[Wildcatk23]

so if you were charged or accused of a murder, you would accept death as the penalty without trial? ok. got ya.

tough guys crack me up. those that love their nation, abide by the laws and rules that build it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

From the most trusted news in the world.

[TheRealThing]

Thanks to rules initiated by Reagan and Bush, the action was legal.

The constitution makes clear that treaty's and international law are the 'law of the land'. (article 6, clause 2)

Articles 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 of the declaration of human rights were violated in this case. This doesn't even cover violation of sovereignty and extrajudicial killings.

I quoted you both because this clearly shows how quickly the US would become militarily paralyzed by people who wronly believe that US law applies to anyone other than US citizens. (by the way realchange unless I miss my guess you're arguing with someone who really does know the law-yer) We have the police and the FBI, CIA and the now laughable ATF all headed up by the venerable Eric Holder. I don't know but, somehow that knowledge just doesn't slake my fears much. This is the nightmare that would become reality if people like you get their way when it comes to our nation's military. We can't allow rules of engagement to be mulled about by people who don't know how to prosecute lower level actions like raids, all the way up and including warfare.

I guess we can put you down for a donation to support the new movement to make plant and animal rights equal to human rights as well? I mean, if these US stormtrooping thugs killed any grass or insects on their way in to get Bin Laden they should be held accountable. LOL

[TheRealVille]

I quoted you both because this clearly shows how quickly the US would become militarily paralyzed by people who wronly believe that US law applies to anyone other than US citizens. (by the way realchange unless I miss my guess you're arguing with someone who really does know the law-yer) We have the police and the FBI, CIA and the now laughable ATF all headed up by the venerable Eric Holder. I don't know but, somehow that knowledge just doesn't slake my fears much. This is the nightmare that would become reality if people like you get their way when it comes to our nation's military. We can't allow rules of engagement to be mulled about by people who don't know how to prosecute lower level actions like raids, all the way up and including warfare.

I guess we can put you down for a donation to support the new movement to make plant and animal rights equal to human rights as well? I mean, if these US stormtrooping thugs killed any grass or insects on their way in to get Bin Laden they should be held accountable. LOL

I don't know of any plants or animals that are threatening life thousands and millions of years down the road.

[real_change]

I quoted you both because this clearly shows how quickly the US would become militarily paralyzed by people who wronly believe that US law applies to anyone other than US citizens. (by the way realchange unless I miss my guess you're arguing with someone who really does know the law-yer) We have the police and the FBI, CIA and the now laughable ATF all headed up by the venerable Eric Holder. I don't know but, somehow that knowledge just doesn't slake my fears much. This is the nightmare that would become reality if people like you get their way when it comes to our nation's military. We can't allow rules of engagement to be mulled about by people who don't know how to prosecute lower level actions like raids, all the way up and including warfare.

I guess we can put you down for a donation to support the new movement to make plant and animal rights equal to human rights as well? I mean, if these US stormtrooping thugs killed any grass or insects on their way in to get Bin Laden they should be held accountable. LOL

corrections from beginning to end:
-i'm in the military, and want nothing more than to see a strong defense. you can thank me later for my service and your freedom. for future reference, refrain from talking about 'what the world would be like if people like me had my way'. and on a side note, thank you for your tax dollars... you pay my salary. :-)
-US law DOES apply to people other than citizens, or else illegals would have immunity, non citizens here legally would be spared the punishments of their crimes.
-the police and the CIA are NOT headed by eric holder. local police serve their respective states, and the CIA is under the direction of the Director of national intelligence and Homeland Security.
-I know how to 'raid', and all about ROE's.... I've taken lives, will probably take more, and most likely will defend your right to say such silly things for much much longer. Again, thank me later.

I'm in disbelief that you defend so strongly, that which you were unwilling to participate in.

