he had 30 more days to pull out due to some sort of "unavoidable military necessity". Well yesterday was 90 days.

When will Speaker Boehner be presenting the articles of impeachment?

you are wrong.

The war powers act does not apply, because that requires an attack or threatened immediate upon the USA
that is representing an emergency.

Because that was NOT present, we don't even get to the 60 days question.

[Bob Riebe]

Again, I say it: your support for the intervention in Iraq and your opposition to that in Libya is based not on morals, nor the reality of events in both countries; it is entirely related to the identity of the inhabitant of the White House. On what grounds have the people of Libya not been oppressed by the Gaddafi regime? I am quite sure that, had Bush told you that Gaddafi required overthrowing, you would have been right there behind it.



I, for one, have never done much of said basking.You assume too much.

There was no real reason to invade Iraq, but that is old news and once you go in, you fight it as a war and do not do as Bush did play political games based on the opinions of the political twits the President had/has for a cabinet.
Bush fought the Iraq war in a half-arsed manner just as Obama is in the war in Afghanistan regardless of his campaign rhetoric.

Killing Osama is not the same as fighting a war.

Donkey is the one who said liberals bask too much.

There is no proof that Qaddafi was even basically similar to Saddam, so to keep bring up that ananlogy is bogus.

NOW, the leader of Syria, is acting more like Saddam but the liberal press seems to ignore that. I hope Obama does not go in there as he will make Bush's putzing in Iraq look like Rommel compared to what Obama has shown for ability.

Assad is doing what Pres. Obama said Qaddafi THREATENED, did not do, threatened, to do.
The only good thing coming out of this is Pres. Obama looks like a lying fool.

[Bob Riebe]

NATO did need permission and the UN gave it, period:

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm)NATO can do as it pleases regardless of what the U.N. says.

[BDunnell]

There is no proof that Qaddafi was even basically similar to Saddam, so to keep bring up that ananlogy is bogus.

NOW, the leader of Syria, is acting more like Saddam but the liberal press seems to ignore that. I hope Obama does not go in there as he will make Bush's putzing in Iraq look like Rommel compared to what Obama has shown for ability.

In what respect is there 'no proof' of Gaddafi's actions against his own people, and by what measure (your own does not count) is al-Assad 'acting more like Saddam'? These comparisons are all very well, but I don't think there's any point making them unless you can back them up with empirical evidence.

[Bob Riebe]

In what respect is there 'no proof' of Gaddafi's actions against his own people, and by what measure (your own does not count) is al-Assad 'acting more like Saddam'? These comparisons are all very well, but I don't think there's any point making them unless you can back them up with empirical evidence.This what Obama said Qaddafi was going to do, and what Saddam was on record doing to his own people.

Syrian opposition tell Assad to quit immediately - Emirates 24/7 (http://www.emirates247.com/news/world/syrian-opposition-tell-assad-to-quit-immediately
-2011-06-02-1.400492)

You say there is proof-- then you give proof Qaddafi did this, not twenty years ago- now.
He is fighting armed opposition after being attacked, NO ONE attacked Assad.

[donKey jote]

Donkey is the one who said liberals bask too much.


:confused:

[555-04Q2]

George Bush and Tony Blair are hero's for sure lol.

Hero's? No.
Nob's? Yes.

They are not nob's. They are war criminals who lied to the world and got away with it. They are murderers who should pay for the lives of innocent people lost due to their lies.

[Eki]

NATO can do as it pleases regardless of what the U.N. says.
So can North Korea, but it doesn't make it acceptable. Anyways, NATO countries asked for permission and the UN gave it.

[chuck34]

They are war criminals who lied to the world and got away with it.

Bush is a war criminal because he "lied". Obama is cool because he didn't say anything? I'm following the logic now.


They are murderers who should pay for the lives of innocent people lost due to their lies.

If they are murderers what does that make Obama?

