Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

But to do that you first must make sure your fighters can shoot them down without being in constant danger. that's where the so called contradiction happens.

Rebels want air support basically. They want to advance towards Pro-Gaddafi towns without the threat of bombs dropping on their asses.

 

[Rentahamster]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

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.

It's kinda funny seeing various friends and acquaintances try to justify President Obama's various actions over these past 3 years that conflict with what he said as Candidate Obama.

 

[j_k_redtail]

But to do that you first must make sure your fighters can shoot them down without being in constant danger. that's where the so called contradiction happens.

Well (1) people in -this- county don't understand the nature of an NFZ, so that's hardly an Arab phenomenon, and (2) he lacks the confidence in our precision weapons that we have, and understandably doesn't want to be killed by one. Simply put, he'd rather have heavily armed pilots at risk than himself.

 

[L0st Id3ntity]

And, How is that going to happen without bombing the SAM, Radar sites???

It doesn't look like it's going to stop at that.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

What if this ceasefire is real and Gadaffi is trying to save himself? Is there really a situation where a deal is made or have the rebels gone too far to stop.

 

[RustyNails]

Pentagon briefing in the next half an hour. Lots of information expected.

What if this ceasefire is real and Gadaffi is trying to save himself? Is there really a situation where a deal is made or have the rebels gone too far to stop.

If the Cease Fire is real, it will enable rebels to march towards Tripoli without any fear. But this is Muammar we are talking about. I think he will break his cease fire and start shelling Misrata pretty soon.

 

[nubbe]

Funny how he says that he will fight to the last woman and child at daybreak and when night falls he wants peace.

Maybe he is a vampire.

 

[Mgoblue201]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

It's kinda funny seeing various friends and acquaintances try to justify President Obama's various actions over these past 3 years that conflict with what he said as Candidate Obama.

I'm wondering if that's even true. Does the Constitution prohibit military action without approval from the Congress? Dick Lugar cites Section 8 of Article I, but it fails to define the extent of a situation in which we are in war.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Here's a MOD update: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/LibyaUpdate.htm

Thanks!

Edit: AA gunfire in Tripoli started up now.

 

[HawksEye]

If the Cease Fire is real, it will enable rebels to march towards Tripoli without any fear. But this is Muammar we are talking about. I think he will break his cease fire and start shelling Misrata pretty soon.

Gaddafis tanks are already in the centre of Misrata, although the rebels as you call them have destroyed multiple vehicles but trying to keep a look out for snipers positioned around the centre.

 

[nubbe]

lol@ the AJ reporter in Tripoli

 

[Godslay]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

It's kinda funny seeing various friends and acquaintances try to justify President Obama's various actions over these past 3 years that conflict with what he said as Candidate Obama.

It would be even worse if President Obama remained completely inflexible as it relates to world events. World leaders have to remain flexible, especially democratically elected leaders (accountability).

 

[Doc Evils]

The U.S is jamming radio and broadcasting this message: http://audioboo.fm/boos/307814-usaf-ec-130j-steel-74-transmitting-on-6877-0-khz-libya-20-march-2011

 

[CrazyDude]

I'm wondering if that's even true. Does the Constitution prohibit military action without approval from the Congress? Dick Lugar cites Section 8 of Article I, but it fails to define the extent of a situation in which we are in war.

I believe the president is allowed to send the military into a foreign country for 60-90 days without Congress's permission.

 

[Rentahamster]

It would be even worse if President Obama remained completely inflexible as it relates to world events. World leaders have to remain flexible, especially democratically elected leaders (accountability).

I think that what really tears up my more left-leaning friends is that a lot of the same reasons one could use for justifying Obama's actions can be used to justify Bush's actions as well.

It turns into a choice between two distasteful conclusions:

Accept what Obama is doing, and reluctantly acknowledge the similarities between Obama's military actions and Bush's.

or

Keep on denouncing military action even if it means having to criticize Obama - something they really don't like doing.

 

[WedgeX]

I'm wondering if that's even true. Does the Constitution prohibit military action without approval from the Congress? Dick Lugar cites Section 8 of Article I, but it fails to define the extent of a situation in which we are in war.

Section 8 is further clarified by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Its controversial, but its what every president since then has utilized in deploying US forces.

Relevant parts include:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

UN and NATO resolutions are included under these statutory authorizations, and the President still has:

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.

And then the president has sixty days with which to utilize US forces:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, 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.

 

[WickedAngel]

I think that what really tears up my more left-leaning friends is that a lot of the same reasons one could use for justifying Obama's actions can be used to justify Bush's actions as well.

Not really. Unilaterally starting a war after manufacturing the justification to do so isn't suitably comparable to what is happening in Libya even if you happen to disagree with it.

