Unconstitutional warmaking to punish violating laws of war is like lynching for justice.

[Faryn Balyncd]

.... and the constitutional scholar/Senator I worked my ass of for to elect twice, had it right :

“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.”

---Senator Barack Obama, 12-20-2007

(Inspirational credits to William Pitt)

[WillyT]

1. Agreed !!!

& Rec !!!

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

[Coyotl]

3. Either way, the price of oil goes up and lots of people get real rich!

So, you know this train won't derail easily.

[bhikkhu]

8. And lots of people get poorer too

not just regular people, but every corporation that relies on transport or uses fossil fuels, which is the vast majority). Fuel costs are one of the largest costs at the pentagon as well.

[oldhippie]

4. Ouch....

That's gonna come back and bite.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Read War Powers, by which I mean the War Powers Act of 1973

War Powers
This is what he is supposed to do "in the absence of a declaration of war." Since there are requirements in that absence, there is not statutory need for a declaration of war.
This is the reporting requirement.

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) Other information reported
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

(c) Periodic reports; semiannual requirement
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the 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.

[Cryptoad]

6. How many

children are you willing to watch being gassed every night before you would do something?

[treestar]

10. It would be none if Obama said

It's not our job to be world policeman; we're not getting involved.

Then you can bet all these same posters would be crying about how Obama does not care about the people who were gassed. And how he was supporting dictator Assad.

[FSogol]

14. That's called "Situational Ethics."

Egypt, Libya, Drones, North Korea, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Hastings crash, and now Syria. (Did I forget any?)

Never mind that these all turned out to be nothing and nothing has happened toward Syria yet.

Let the outrage and spittle fly!

[Cryptoad]

18. I am sure

all those kids gassed thought they were nothing?

[MyNameGoesHere]

21. Selective poutcry

From poverty.com

About 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every three and a half seconds, as you can see on this display. Unfortunately, it is children who die most often.

If you want to start a war on this tragedy I am with you. But I am not willing to jump in a war of convenience because two differing assholes can't play nice. You go ahead a strap on, I am going to watch the hilarity that will ensue.

[Faryn Balyncd]

20. Our President NEEDS us. . .

. . . to do our job.

A job that is bigger than "our team" vs "their team".

The President we worked to elect has made it very clear that values & principles matter, that process matters, and that noble ends do not by themselves justify means.

A relevant example (pertaining to potential short-cutting the constitution):

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting. . . Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/obama-to-palin-dont-mock-the-c.html

This is a President who shares our values.

And a President who has made it abundantly clear what he NEEDS US to do when gaps appear between these values & their implementation:

"Your job is to hold my feet to the fire. . . So, you need to be out there everyday raising these issues, telling us when we’re doing the right or wrong thing. . . My role is to be President of the United States. . . "

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/12/01/a-foot-in-two-worlds/

We campaigned for our President because of the values we share.

In attempting to implement those values in a political context, should be follow a path of blind loyalty to party, country or personality - - - "My country, right or wrong.", or, "My President, right or wrong"?




My President has repeatedly made it very clear that he NEEDS us to perform our - - - to be true to our shared values which are bigger than all of us, to tell him when he is wrong, and to hold his feet to the fire.







That is how to support our President.

[proverbialwisdom]

26. Thank you, great post! nt

[DeSwiss]

11. If this isn't sarcasm.....

...then it's a load of shit.

- Until you also acknowledge the death of these little ones killed with American drones.

[Cryptoad]

17. YOu think we knowingly killed them? nt

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. Yes.

Every mission has a "collateral" damage quotient. So yes we DO know we are going to kill some civilians and we do it anyway.

[DeSwiss]

24. No.

It was 4000+ coincidences.

[morningfog]

36. Of course we knowlingly killed them.

In many cases we intentionally killed them.

[Cryptoad]

40. If you think that you need help!

[morningfog]

41. It is fact. We have targeted kids.

[Cryptoad]

42. Sure,,,,,,,, nt

[morningfog]

45. Here:

Some Afghan kids aren't bystanders

Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8 years old, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to say it may have "accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians."

But a Marine official here raised questions about whether the children were "innocent." Before calling for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System mission in mid-October, Marines observed the children digging a hole in a dirt road in Nawa district, the official said, and the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission.

The incident underscores a continuing problem across Afghanistan. The use of children by the Taliban — through recruitment and as human shields — complicates coalition forces' efforts to eliminate enemy fighters from the battlefield without angering civilians.

The New York Times reported that the dead children's family members said they had been sent to gather dung, which farmers use for fuel. Taliban fighters were laying the bombs near the children, who were mistakenly killed, they said.