[555-04Q2]

Bush is a war criminal because he "lied". Obama is cool because he didn't say anything? I'm following the logic now.



If they are murderers what does that make Obama?

Typical of one of your posts. I never said that Obama is cool, innocent or didn't lie. In fact I have not even mentioned Obama, so how the hell do you come to that conclusion? Sucking on the Gatorade again?

[chuck34]

Typical of one of your posts. I never said that Obama is cool, innocent or didn't lie. In fact I have not even mentioned Obama, so how the hell do you come to that conclusion? Sucking on the Gatorade again?

Oh I don't know, perhaps because I started this thread to talk about Obama. But in typical style 'round here no one can possibly discuss anything without it degenerating into "Bush lied, people died".

[555-04Q2]

Oh I don't know, perhaps because I started this thread to talk about Obama. But in typical style 'round here no one can possibly discuss anything without it degenerating into "Bush lied, people died".

I'll send you a pack of tissues. You prefer single or double ply? Please provide postal address.

[chuck34]

Let's cut all the BS.

Can someone please explain to me how it is not illegal for the US to be involved in a war in Lybia without uttering the word "Bush"?

[555-04Q2]

Let's cut all the BS.

Can someone please explain to me how it is not illegal for the US to be involved in a war in Lybia without uttering the word "Bush"?

Ok "BS" aside, Bush paved the way for the US to start a boxing match with everyone and anyone they can. Luckily, as big as the US war machine is, it can't be everywhere at once, which leaves some of us unmolested for now.

The US (as well as other countries) should not be in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc etc etc.

If you want comment on Obama, he's just a new d!ck in the Oval Office. Pity, cause I thought he was going to be better than he's turned out to be.

[chuck34]

Ok "BS" aside, Bush paved the way for the US to start a boxing match with everyone and anyone they can. Luckily, as big as the US war machine is, it can't be everywhere at once, which leaves some of us unmolested for now.

The US (as well as other countries) should not be in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc etc etc.

If you want comment on Obama, he's just a new d!ck in the Oval Office. Pity, cause I thought he was going to be better than he's turned out to be.

Bush is not the President of the United States. Bush did not go to war with Lybia. Bush did not fail to comply with the War Powers Resolution. Bush did not circumvent Congress when he used military power. Bush did not act illegally when going to war.

It's a simple thing to do, either justify Obama's actions based on the law (and I don't mean any justification or lack thereof for action against Lybia, that is not and should not be part of the discussion of the legality of the action). Or if you can not, then admit that articles of impeachment must be drawn up, and presented to the House of Representitives.

[BDunnell]

Oh I don't know, perhaps because I started this thread to talk about Obama. But in typical style 'round here no one can possibly discuss anything without it degenerating into "Bush lied, people died".

But it is the truth that he (and those who followed him into war) lied, and that people died. Therefore there can be no objection on factual grounds.

[555-04Q2]

as ours countries are worlds apart.

You should follow it because the world is no longer seperated as you think it is. Every war affects things like oil prices, gold prices, investment confidence etc etc. It impacts directly on your cost of living to mention just one of the problems.

[BDunnell]

Bush is not the President of the United States. Bush did not go to war with Lybia. Bush did not fail to comply with the War Powers Resolution. Bush did not circumvent Congress when he used military power. Bush did not act illegally when going to war.

It's a simple thing to do, either justify Obama's actions based on the law (and I don't mean any justification or lack thereof for action against Lybia, that is not and should not be part of the discussion of the legality of the action). Or if you can not, then admit that articles of impeachment must be drawn up, and presented to the House of Representitives.

It would help the force of your argument if you could spell correctly the name of the country you are talking about. It's Libya. Not much, because I find your argument somewhat absurd, but a little.

[chuck34]

But it is the truth that he (and those who followed him into war) lied, and that people died. Therefore there can be no objection on factual grounds.