[TheRealThing]

corrections from beginning to end:
-i'm in the military, and want nothing more than to see a strong defense. you can thank me later for my service and your freedom. for future reference, refrain from talking about 'what the world would be like if people like me had my way'. and on a side note, thank you for your tax dollars... you pay my salary. :-)
-US law DOES apply to people other than citizens, or else illegals would have immunity, non citizens here legally would be spared the punishments of their crimes.
-the police and the CIA are NOT headed by eric holder. local police serve their respective states, and the CIA is under the direction of the Director of national intelligence and Homeland Security.
-I know how to 'raid', and all about ROE's.... I've taken lives, will probably take more, and most likely will defend your right to say such silly things for much much longer. Again, thank me later.



I'm in disbelief that you defend so strongly, that which you were unwilling to participate in.

I'm certainly glad to hear you're all about a strong defense, we agree 100% on that. Now to your corrections;

1. I served (just to name a few) in Germany, Italy, Spain, Thailand, and fought in Viet Nam (after the Tet Offensive). So, while you're making all these self serving assumptions you might want to consider the possibility there could be another rooster in the shed. And, no thanks neccessary for the freedom you had to serve in my footsteps for the greatest nation in history. And I am pleased and proud to help pay your salary with my tax dollars, it's an honor.

2. US law does not apply to people outside our borders unless they cause harm or loss to a US citizen or our nation. The folks you reference, (I would broaden your reference to include legal aliens along with the illegal aliens) are in fact, living on US soil and therefore should be required to conform to our laws. They are often allowed to sort of barely skirt the fringes of what would be considered legal behavior by a state department that feels compelled to be overly benevolent to these folks IMO.

3. Though I conceed your point in that there are named department heads of the agencies you mention, make your argument with regards to whether Holder pulls the strings of the CIA and Local police to Jan Brewer and the residents of Arizona. He is behind the scenes on these issues. Possibly since the ascention of Leon Panetta to directorship of the CIA Holder will have even more input. I think Clapper and Napolitano sit there at the feet of their leader Mr Obama, and I think the president allows Holder to generally make policy on many of these matters though he is not the named department head of these agencies. The other possiblity would be that Holder is just the straw boss that gets told what to do by the president before these daily meetings even occur.

4. For what it's worth, I participated VERY strongly. I had the honor to be part of military history and was involved in the deployment and combat testing of ordinance that is staple in the armed services to this day.

5. Back to my previous post. Surely you don't think we can mix human rights issues with rules of engagement.

[vundy33]

corrections from beginning to end:
-i'm in the military, and want nothing more than to see a strong defense. you can thank me later for my service and your freedom. for future reference, refrain from talking about 'what the world would be like if people like me had my way'. and on a side note, thank you for your tax dollars... you pay my salary. :-)
-US law DOES apply to people other than citizens, or else illegals would have immunity, non citizens here legally would be spared the punishments of their crimes.
-the police and the CIA are NOT headed by eric holder. local police serve their respective states, and the CIA is under the direction of the Director of national intelligence and Homeland Security.
-I know how to 'raid', and all about ROE's.... I've taken lives, will probably take more, and most likely will defend your right to say such silly things for much much longer. Again, thank me later.

I'm in disbelief that you defend so strongly, that which you were unwilling to participate in.

Yeah, me too. Don't be a dumb boot by saying things like that.


Anyway..who gives a shit? We got him, he murdered 3000 of our citizens on our land, not to mention everything else.

[RunItUpTheGut]

so if you were charged or accused of a murder, you would accept death as the penalty without trial? ok. got ya.

tough guys crack me up. those that love their nation, abide by the laws and rules that build it.

If i had admitted to it and took responsibility for it as he did, than hell ya shoot me now.

[Wildcatk23]

I hate Asshole Military men who think we owe them gratitude.

Dont get me wrong I Love My county and pay my respects top every soldier who protects it, And i have no issue with paying there pay check.

But I give my respect to someone who earns it, Not someone who demands it.

[TheRealVille]

I hate Asshole Military men who think we owe them gratitude.

Dont get me wrong I Love My county and pay my respects top every soldier who protects it, And i have no issue with paying there pay check.