Regardless, it's one of many times the children have been involved in the war. In a case this year, Afghan National Police in Kandahar province's Zharay district found two boys, ages 9 and 11, with a male 18-year-old carrying 1-liter soda bottles full of enough potassium chlorate to kill coalition forces on a foot patrol.

"It kind of opens our aperture," said Army Lt. Col. Marion "Ced" Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. "In addition to looking for military-age males, it's looking for children with potential hostile intent."

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20121203/NEWS/212030312/Some-Afghan-kids-aren-t-bystanders

Nine Afghan Boys Collecting Firewood Killed by NATO Helicopters

KABUL, Afghanistan — Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=0

[bhikkhu]

7. I don't believe the president has any intention of bypassing congress

or our allies, NATO or even the UN (though the last one might not budge).

[treestar]

9. There's no imminent threat to our nation

So we should just let them gas each other, I suppose.

There was no imminent threat to our nation from Germany either.

[msongs]

15. germany declared war and opening of hostilities on us first. history is a pesky thing nt

[treestar]

28. Syria could declare war on us now

and that wouldn't mean there was any imminent threat to us. The issue is whether there is an imminent threat to us. Obama is now learning he was wrong. Sometimes we intervene when there is no threat to us.

[MyNameGoesHere]

23. Wrong again

Other than the fact they declared war on us first? Got history much?

But Hitler thought otherwise. He was convinced that the United States would soon beat him to the punch and declare war on Germany. The U.S. Navy was already attacking German U-boats, and Hitler despised Roosevelt for his repeated verbal attacks against his Nazi ideology. He also believed that Japan was much stronger than it was, that once it had defeated the United States, it would turn and help Germany defeat Russia. So at 3:30 p.m. (Berlin time) on December 11, the German charge d'affaires in Washington handed American Secretary of State Cordell Hull a copy of the declaration of war.

[treestar]

29. Declaring war on us doesn't make it an imminent threat

Not if they don't have the power to attack us.

[MyNameGoesHere]

32. Wow you bent that one to your needs

Yes they did, u-boats sunk pretty much at will. Try another rewrite.

[treestar]

35. That incident would certainly be as well known as Pearl Harbor

The one where Germans attacked an American vessel. We would have gotten into that war a lot sooner. The British and French would not have had to try so hard.

[nomorenomore08]

44. Sadly, atrocities happen every day, all around the globe.

What makes this such an exceptional case that we should start yet another war, spending billions of dollars, sending God knows how many of our troops to die or be wounded?

[treestar]

49. The war is already started there

It does seem that the chemical weapons cross a line that the international community is more concerned than they would be for a civil war without use of them.

[obxhead]

12. Where is that man?

He should be POTUS.

[DeSwiss]

13. Yeah......

...I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

- K&R

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. ~Barack Obama, Change.gov. 2008

[malaise]

16. K & R

Killing for peace is bullshit.

[Cryptoad]

19. Killing for any reason is not Bullshit.......nt

[morningfog]

38. Huh? What does that even mean?

[Cryptoad]

39. Sorry you are beyond my help...nt

[morningfog]

46. Are you trying to say "killing for any reason is valid"?

Or, are you trying to say, "killing for some reasons are valid"?

Or something else altogether?

[sabrina 1]

25. What happened to that Constitutional Scholar?

Anybody know?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

27. He got bought and sold by the MIC...

[treestar]

30. He is the constitutional scholar, and you are not

therefore you might take that into consideration. You are simply unaware that the rule of law is not a tracking of your particular emotions and opinions. There are times Obama disagrees with you precisely because he knows a hell of a lot more than you do.

[reformist2]

33. LOL! That was satire, right?

[treestar]

34. Is it your belief that you know more about the Constitution

than a former law professor, or indeed any judge or lawyer, and that those people should bend to your opinions?

[reformist2]

31. If Obama does this, I will consider him to be a complete fraud.

[nomorenomore08]

47. +1

I haven't railed against his Nobel Peace Prize win the way a few people have, even if I may have privately (silently) questioned it. But I have no illusions that he's a man of peace - he isn't. Continuing Bush's war in Afghanistan was dubious enough, but if Obama starts yet another war in the Middle East, I'll have virtually no reason left to support him.

[99Forever]

37. K&R

[avaistheone1]

43. k&R

[nomorenomore08]

48. K&R

I know horrible things are going on Syria, but how does that justify starting a war that will itself, in all likelihood, be responsible for thousands of deaths? Most of them, as always, civilians?