The Bush arguments all fall on their face. The fact of the matter is that as evil as most of you think Bush is, he followed the law. He went to Congress and got approval for his actions. Obama has failed to do that. He has violated the War Powers Act, and by extension the US Constitution. Impeachment is called for in this case.

[555-04Q2]

Bush is not the President of the United States. Bush did not go to war with Lybia. Bush did not fail to comply with the War Powers Resolution. Bush did not circumvent Congress when he used military power. Bush did not act illegally when going to war.

It's a simple thing to do, either justify Obama's actions based on the law (and I don't mean any justification or lack thereof for action against Lybia, that is not and should not be part of the discussion of the legality of the action). Or if you can not, then admit that articles of impeachment must be drawn up, and presented to the House of Representitives.

What part of "Bush paved the way..." are you not understanding? And no one has said that Bush is the president nor that he went to war with Libya.

If tissues won't suffice, I can rather send you a box of tampons if you like. You prefer regular or extra absorbant? Still waiting for postal address.

[chuck34]

It would help the force of your argument if you could spell correctly the name of the country you are talking about. It's Libya. Not much, because I find your argument somewhat absurd, but a little.

Sorry that I'm a bad speller. If that's the only argument you have against me then so be it.

It would be nice to hear what argument of mine you find absurd, and why.

[BDunnell]

The Bush arguments all fall on their face. The fact of the matter is that as evil as most of you think Bush is, he followed the law. He went to Congress and got approval for his actions. Obama has failed to do that. He has violated the War Powers Act, and by extension the US Constitution. Impeachment is called for in this case.

It is a fact that Bush and Blair lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Call it what you like — I call it a lie. People died. Therefore, as I said, the use of that argument is based in fact, as opposed to your argument which is based purely on your own political prejudices.

[555-04Q2]

The Bush arguments all fall on their face. The fact of the matter is that as evil as most of you think Bush is, he followed the law. He went to Congress and got approval for his actions. Obama has failed to do that. He has violated the War Powers Act, and by extension the US Constitution. Impeachment is called for in this case.

So if we get approval from our government can we come over there and murder your family? No we can't, because its bullsh!t dude. Murder is murder, no matter who "approves" it.

[chuck34]

What part of "Bush paved the way..." are you not understanding? And no one has said that Bush is the president nor that he went to war with Libya.

If tissues won't suffice, I can rather send you a box of tampons if you like. You prefer regular or extra absorbant? Still waiting for postal address.

Wow the personal insults are just such an overwhelming argument I don't know where to begin.

So tell me exactly how "Bush paved the way". He went to the Congress, asked for and recieved approval to use military force, just as is called for in US law. How does that "pave the way" for Obama to unilaterally use military force?

[chuck34]

It is a fact that Bush and Blair lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Call it what you like — I call it a lie. People died. Therefore, as I said, the use of that argument is based in fact, as opposed to your argument which is based purely on your own political prejudices.

If you can prove that Bush and Blair knew that there were no weapons at the time of the invasion, perhaps you would have a point. But again, that does not change the fact that Bush went to Congress, asked for and recieved approval for the use of military force. Obama has not. Therefore impeachment proceedings must start.

[Eki]

Let's cut all the BS.

Can someone please explain to me how it is not illegal for the US to be involved in a war in Lybia without uttering the word "Bush"?
Because the UN Security Council approved it, they didn't approve attacking Iraq. Furthermore, there haven't been any occupation, torture, mistreatment of prisoners of war and deliberate murdering and raping of civilians by the NATO forces in Libya.

[555-04Q2]

Wow the personal insults are just such an overwhelming argument I don't know where to begin.

So tell me exactly how "Bush paved the way". He went to the Congress, asked for and recieved approval to use military force, just as is called for in US law. How does that "pave the way" for Obama to unilaterally use military force?

The fact that your country is involved in multiple unwarranted conflicts around the world at the moment should be more than enough evidence to support what I said. If you need any further explanation than that, I am not able to assist you.