But I give my respect to someone who earns it, Not someone who demands it.

My uncles fought in WW2 and my father in law fought on the front lines of Vietnam, and you would never hear them say stuff you hear servicemen on this board say. They don't/didn't want the praise.

[TheRealThing]

My uncles fought in WW2 and my father in law fought on the front lines of Vietnam, and you would never hear them say stuff you hear servicemen on this board say. They don't/didn't want the praise.

ANYBODY, one and all, that served their nation in combat and says they don't like to be thanked for their sacrifice is pulling your leg. My point was that Bin Laden got no less than he deserved. In fact, to really even the score, if it were possible, he should've had to die 3000 times. When you see people jumping out the windows of the 105th floor of a burning World Trade Center, you're looking at true horror. Knowing he was responsible for those deaths was most likely the high point in Bin Laden's miserable life. And, he would have loved to have been able to kill every last one of us.

[TheRealVille]

ANYBODY, one and all, that served their nation in combat and says they don't like to be thanked for their sacrifice is pulling your leg. My point was that Bin Laden got no less than he deserved. In fact, to really even the score, if it were possible, he should've had to die 3000 times. When you see people jumping out the windows of the 105th floor of a burning World Trade Center, you're looking at true horror. Knowing he was responsible for those deaths was most likely the high point in Bin Laden's miserable life. And, he would have loved to have been able to kill every last one of us.

Liking to be thanked, and acting like they deserve to be thanked is totally different. My father in law loves for people to thank him, but you will never see him act like some on here and expect it. In fact, his war service isn't allowed to be brought up in his house.

[hop24]

We violated a sovereign country's territory, so we did violate some international treaties.

How would we feel if another country sent elite troops in to this country and carried out a military strike?

Yea, Pakistan has been so good to us! Are you really this naive? Why is it we are the only ones expected to play by the rules. That time has passed, the gloves are off. If someone wants to send there "boys" over here send them. I'm sure the ocean has room for more bodies. As A former G.I., I for one am sick and tired how these towel-heads operate.

[nky]

Yea, Pakistan has been so good to us! Are you really this naive? Why is it we are the only ones expected to play by the rules. That time has passed, the gloves are off. If someone wants to send there "boys" over here send them. I'm sure the ocean has room for more bodies. As A former G.I., I for one am sick and tired how these towel-heads operate.

are we not a country of laws or not? Should we try an set a higher standard or not?

[hop24]

are we not a country of laws or not? Should we try an set a higher standard or not?

We should roll by our own standard! You kick our country in the nuts we will make your country look like the Flintstones. In more peacefull times I'm all for standards, but these are not peacefull times my friend. What if a water source is tampered with and say 50,000 die. Should we just say" hey would you please stop doing that."

[laker20]

are we not a country of laws or not? Should we try an set a higher standard or not?

If someone intentionally crashed into your house, with part of your family inside.....what standard would you set.

I'm all for setting high standards, and I'm all for abiding the laws that we set, but that doesn't mean that you stand by while a terrorist takes advantage of your high standards. I mean, what were we as a country supposed to do.....call Pakistan up and ask for permission to come and capture/kill the terrorist leader that they have been hiding. Get Real!

The whole problem with the USA today is that the government and most of the people don't have enough backbone to stand up for themselves. We became the world's leading power by imposing our might and most other civilized countries admired and respected us for it because they knew they had a big brother. Now our country is mocked by most other countries (civilized or not) because we've become a bunch of pansies who can't even let our young men and women in the military flex their muscle for fear of being court marshaled.

:rage:

[nky]

If someone intentionally crashed into your house, with part of your family inside.....what standard would you set.

I'm all for setting high standards, and I'm all for abiding the laws that we set, but that doesn't mean that you stand by while a terrorist takes advantage of your high standards. I mean, what were we as a country supposed to do.....call Pakistan up and ask for permission to come and capture/kill the terrorist leader that they have been hiding. Get Real!