 

[j_k_redtail]

CNN right now: Smoke Rising from Palace Complex in Tripoli, where AA fire was observed.

 

[Godslay]

I think that what really tears up my more left-leaning friends is that a lot of the same reasons one could use for justifying Obama's actions can be used to justify Bush's actions as well.

It turns into a choice between two distasteful conclusions:

Accept what Obama is doing, and reluctantly acknowledge the similarities between Obama's military actions and Bush's.

or

Keep on denouncing military action even if it means having to criticize Obama - something they really don't like doing.

They could be used to justify the actions of both, but it would require being very selective in the arguments. From all indications Obama went through the proper channels, and didn't rely on disinformation to provoke action. This also multilateral than Iraq was initially. If you just look at it broadly, then there are similarities. If you dig a little deeper you can see that things were accomplished in different ways for different reasons.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The U.S is jamming radio and broadcasting this message: http://audioboo.fm/boos/307814-usaf-ec-130j-steel-74-transmitting-on-6877-0-khz-libya-20-march-2011

Awesome. The audio distortion makes it sound like Star Wars oddly.

 

[BigJonsson]

There was already a no-fly zone in Iraq when Bush invaded, that makes this situation vastly different

 

[Mgoblue201]

Section 8 is further clarified by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Its controversial, but its what every president since then has utilized in deploying US forces.

Relevant parts include:



UN and NATO resolutions are included under these statutory authorizations, and the President still has:



And then the president has sixty days with which to utilize US forces:

Is it implied that a statutory authorization is intended to be the statute of an international body, or is the definition clarified somewhere?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

#
1857: The military operation in Libya - aka Odyssey Dawn - is condemned by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Chairwoman Kate Hudson told fellow protesters at a rally in Downing Street: "We don't think the massive aerial bombardment is going to help bring about peace and democracy in Libya. Cruise missiles may be killing children as we speak."

SMH. Does she just listen to Libyan State Officials (since the TV is actually not matching with only showing Army casualties)?

 

[thefro]

Congress is out of session right now and is out of session all next week.

 

[WedgeX]

Is it implied that a statutory authorization is intended to be the statute of an international body, or is the definition clarified somewhere?

I believe it is written into our treaties that Congress authorized and passed with the UN and NATO regarding some types of military actions.

U of Maryland law explains:

United Nations Actions

U.N. Security Council resolutions provide authority for U.S. action under international
law. Whether congressional authorization is required under domestic law depends on the
types of U.N. action and is governed by the Constitution, the U.N. Participation Act (P.L.
79-264, as amended), as well as by the War Powers Resolution. Section 8(b) of the War
Powers Resolution exempts only participation in headquarters operations of joint military
commands established prior to 1973.

For armed actions under Articles 42 and 43 of the U.N. Charter, Section 6 of the U.N.
Participation Act authorizes the President to negotiate special agreements with the Security
Council, subject to the approval of Congress, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces and facilities to be made available to the Security Council. Once the agreements have been concluded, further congressional authorization is not necessary, but no such agreements have been concluded. Some Members have sought to encourage negotiation of military agreements under Article 43 of the U.N. Charter. Questions include whether congressional approval is required only for an initial agreement on providing peacekeeping forces in general, or for each agreement to provide forces in specific situations, and how such approvals would relate to the War Powers Resolution.

Section 7 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the detail of up to 1,000 personnel
to serve in any noncombatant capacity for certain U.N. peaceful settlement activities. The
United States has provided personnel to several U.N. peacekeeping missions, such as
observers to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine. In these instances,
controversy over the need for congressional authorization has not occurred because the action appeared to fall within the authorization in Section 7 of the Participation Act. Controversy has arisen when forces have been deployed in larger numbers or as possible combatants.

In the 103rd Congress, Members used several vehicles in seeking some control over
future peacekeeping actions wherever they might occur. Both the Defense Appropriations
Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-139 (Section 8153), and for FY1995, P.L. 103- 335 (Section
8103), stated the sense of Congress that funds should not be used for U.N. peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations unless the President consulted with Congress at least 15 days in advance whenever possible. Section 1502 of the Defense Authorization for FY1994, P.L. 103-60, required the President to submit by April 1, 1994, a report on multinational peacekeeping including the requirement of congressional approval for participation and the applicability of the War Powers Resolution and the U.N. Participation Act.