[chuck34]

So if we get approval from our government can we come over there and murder your family? No we can't, because its bullsh!t dude. Murder is murder, no matter who "approves" it.

War is not murder in the strictest sence. Bush recieved approval to use military force in accordance to our laws. Therefore the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically war.

Obama has recieved no such approval from the US Congress. Therefore, he is a murderer.

[Eki]

If you can prove that Bush and Blair knew that there were no weapons at the time of the invasion, perhaps you would have a point. But again, that does not change the fact that Bush went to Congress, asked for and recieved approval for the use of military force. Obama has not. Therefore impeachment proceedings must start.
NATO can do as it pleases without asking the US Congress.

[555-04Q2]

If you can prove that Bush and Blair knew that there were no weapons at the time of the invasion, perhaps you would have a point. But again, that does not change the fact that Bush went to Congress, asked for and recieved approval for the use of military force. Obama has not. Therefore impeachment proceedings must start.

They did. Fact, UN inspectors reported that there were no WOMD prior to the invasion of Iraq, yet Iraq was still invaded.

[chuck34]

The fact that your country is involved in multiple unwarranted conflicts around the world at the moment should be more than enough evidence to support what I said. If you need any further explanation than that, I am not able to assist you.

Explain to me how Obama's actions on Libya are legal within the scope of US law. Remember Bush's actions, regardless if anyone agrees or disagrees with them, are not US law.

[BDunnell]

Sorry that I'm a bad speller. If that's the only argument you have against me then so be it.

It would be nice to hear what argument of mine you find absurd, and why.

The idea of impeachment. In what sense has the War Powers Act been violated? Earlier on, markabilly, not someone with whom I often find myself in agreement, gave what I thought was a potent counter-argument as to why it does not apply in this instance. You and others on the right seem to be clutching at straws out of a desperate, deep-seated dislike for the current President. Can't get him on his birth certificate? OK, we'll call for his impeachment over Libya. I hold no particular candle for Obama — I think the state of American politics and the level of much American political debate is pretty appalling, and his administration was only ever going to be a great disappointment after expectations were built so high — but, by contrast, my hatred for the opinions of sections of the American right is pretty visceral. Alas, their attitudes seem to have permeated even more moderate opinion.

Oh, and you're not a bad speller at all. It just struck me as odd that you mis-spelled that one word.

[555-04Q2]

War is not murder in the strictest sence. Bush recieved approval to use military force in accordance to our laws. Therefore the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically war.

Obama has recieved no such approval from the US Congress. Therefore, he is a murderer.

Just because it is given a different name, does not mean it is not murder.

[chuck34]

They did. Fact, UN inspectors reported that there were no WOMD prior to the invasion of Iraq, yet Iraq was still invaded.

Without getting into this much further ... The UN reported that they had not found any, but that they were not allowed to inspect many key facilities.

[555-04Q2]

Explain to me how Obama's actions on Libya are legal within the scope of US law. Remember Bush's actions, regardless if anyone agrees or disagrees with them, are not US law.

His actions aren't. And US law does not give the US the right to invade another country.

[BDunnell]

If you can prove that Bush and Blair knew that there were no weapons at the time of the invasion, perhaps you would have a point.

They were told by UN experts whose opinion (a) they chose to ignore, presenting as it did a serious barrier to the religious zeal with which both men pursued the goal of regime change, and (b) was proved to be right.

[BDunnell]

Without getting into this much further ... The UN reported that they had not found any, but that they were not allowed to inspect many key facilities.

Where none were found either, just as was always expected. Yet the justification continued to be used in the face of all actual evidence. It was a lie.

[555-04Q2]

Without getting into this much further ... The UN reported that they had not found any, but that they were not allowed to inspect many key facilities.

The twin stooges vowed that there were WOMD in Iraq, yet none were found. They both remain unpunished. Discussion on this fact is over :)

[BDunnell]

Obama has recieved no such approval from the US Congress. Therefore, he is a murderer.

