Print

Author Topic: muammar gaddafi  (Read 9403 times)

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2011, 04:19:36 PM »
Quote
S.Res.85 - A resolution strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.

Official Summary

3/1/2011--Passed Senate without amendment. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms and respect for human and civil rights. Condemns systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms. Calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position, and permit a peaceful transition to democracy. Welcomes the vote of the U.N. Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC), imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing Gadhafi family assets, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors. Urges:
(1) the Gadhafi regime to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970, and
(2) the Security Council to take such further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.
Welcomes:
(1) the African Union's (AU) condemnation of the disproportionate use of force in Libya and urges the AU to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya,
(2) the United Nations Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) decision to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the U.N. General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of Council,
(3) Secretary of State Clinton's attendance at the UNHRC meeting in Geneva and urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya, and
(4) U.S. outreach to Libyan opposition figures in support of an orderly transition to a democratic government in Libya.

Source:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr85/show (Underlining mine)

This does not specifically say what I thought it did nor has it went as far as to be signed into law by the President.  (Sorry for the edits.  Chrome will not let me preview posts properly.)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 04:29:28 PM by Luigison »
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2011, 06:15:54 PM »
Full text of SR85: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.85:

The full text of the relevant portion, part 7, is pretty much the same as the summary: "[Congress] urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory".

According to §1547 (a), in order for any law, provision of law, or treaty to authorize sending troops, it must "specifically authorize the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and state that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter." SR85 never specifically authorizes the United States Armed Forces to do anything, and never refers to the War Powers Resolution; therefore it cannot constitute "specific statutory authorization."

And if there's no specific statutory authorization, it's illegal, because we already know there's no declaration of war or state of national emergency. Unless there's other relevant legislation I'm not aware of, it looks like the best case Obama could make (other than "no one cares") is that the state of emergency following 9/11 never ended, and that Libya's human rights abuses are somehow relevant to that.
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2011, 06:52:05 PM »
I agree with you, but wonder how Congress would have otherwise expected the US to stop civilian attacks: send them flowers to stick in the tank barrels.  And how are we supposed to impose a no fly zone: pray for snow to ground the planes?
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2011, 07:28:57 PM »
Well, SR85 never says "we" have to do anything, it only calls on the UN Security Council to do something. Which is odd, as I doubt that a nation "urging" an international body to do something by order of law has any real legal standing in any coherent way, and because the UN would do something anyway under their UNSC Resolution 1674, passed in 2006.

For reference, the UN Security Council is China, France, Russia, the UK, the US (the five permanent members), Bosnia and Herzigovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Columbia, Germany, India, Portugal, and South Africa (the ten non-permanent elected members). The presidency of the Council is held by the Chinese delegate this month (Brazil had it in February, Columbia has it next month).
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2011, 03:16:23 AM »
Someone brought up another piece of relevant legislation: the United Nations Participation Act of 1945.

Quote from: UNPA, section 6
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
(underlines mine)

And the relevant portions of the UN Charter to which the UNPA refers:

Quote from: UN Charter
CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 4 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Once again, at first glance, it looks like this might be enough to justify Libya, but on closer examination, it doesn't work. Go back to the War Powers Resolution, keeping in mind that it was passed 24 years after the UNPA.

Quote from: WPR, §1547
(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.
So unless there's an updated version of the UNPA that specifically authorized the use of US forces and specifically makes reference to the WPR (Wikipedia isn't helping), it seems we can presume that section 6 of the UNPA is invalidated, and this argument doesn't work either.



Also, here's the report Obama issued to Congress. I find it quite telling that the entire justification in the report is built on UN resolutions and not at all on US law. Literally the only mention of Congress or any US law or policy is the last two sentences, where he falsely claims to be fully complying with the WPR: "I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action."

Quote from: WPR §1543 (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced [into hostilities...], 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.
The report makes a tiny passing mention of the constitutional authority he has to do this ("For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."), even though he doesn't actually have that authority in this instance according to the WPR. It does not lay out the legislative authority -- not with US law, at least. It does give the estimated scope of the hostilities, but not the duration ("U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973."). Maybe it's just me, but I don't think "rapid" is an adequate estimated duration (not to mention that it glosses over recent admissions by top military officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that even after that "transition of operations," we have no idea how long it will take for US forces to actually leave).
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 11:19:24 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2011, 08:52:11 PM »
Hm. Actually, I might be wrong on that.

Quote from: WPR §1547 (b)
(b) Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
(note: November 7, 1973 is the date that Nixon's veto was overridden and the WPR became law)

What does it mean by "further"? Does it mean that international actions under the UN Charter don't need any extra statutory authorization on top of the statutory authorization that military actions require anyway, or does it mean that the UN Charter itself constitutes specific statutory authorization? I don't know.

If the latter, then he might not technically be in violation of the WPR (although I'd still argue that the report falls short of the report requirements in §1543 (a)), but as I said, either way, he violated the spirit by not seeking any meaningful counsel with Congress.

I'm leaning toward it being the former, though. Why would (a) specify that "any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified" needs to specifically authorize the military and refer to the WPR if (b) were indeed saying that "any treaty ratified by the United States prior to [November 7, 1973]" needs no further fixing and already constitutes specific statutory authorization?

Incidentally, I'm still undecided for the most part on whether we should actually be intervening. Still want to know why we arm and fight alongside the rebels when there's an uprising against an abusive America-hating dictator in Libya but not in Iran.



May 5th edit, just for the record: I'm about %90 percent sure now that what it's saying is that specific military operations that had started before 1973, using the UN Charter as justification, are grandfathered in rather than requiring them to be put on hold to comply with the law, but for any new military operations that weren't already established before the WPR was passed, the WPR fully applies. So yeah, Libya's still illegal probably. Not that anyone's reading this.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 01:13:03 AM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2011, 10:20:02 PM »
I've read 99% of the posts ever made since this forum's conception and this is officially the most boring thread ever to exist on the Fungi Forums.

Just sayin'.

« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2011, 10:36:34 PM »
Agreed. In the immortal words of TEM,

I hate this thread.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

ShadowBrain

  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2011, 05:31:03 PM »
Allow me to lighten the mood:

"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 04:38:16 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

A

« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2011, 09:36:41 PM »
May 21st is also the date of the Rapture.

It's all coming together now, innit?
"I was going to post and say "I have one of those!" because I recognized the hair immediately, but then the rest of the pic loaded and I nearly spit my drink out."
1-800-COLLECT: SAVE A BUCK OR TWO!!

Print