Are they an allied or not? Friends don't do clandestine attacks within other friends boarders. Again do we abide by the treaties we sign or do we pick and choose what we believe. If you don't stand for something you fall for everything

[TheRealThing]

^You know I normally agree with much of what you say nky. Pakistan is probably not our friend. They needed the military help and the 18.5 billion in aid they have realized from us and they have been giving the US just enough support and intel to keep us on the hook. Don't forget when American troops heard Bin Laden's voice on the radio from his mountain hideout settlement known as Tora Bora, and began to close in on him, it was to Pakistan that he escaped. The greater likelihood is that certain government officials and military knew full well he was living large within spitting distance of a military base and less than 50 clicks from Islamabad.

I heard today that 69% off Pakistani's believe that the US is their enemy and support any and all terrorist actions against our people and our land. I have mentioned on here before, these guys use our own values and law against us. They know very well that they can committ all manner of atrocity, whether it be suicide bombers, highjacked airliners, or the coup de gras, (mother) of all acts of terror, and every Jihadist's fondest dream, the backpack nuke detonated in New York City. Preferrably at a baseball game or a football game I would think. They know we are held hostage by our own laws. Hence my disbelief that so many folk feel we should, no, must, live by the letter of the law while, they, who don't honor our laws, may feel free to committ mayhem at every oportunity. Then run away and hide, or even command their troops from any so called, sovereign land that may choose to abet them. And of course, we will be sure to get a check for a few billion right out to them in case they have need of a million dollar compound to make their honored guests comfy.

Meanwhile, intel indicates they are harboring the Haggani network, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and others there on their soil. No offfense intended here, but I just don't think we should be expected to play fair while the terrorists kill us with abandon and sit back and laugh at us for being so gullable. Did you hear the conversation between Bin Laden and his subordinates while they watched the horror of 9/11 on TV? They horse laughed us and made jokes. Gotta agree with laker20 on this one.

[Hoot Gibson]

I can't think of any Muslim countries that I would consider true allies. This country basically bribes some of them for their cooperation, either through tax dollars (Pakistan) or oil purchases (Saudi Arabia). If the Bin Laden killing was illegal, then so be it. The ridiculous Executive Order strictly forbidding assassinations should have never been signed and if Pakistan was helping hide him, then we were justified in violating their sovereignty, IMO.

Obama's continuing violation of the War Power Acts, on the other hand, is inexcusable and an impeachable offense. Shame on Republicans and the national media for their muted response to Obama's blatant violation of federal law. It is bad enough that he is violating the law, but we have helped topple the leader of a sovereign nation without having a clue about whether the government that will take Gadaffi's place will not be even worse.

In Egypt, we supported the overthrow of an ally in Mubarak and it is becoming clear that Egypt's new government is much more anti-Israel and anti-American than the one that it replaced.

Kudos to the Obama administration and our military for ridding the Earth of Bin Laden but he has reduced American foreign policy to rubble - especially in north Africa and the Middle East.

[TheRealThing]

I'm with ya. Whatever happened to the idea of maintaining 'stability in the region'? It's amature hour in DC and like the 36 month or 50,000 mile which ever comes first warranty of yesterday, we are in a race between the presidential election of 2012 and the destruction of America as we know it.

[TheRealVille]

I can't think of any Muslim countries that I would consider true allies. This country basically bribes some of them for their cooperation, either through tax dollars (Pakistan) or oil purchases (Saudi Arabia). If the Bin Laden killing was illegal, then so be it. The ridiculous Executive Order strictly forbidding assassinations should have never been signed and if Pakistan was helping hide him, then we were justified in violating their sovereignty, IMO.

Obama's continuing violation of the War Power Acts, on the other hand, is inexcusable and an impeachable offense. Shame on Republicans and the national media for their muted response to Obama's blatant violation of federal law. It is bad enough that he is violating the law, but we have helped topple the leader of a sovereign nation without having a clue about whether the government that will take Gadaffi's place will not be even worse.