Call the police and request his arrest, then. Afterwards, let us know how far you get. Clearly this dangerous man, such a danger to all of us — possibly even more of a danger than were Iraq's stocks of WMD — should not be on the loose! To think we allowed him into the UK recently as well. Imagine what could have happened. And he may also be mildly centre-left in his views, too.

[chuck34]

The idea of impeachment. In what sense has the War Powers Act been violated? Earlier on, markabilly, not someone with whom I often find myself in agreement, gave what I thought was a potent counter-argument as to why it does not apply in this instance. You and others on the right seem to be clutching at straws out of a desperate, deep-seated dislike for the current President. Can't get him on his birth certificate? OK, we'll call for his impeachment over Libya. I hold no particular candle for Obama — I think the state of American politics and the level of much American political debate is pretty appalling, and his administration was only ever going to be a great disappointment after expectations were built so high — but, by contrast, my hatred for the opinions of sections of the American right is pretty visceral. Alas, their attitudes seem to have permeated even more moderate opinion.

The War Powers Act has been violated because the President is required to report to Congress within 60 days (with another 30 day sort of "grace period") what actions have been taken, and seek approval for further action.

markabilly's argument (as I understand it) is that since Libya posed no threat to the US that the attack was illegal from the get-go. The War Powers Act never even kicked in. I pretty much agree with that, but I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, if he'd just go before Congress and lay out the thread posed and what his plan is.

And please don't lump me in with the "birthers". They are fools from the start.


Oh, and you're not a bad speller at all. It just struck me as odd that you mis-spelled that one word.

I am a bad speller. I'm comfortable with who I am.

[BDunnell]

The twin stooges vowed that there were WOMD in Iraq, yet none were found. They both remain unpunished. Discussion on this fact is over :)

Yet still some seem to hang on to it.

[chuck34]

Just because it is given a different name, does not mean it is not murder.

Ok if you want to take the stand that war is always murder, I'm cool with that.

[555-04Q2]

Ok if you want to take the stand that war is always murder, I'm cool with that.

:up:

[chuck34]

Where none were found either, just as was always expected. Yet the justification continued to be used in the face of all actual evidence. It was a lie.

I will freely admit that they were wrong, that there were no WMD. However, I believe that Bush believed they were there at the begining, he just listened to the wrong people/reports. If that is a crime then fine, but my opinion is that he was just wrong he did not deliberatly lie. There is no way to know which stand is correct, unless you can see into a man's mind from 10 years ago.

[555-04Q2]

PS: still waiting for the postal address :p :

Apologies if my poor sense of humour did not make you smile :)

[chuck34]

Call the police and request his arrest, then. Afterwards, let us know how far you get. Clearly this dangerous man, such a danger to all of us — possibly even more of a danger than were Iraq's stocks of WMD — should not be on the loose! To think we allowed him into the UK recently as well. Imagine what could have happened. And he may also be mildly centre-left in his views, too.

I'm glad that standing up for the rule of law can be a point of sarcasm for you.

[BDunnell]

I'm glad that standing up for the rule of law can be a point of sarcasm for you.

I believe humour can be found in any situation.

[chuck34]

The twin stooges vowed that there were WOMD in Iraq, yet none were found. They both remain unpunished. Discussion on this fact is over :)

Show me where in the the US code of laws it makes it illegal to make the wrong decision when faced with two conflicting reports.

I have shown you exactly where Obama has broken the law. So if you really want to continue down the Bush path, please do likewise.

[BDunnell]

I have shown you exactly where Obama has broken the law.

To what extent does said law apply to interventions by NATO?

I must say, I am surprised David Cameron allowed himself to be associated with this criminal during his recent visit to the UK. You would have thought he would have brought it up?

[Eki]

War is not murder in the strictest sence. Bush recieved approval to use military force in accordance to our laws. Therefore the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically war.