Along similar lines, the conference report on the Department of State Appropriations
Act for FY1994, H.R. 2519 (P.L. 103-121, signed October 27, 1993), called for the Secretary of State to notify both Appropriations Committees 15 days in advance, where practicable, of a vote by the U.N. Security Council to establish any new or expanded peacekeeping mission. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, P.L. 103-236, signed April 30, 1994, established new requirements for consultation with Congress on U.S. Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations. Section 407 required monthly consultations on the status of peacekeeping operations and advance reports on resolutions that would authorize a new U.N. peacekeeping operation. It also required 15 days’ advance notice of any U.S. assistance to support U.N. peacekeeping operations and a quarterly report on all assistance that had been provided to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations. To permit Presidential flexibility, conferees explained, the quarterly report need not include temporary duty assignments of U.S. personnel in support of peacekeeping operations of less than twenty personnel in any one case.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

Loud blasts have been heard in the Libyan capital Tripoli, witnesses say, as allied forces resume operations to enforce a no-fly zone.

A plume of smoke was seen rising from the area near the compound of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi.

A US military spokesman said the coalition were not targeting Col Gaddafi or his residence.

French planes patrolled over Libya on Sunday, but the Pentagon said Libya's air defences were effectively degraded.

A BBC reporter in Tripoli says a heavy barrage of anti-aircraft fire has been heard in the city centre during the last hour.

A column of smoke rose in the area of Bab al-Aziziya, where Col Gaddafi has his military base and compound, our reporter says.

However, he adds that it is believed there are anti-aircraft weapons close to Bab al-Aziziya, which may well have been targeted, rather than the compound itself.

 

[raphier]

I saw last night a live feed from tripoli, I don't have the link anymore. Anyone willing to paste it? If it's live, ofcourse.

 

[NullPointer]

So are there seams in the coalition in terms of our overall goals? CNN's Wolf Blitzer was adamant yesterday that the US seeks regime change and an end to Qadaffi's rule from this operation, an interesting observation to make seeing as how he's been tied to the hip with Hillary Clinton during the past week. But I just watched the UK's foreign minister clearly state that the UN resolution does not authorize the removal of Qadaffi and thats not what this is all about.

Its only been one day but there already seems to be confusion about overall goals of the mission. Is this to be expected or have these missions been planned in too short a period of time?

And randomly, what is the correct way to spell Qaddafi? Wiki says Gaddafi, the New York Times uses Qaddafi, CNN uses Gadhafi, and I've seen just about every variation of those letters used across the interwebs in the past few days. Just curious.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Congress is out of session right now and is out of session all next week.

Spring break, those congressmen don't want to miss it!

 

[jonremedy]

And randomly, what is the correct way to spell Qaddafi? Wiki says Gaddafi, the New York Times uses Qaddafi, CNN uses Gadhafi, and I've seen just about every variation of those letters used across the interwebs in the past few days. Just curious.

The correct way is to write it in Arabic. Failing that, any romanization is okay.

 

[Luckyman]

Gaddafi has multiple bunkers that can take a nuke. He is not going to be killwd by Toma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1hWPGVcB0

 

[NullPointer]

The correct way is to write it in Arabic. Failing that, any romanization is okay.

OK, that works. I guess I'll personally settle on the spelling in the UN resolution. That uses even another variation: "Qadhafi".

 

[N-Bomb]

What the Arab league wanted was a no fly zone, what the EU and US got was a go ahead for everything that might improve the safety of civilians. The AL expected the operation to be based on air patrols and perhaps the destruction of AA guns and missle systems. They didn't expect multiple bombing runs, 100 tomahawk missles and a testing ground for new jets.

Then they were naive at best, ignorant at worst. Runways are long, right? Do you think this is like some video game where one missile can take out an entire complex? No, you probably need a good 4 or 5 for a single airstrip. And as many people have said, you don't have a no-fly zone without air superiority, and you don't have air superiority while the enemy has the capability to knock your planes out of the sky. Let's be real here for a moment, people.

 

[exarkun]

Why do people even listen to most congressmen? Most of them don't have a legal understanding of the constitution, they merely pick and chose what sections to talk about without relating them to other provisions (which should not, and really can't be done). They then take those amendments/provisions and apply a layman's understanding to them. Thats what makes congress officials sound so incompetent.

Also, most of them don't get their news directly. They look at their staffers and say "Get me everything you can find on this Libya thing so I can make statement to my constituents that may get me publicity if I can find an angle." And those staffers are overworked and underpaid, and thus do a shitty job of filtering so the congress-person ends up with a stack of papers that they merely glance over, find a few key words (babies dying), and run with it. So, so dumb.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Gaddafi has multiple bunkers that can take a nuke. He is not going to be killwd by Toma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1hWPGVcB0

Use bunker busters.

 

[N-Bomb]

The historical irony here is almost too much to bear.
The world was always involved with Libya.
Libya as we currently know it is a direct product of western powers meddling, both direct (Italy and to a lesser extent the British) and indirect (every major power who supported, traded with and enabled Gaddafi).