In Egypt, we supported the overthrow of an ally in Mubarak and it is becoming clear that Egypt's new government is much more anti-Israel and anti-American than the one that it replaced.

Kudos to the Obama administration and our military for ridding the Earth of Bin Laden but he has reduced American foreign policy to rubble - especially in north Africa and the Middle East.

You keep saying he is violating WPA's. How? He is allowed to go into conflict as he sees fit, if he consults congress. Who's to say he didn't consult with them? If he declares war, he has days to get congress's approval. He hasn't declared war on anybody. As long as congress doesn't push him to get their approval, he is legal, at least the same as many other Presidents have done. If he was illegal, I would guarantee the republicans in Washington would have his head by now.

This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.
The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action.
The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.
Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544© requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544© is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544© (50 U.S. 1545-46a).
The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547). Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548).
U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Some examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include: More

[TheRealThing]

You keep saying he is violating WPA's. How? He is allowed to go into conflict as he sees fit. If he declares war, he has days to get congress's approval. He hasn't declared war on anybody. As long as congress doesn't push him to get their approval, he is legal, at least the same as many other Presidents have done.

You mind telling us which ones?

[laker20]

Are they an allied or not? Friends don't do clandestine attacks within other friends boarders. Again do we abide by the treaties we sign or do we pick and choose what we believe. If you don't stand for something you fall for everything

When a supposed allied country accepts military funding and money and then turns around and allows the worlds biggest terrorist to take up residence in their country then I don't consider them to be an ally.

As far as I'm concerned, the US no longer has allies. When another country provides the same number of young men and women to protect the interest of world then we can talk allies. Until then, if we provide the resources (soldiers, weapons, money, etc) to defend all nations from terroristic harm, then we should dam_ well take matters into our own hands when necessary.

How many treaties have been violated against us: harboring terrorists, terrorists videoing innocent prisoners being decapitated, and on, and on. Your quote is perfect:

"If you don't stand for something you fall for everything"

The decision to go in and complete this mission was standing on behalf of the American people. If we don't continue to make Stands like this then we will continue to fall as a country. It's time that the American People and government consider our well-being first. We can't fix the worlds problems until we fix our own.

At some point we have to flex our muscle and quit being concerned with what's politically correct or right for everyone else.

[OffTheHook]

Here's my question:

Whos gives a DAMN????

He shoulda thought about that before he killed thousands of innocent people on our soil ILLEGALLY!!!!

I am sick and tired of all these sympathizers! Eye for an eye! You do it or you harbor them...we are coming!:redboxer:

[Hoot Gibson]

You keep saying he is violating WPA's. How? He is allowed to go into conflict as he sees fit, if he consults congress. Who's to say he didn't consult with them? If he declares war, he has days to get congress's approval. He hasn't declared war on anybody. As long as congress doesn't push him to get their approval, he is legal, at least the same as many other Presidents have done. If he was illegal, I would guarantee the republicans in Washington would have his head by now.

Do you actually read what you post? For example, the following was taken from the information linked in the information that you posted. As you can see, every president since Gerald R. Ford has sought and obtained Congressional approval either in advance of or within 60 days of the commitment of troops to battle. Obama has not even refused to comply with the War Powers Act in an honorable way by claiming that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive powers of the presidency. No, Obama has claimed that we were not engaged in hostilities in Libya, despite dead bodies crying otherwise. The man is the first outlaw president of my lifetime.

If George W. Bush had done in Iraq what Obama has done in the case of Libya, he would have been impeached.

1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution, triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60 days had expired.
1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.
1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.
1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.
2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.
2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243.

[Wildcatk23]

Here's my question:

Whos gives a DAMN????

He shoulda thought about that before he killed thousands of innocent people on our soil ILLEGALLY!!!!

I am sick and tired of all these sympathizers! Eye for an eye! You do it or you harbor them...we are coming!:redboxer:

The fact that it happened while obama was president is what is wrong with it.