But not in accordance to international laws. Therefore he committed a crime against peace and US troops in Iraq have committed war crimes.

[chuck34]

To what extent does said law apply to interventions by NATO?

As we are members of NATO by treaty the law governing our involvment would fall to Article VI paragraph 2

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In plain English that means that the Constituion and all other laws of the US are supreme over treaties. So the War Powers Act takes precidence over the NATO treaty.

[chuck34]

But not in accordance to international laws. Therefore he committed a crime against peace and US troops in Iraq have committed war crimes.

UN Resolution 1441. Read it.
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3087641.2987709.html

[Eki]

UN Resolution 1441. Read it.
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3087641.2987709.html
No need. It didn't apply to the invasion of Iraq. It didn't say anything about invading Iraq. The UN demanded a new resolution, but Bush and Blair knew it wouldn't go through, so they attacked without a new resolution. Even the UN General Secretary Kofi Annan said that invading Iraq was against the UN Charter.

International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/)


The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

The US didn't need to invade Iraq in self-defense and neither did the Security Council authorize the invasion. The Security Council specifically said DO NOT invade without a new resolution and further inspections and proof of WMDs.

[chuck34]

No need. It didn't apply to the invasion of Iraq. It was done years before

Years before? Passed 8 Nov. 2002.


and didn't say anything about invading Iraq.

So how do you interpret "Demands to comply within 7 days". What, or we'll talk harsher? How about "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" We're really going to talk harsh now.


The UN demanded a new resolution, but Bush and Blair knew it wouldn't go through, so they attacked without a new resolution.

Where is this demand?


Even the UN General Secretary Kofi Annan said that invading Iraq was against the UN Charter.

And he's the whole UN?


The US didn't need to invade Iraq in self-defense and neither did the Security Council authorize the invasion. The Security Council specifically said DO NOT invade without a new resolution.

Show me where it says "Do not invade".

[Eki]

So how do you interpret "Demands to comply within 7 days". What, or we'll talk harsher? How about "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" We're really going to talk harsh now.
There wasn't enough evidence of continued violations of its obligations. And as we now know, there weren't any WMDs being developed or mass piled in Iraq.




Where is this demand?


Show me where it says "Do not invade".

It was spoken at Security Council negotiations. You can't show spoken words, but the spirit of the negotiations were well reported in news media.

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War)


n 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]

[Eki]

And he's the whole UN?


No, and he was not alone with his view. Among others, the Finnish President Tarja Halonen said the war was illegal:

Helsingin Sanomat - International Edition - Foreign (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/President+Halonen+at+United+Nations+Iraq+War+was+i llegal/1076154009154)


President Halonen at United Nations: Iraq War was illegal


In her address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Finnish President Tarja Halonen expressed the view that the War in Iraq was illegal.
Speaking on the opening day of the General Assembly, President Halonen said that the international community had failed before the war in Iraq began. "Conflicting national interests prevailed over common will", she said.
"There was not enough commitment to act within the boundaries of Security Council resolutions. Some countries resorted to use of force which was not compatible with international law."
At a press conference held before her speech, Halonen said that some kind of an international court would be needed to give a formal decision on the legality of the war.
"However, it is my own impression that the requirements of international law were not met", the President said.

[markabilly]

The twin stooges vowed that there were WOMD in Iraq, yet none were found. They both remain unpunished. Discussion on this fact is over :)

whatever. I find it hard to beleive that you claim to have fought off an attack on your family, and then start whining like this,

[markabilly]

But not in accordance to international laws. Therefore he committed a crime against peace and US troops in Iraq have committed war crimes.

and if bush committed war crimes, then obama has done far worse, for he acted without any shade of legality. NONE.

So why are you not calling him a war crimnal criminal???