You (and Gaddafi) want the world to stay involve just the right amount - supply him with weapons and buy his oil.

If anything, the world is almost morally obliged to make amends.

Hear hear. Libya has been involved in things since Roman times, and its recent history (like many sad stories of the 20th century) are a product of our bullshit. If our help is requested, we owe it to the mistakes we made to try and help rectify them.

 

[Calantus]

Gaddafi has multiple bunkers that can take a nuke. He is not going to be killwd by Toma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1hWPGVcB0

video makes it seem like having a bunker like that is for a paranoid person or leader. The US has the exact same thing for the president/congress; most likely much more advanced and luxurious than gaddafis.

 

[Psychotext]

Gaddafi has multiple bunkers that can take a nuke. He is not going to be killwd by Toma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1hWPGVcB0

Based on what was shown in that video, that bunker wouldn't even come close to surviving a nuke. At least not one that was even close to being a direct hit.

 

[RustyNails]

Time Magazine cover 1973, few years after Gaddafi's coup.

 

[N-Bomb]

I'm wondering if that's even true. Does the Constitution prohibit military action without approval from the Congress? Dick Lugar cites Section 8 of Article I, but it fails to define the extent of a situation in which we are in war.

Look up the War Powers Act of 1973.

 

[Joel Was Right]

This reminds me, I need to get back to blogging again. It would be interesting to start a NeoGAF blog, with members contributing well researched opinion pieces on a variety of topics.

 

[Stinkles]

Latest image of Ghaddafi:

 

[AndyD]

Then they were naive at best, ignorant at worst. Runways are long, right? Do you think this is like some video game where one missile can take out an entire complex? No, you probably need a good 4 or 5 for a single airstrip. And as many people have said, you don't have a no-fly zone without air superiority, and you don't have air superiority while the enemy has the capability to knock your planes out of the sky. Let's be real here for a moment, people.

Right. Which is why everyone hesitated so much before agreeing on a NFZ.

It involves quite a bit. Its easy for us to backseat comment but without full knowledge of military strategy and infrastructure and capabilities of Libya as well as UN, most of what we do is speculate.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Look up the War Powers Act of 1973.

WedgeX posted the relevant text above.

 

[Joel Was Right]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/coalition-criticism-arab-league-libya?CMP=twt_fd

America, France and Britain – the leaders of the coalition's air attacks on Libya – were struggling to maintain international support for their actions, as they faced stinging criticism about mission creep from the leader of the Arab League, as well as from China and Russia.

Critics claimed that the coalition of the willing may have been acting disproportionately and had come perilously close to making Gaddafi's departure an explicit goal of UN policy.

Russia, which abstained on the UN vote last week, called for "an end to indiscriminate force".

Despite denials from coalition forces, Alexander Lukashevich, Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, said that the coalition had hit non-military targets.

He suggested that 48 civilians had been killed. "We believe a mandate given by the UN security council resolution – a controversial move in itself – should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions, which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population," he said.

The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, also startled western governments when he denounced the air attacks only a week after the league had called for creation of a no-fly zone.

Moussa, who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, said: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."

The Foreign Office later said Moussa claimed he had been misquoted, or had put his criticism more strongly in Arabic than in English. "We will continue to work with our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan people," the FO said.

The Arab League had, though, been called to an emergency session to discuss the scale of the attacks.​

 

[gutter_trash]

the Arab League is full of crap; they don't even care about Palestinians living outside of Palestine in refugee camps or treated like 3rd class citizens in other Arab countries

all they care about is self preservation

NATO and UN can go about their business IMO

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Why is it that Russia supports every dictator that the US has a problem with. Are they just trolling or what.

 

[Roude Leiw]

interesting that the russians "know" what kind of targets the coalition hit and that they are citing reports from a state run propaganda channel.

 

[Joel Was Right]

the Arab League is full of crap; they don't even care about Palestinians living outside of Palestine in refugee camps or treated like 3rd class citizens in other Arab countries

all they care about is self preservation

NATO and UN can go about their business IMO

The Arab being selective of when to invoke an ethical complaint and when not to. Kinda strange that, as that's how this coalition has been described. Expanding on your point, I presume you'd be consequently critical of the airstrikes? The defence, however, has been essentially that doing the right thing, even if it's double standards, is better than not doing anything at all and continue the status quo.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Why is it that Russia supports every dictator that the US has a problem with. Are they just trolling or what.

interesting that the russians "know" what kind of targets the coalition hit and that they are citing reports from a state run propaganda channel.

That's the most scepticism I've seen from either of you during this entire situation, and it's in response to a quote from a foreign politician not involved in the air strikes, rather than the consequences and wider motives of the bombings themselves.

Spoiler

not fair. low blow. had to get one in there as a rant