[vundy33]

If someone intentionally crashed into your house, with part of your family inside.....what standard would you set.

I'm all for setting high standards, and I'm all for abiding the laws that we set, but that doesn't mean that you stand by while a terrorist takes advantage of your high standards. I mean, what were we as a country supposed to do.....call Pakistan up and ask for permission to come and capture/kill the terrorist leader that they have been hiding. Get Real!

The whole problem with the USA today is that the government and most of the people don't have enough backbone to stand up for themselves. We became the world's leading power by imposing our might and most other civilized countries admired and respected us for it because they knew they had a big brother. Now our country is mocked by most other countries (civilized or not) because we've become a bunch of pansies who can't even let our young men and women in the military flex their muscle for fear of being court marshaled.

:rage:

Yes!!!

Are they an allied or not? Friends don't do clandestine attacks within other friends boarders. Again do we abide by the treaties we sign or do we pick and choose what we believe. If you don't stand for something you fall for everything

Are you high?!?! That's what we have done twice! We literally called Pakistan and told them where we think he is, and that we are going to blow the sh*t out of that area. They said go ahead, and mysteriously, both times, in Pakistan, we have just missed him. CIA has connected more than a few ISI officers to Al-Qaeda, Haqqani, Taliban..how much more evidence do you need?! They're a damn fake ally!

When an "allied" country's people march up and down the streets of 3 different cities, after we take out our, and there, biggest enemy by far, and chant about how killing Bin Laden was illegal and we violated their land, that shows that they are NOT an ally.

Pakistan is as fake as it gets. You have know idea how many bad guys (not just any, veterans), I, and probably a few other on this board, have watch cross over from Pakistan, and the Pakistani border patrol mysteriously just misses them. And then when a few U.S. shells land in some woods on the Pakistani side of the border, they shell a village on the Afghan side for 3 days and kill over 100 civilians and fire it right over the head of platoon of U.S. soldiers.

That is not an ally in my book.

[OffTheHook]

The fact that it happened while obama was president is what is wrong with it.

I don't care who the Pres was. Only right choice he has made IMO!

alute:

[TheRealVille]

Do you actually read what you post? For example, the following was taken from the information linked in the information that you posted. As you can see, every president since Gerald R. Ford has sought and obtained Congressional approval either in advance of or within 60 days of the commitment of troops to battle. Obama has not even refused to comply with the War Powers Act in an honorable way by claiming that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive powers of the presidency. No, Obama has claimed that we were not engaged in hostilities in Libya, despite dead bodies crying otherwise. The man is the first outlaw president of my lifetime.

If George W. Bush had done in Iraq what Obama has done in the case of Libya, he would have been impeached.

Do your homework Hoot, Obama sent a report to congress.

[TheRealVille]

Do your homework Hoot, Obama sent a report to congress.

My bad, that was a report sent to Congress about Pakistan. His reasoning on not getting Congress's approval is that ground troops aren't involved in hostilities, and that other NATO allies had taken over the airstrikes.

[Hoot Gibson]

My bad, that was a report sent to Congress about Pakistan. His reasoning on not getting Congress's approval is that ground troops aren't involved in hostilities, and that other NATO allies had taken over the airstrikes.

President Obama heads the executive branch. He does not get to make up the law as he goes along but he is required to follow existing laws. Obama was required to seek the approval of Congress 60 days after the commencement of hostilities and he decided that he was above the law. Republicans and most Democrats failed to make a big issue of his lawlessness on this issue and it has set a bad precedent.

A few Democrats, such as Dennis Kucinich have been very vocal in criticizing Obama over Libya, and I respect them for it. That makes me believe that many of their criticisms of Bush were based on principle and were not simply cheap political shots. That doesn't make them right but it does make them worthy of more respect than most elected representatives in Washington.

If things go badly for Libyan citizens, and there is no reason to be optimistic that the radical Islamists will not be calling the shots, this may yet become a huge campaign issue.