Opps, I forgot, bama is half black and serves your liberal ideals

[markabilly]

Call the police and request his arrest, then. Afterwards, let us know how far you get. Clearly this dangerous man, such a danger to all of us — possibly even more of a danger than were Iraq's stocks of WMD — should not be on the loose! To think we allowed him into the UK recently as well. Imagine what could have happened. And he may also be mildly centre-left in his views, too.

the usual tired out repetive trolling BS..............do you not even bore yourself??? :rolleyes:

[555-04Q2]

whatever. I find it hard to beleive that you claim to have fought off an attack on your family, and then start whining like this,

There is a major difference between the two.

[Eki]

whatever. I find it hard to beleive that you claim to have fought off an attack on your family, and then start whining like this,
I think we can rest assured that the family really was attacked, and 555-04Q2 didn't just launch a "pre-emptive" attack on someone he thought might attack his family in unforeseeable future.

[Eki]

and if bush committed war crimes, then obama has done far worse, for he acted without any shade of legality. NONE.

So why are you not calling him a war crimnal criminal???

Opps, I forgot, bama is half black and serves your liberal ideals
Like I said, Obama has Security Council authority in Libya, therefore he's not violating the UN Charter or any international laws. I'm not interested in if he's breaking some US laws, it's your business not mine.

It's that simple. His heritage has nothing to do with it.

[chuck34]

I'm not interested in if he's breaking some US laws, it's your business not mine.

And that is the whole point. The President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch of our government, the man who is supposed to execute (or enforce) our laws, the man who is supposed to preserve, protect, and defend OUR Constitution, has clearly violated the authority given to him by said Constitution as pertains to his role as Comander-in-Chief of the United States Military. If the man in charge of executing the laws of the land is allowed to violate them, or ignore them all together, then they loose meaning, and we become a nation without laws.

The UN Charter, and international laws all take a back seat to the US Constitution when you are a citizen, let alone the President, of the United States of America. If the UN Charter and international laws take precident over the US Constitution then we have lost our sovernty, we cease to be a nation.

That is the freaking point Eki! If you can't understand that, then please dis-continue this discussion.

[markabilly]

Like I said, Obama has Security Council authority in Libya, therefore he's not violating the UN Charter or any international laws. I'm not interested in if he's breaking some US laws, it's your business not mine.

It's that simple. His heritage has nothing to do with it.
except with out it, he would not be where he is........

[Bob Riebe]

I'll send you a pack of tissues. You prefer single or double ply? Please provide postal address.
Your point is assuming you have one?

[Bob Riebe]

But it is the truth that he (and those who followed him into war) lied, and that people died. Therefore there can be no objection on factual grounds.
Hmm. no blame for Saddam attacking Kuwait, ignoring what seems to be the precious U.N.-to some?
No blame for Osama's flunkies murdering thousands in New York?

Blinder vision.

[Bob Riebe]

It would help the force of your argument if you could spell correctly the name of the country you are talking about. It's Libya. Not much, because I find your argument somewhat absurd, but a little.fNo continually bring up Pres. Bush, who is not in office, is partly absurd and partly asinine.

I am going to have to see what old Pres. Billy Clinton did to add to the cluster-f.

[Bob Riebe]

Call the police and request his arrest, then. Afterwards, let us know how far you get. Clearly this dangerous man, such a danger to all of us — possibly even more of a danger than were Iraq's stocks of WMD — should not be on the loose! To think we allowed him into the UK recently as well. Imagine what could have happened. And he may also be mildly centre-left in his views, too.
No only the Libyan civilians his war directly killed by killing the wrong people or were caused to be killed by backing rebels who have been said to be more of a danger to themselves than Qaddafi, actually have the right to call Obama a murderer.

[Eki]

except with out it, he would not be where he is........
Without heritage, nobody would be where they are.

[Rollo]

The House of Reps voted 238-180 against defunding the operation. What sort of message does this send?
If the House has voted against defunding the operations in Libya, then does this mean to say that the House has given tacit approval?

The House might be mad at Obama for not asking approval but it's not so mad as to take the money away from him.

Of the 238 who voted in favour of not defunding operations, 96 of them were Republicans. Now I don't know if the House of Reps in the US has the equivalent of parliamentary whips, but I think hat 96/240 voting in that manner mans that they can't be doing a very good job. Does the GOP even have an official position?
If the President and the Democrats are showing impuissant leadership, with Obama continuing operations with no input from the Congress at all, then the Republicans are equally proven to be rudderless and pathetic.

[Bob Riebe]

Without heritage, nobody would be where they are.You mean everyone in prison is there because of their heritage-- wow!

[Eki]

You mean everyone in prison is there because of their heritage-- wow!
No, I mean without heritage you wouldn't even exist.

[airshifter]

The House of Reps voted 238-180 against defunding the operation. What sort of message does this send?
If the House has voted against defunding the operations in Libya, then does this mean to say that the House has given tacit approval?

The House might be mad at Obama for not asking approval but it's not so mad as to take the money away from him.

Of the 238 who voted in favour of not defunding operations, 96 of them were Republicans. Now I don't know if the House of Reps in the US has the equivalent of parliamentary whips, but I think hat 96/240 voting in that manner mans that they can't be doing a very good job. Does the GOP even have an official position?
If the President and the Democrats are showing impuissant leadership, with Obama continuing operations with no input from the Congress at all, then the Republicans are equally proven to be rudderless and pathetic.


The House also voted 295-123 to refuse consent to another year in Libya, and this voted included 70(?) democrats. The message sent to Obama is that the law makers with the authority to wage war want that system of checks and balances used, even if the majority agree that it should have been done and thus funding continued.

[BDunnell]

The House also voted 295-123 to refuse consent to another year in Libya, and this voted included 70(?) democrats. The message sent to Obama is that the law makers with the authority to wage war want that system of checks and balances used, even if the majority agree that it should have been done and thus funding continued.

When put like that, without absurd statements about murder and impeachment, the objection seems — and is — utterly reasonable.

[Bob Riebe]

When put like that, without absurd statements about murder and impeachment, the objection seems — and is — utterly reasonable.

Here is part of Charles Krauthammer's take on the subject. He is an insider, who only accepts TEA party politics reluctantly but he is well informed:


Published: June 27, 2011
WASHINGTON --

Is the Libya war legal? Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it is not. President Obama has exceeded the 90-day period to receive retroactive authorization from Congress.

But things are not so simple. No president should accept — and no president from Nixon on has accepted — the constitutionality of the WPR, passed unilaterally by Congress over a presidential veto. On the other hand, every president should have the constitutional decency to get some congressional approval when he takes the country to war.

The model for such constitutional restraint is — yes, Senator Obama — George W. Bush. Not once but twice (Afghanistan and then Iraq) did Bush seek and receive congressional authorization, as his father did for the Gulf War. On Libya, Obama did nothing of the sort. He claimed exemption from the WPR on the grounds that America in Libya is not really engaged in "hostilities."

To deploy an excuse so transparently ridiculous isn't just a show of contempt for Congress and for the intelligence of the American people. It manages additionally to undermine the presidency's own war-making prerogatives by implicitly conceding that if the Libya war really did involve hostilities, the president would indeed be subject to the WPR.

The worst of all possible worlds: Insult Congress, weaken the presidency. A neat trick.

But the question of war-making power is larger than one president's blundering. We have a core constitutional problem. In balancing war-making power between Congress and the presidency, the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to declare war.

Problem is: No one declares war anymore. Since World War II, we've been involved in five major wars, and many minor engagements, without ever declaring war.

But it's not just us. No one does. Declarations of war are a relic of a more aristocratic era, a time when, for example, an American secretary of state closed his department's code-cracking office because "gentlemen do not read each other's mail."

The power to declare war has become, through no fault of anyone, archaic and obsolete. Taken literally, it is as useless as granting Congress the right to regulate horse-and-buggies.