|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 01:56 PM Original message |
Here's Michael Lind with "The False Defenders of Obama's War in Libya": Congress needed for UN call |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scarletwoman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 02:17 PM Response to Original message |
1. Thank you. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 02:24 PM Response to Original message |
2. That's an awfully convoluted argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 03:15 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Are you going to continue to hide from this? Please read and respond |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 07:53 AM Response to Reply #4 |
12. Deleted message |
Cali_Democrat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 12:49 PM Response to Reply #12 |
15. Bingo. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 01:00 PM Response to Reply #4 |
27. I notice you got no response you your question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:17 PM Response to Reply #27 |
38. I love how people are accusing hard working individuals who aren't at a desk all day... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:23 PM Response to Reply #38 |
39. Dude. It's been two days. Did I hurt your buddy's feelings? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:27 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. It's been one day for me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 10:58 AM Response to Reply #40 |
46. Apr. 3 to Apr. 5 is two days. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 02:37 PM Response to Original message |
3. Multiple Presidents with multiple congresses ruled by multiple party changes over multiple decades.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 03:17 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. It's not just a "no-fly zone"; it authorizes land forces on the ground |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 04:02 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. This particular UN resolution forbids any occupying force though. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 04:27 PM Response to Reply #6 |
7. That means wage a full-on land war, prosecute it to any conclusion you want, but don't stay |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-03-11 08:38 PM Response to Original message |
8. knr - thank you. No answers on the threads I see ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 12:52 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Yes, they cannot and do not respond; then pop up in other treads hawking the same horse shit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
guruoo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 04:55 AM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Pathetic. nt. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 07:56 AM Response to Reply #9 |
13. They use the "NIxon Defence". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 08:51 PM Response to Reply #13 |
19. No, it's more that this is just a logic and comprehension fail. Utterly and completely. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 02:50 AM Response to Reply #19 |
24. No, that would be you in #18, as I show in #21 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 08:50 PM Response to Reply #9 |
18. He's talking about me, BTW. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 01:04 AM Response to Reply #18 |
21. Then may I publish those Private Messages? Here's Article 42; it's nothing like what you say |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 01:48 PM Response to Reply #18 |
28. He has asked your permission to post those PMs .. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 04:54 PM Response to Reply #28 |
30. More importantly, the claim about Article 42 is wrong, and the statute he uses proves my point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 07:18 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. The Congress and media have just gone along, there was never any ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:07 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. No one said it gives the President a blank check. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:07 PM Response to Reply #28 |
32. Sure, he may, but he's using a different argument *now.* |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:53 PM Response to Reply #32 |
41. The arguments have been all over of the place, thanks for the reply. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 01:50 PM Response to Reply #9 |
29. Same thing happens again and again ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
guruoo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 04:45 AM Response to Original message |
10. TITLE 22, CHAPTER 7, XVI: "President shall not be deemed to require the authorizationof the Congress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 12:34 PM Response to Reply #10 |
14. PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 08:42 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. "Special agreements" is between the United States and the United Nations. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 12:09 AM Response to Reply #16 |
20. They are DEFINED as agreements that have to be AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:10 PM Response to Reply #20 |
34. "...in accordance with article 43 of said Charter." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 11:07 PM Response to Reply #34 |
42. take action under article 42 of said Charter and PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-06-11 06:56 PM Response to Reply #42 |
45. THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS OR SPECIAL AGREEMENTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 11:36 AM Response to Reply #45 |
48. "to take action under Art. 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreements" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 08:31 PM Response to Reply #48 |
52. Highly illogical. See #51 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-08-11 12:49 PM Response to Reply #52 |
55. What does the word "pursuant" mean, and what does the word "such" mean? Clearly you don't know. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-04-11 08:43 PM Response to Original message |
17. The only way Lind can make this argument is by spurious reasoning that Art. 42 really means Art. 43. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gravel Democrat (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 01:36 AM Response to Reply #17 |
22. Just for the record, why do you think the Founders gave the power to declare war to Congress? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 02:58 AM Response to Reply #22 |
25. They really did get so very many things right, didn't they? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:12 PM Response to Reply #22 |
35. Why do you think the founders made the President the Commander in Chief? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vattel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 11:05 AM Response to Reply #35 |
47. The Founders did not think that the CIC power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gravel Democrat (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 11:48 AM Response to Reply #35 |
50. Why did you not answer the question posed to you, yet post 2 other questions? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mimosa (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-08-11 01:58 AM Response to Reply #22 |
53. Refreshing that some Democrats remain *real * |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 02:43 AM Response to Reply #17 |
23. Let's go straight to the Federal Statute, which you provided to me |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:13 PM Response to Reply #23 |
36. Yes, he doesn't need authorization, and it doesn't give him authorization. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 11:28 PM Response to Reply #36 |
43. Congress is NOT giving away ANYTHING. They keep the right to authorize it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-06-11 06:56 PM Response to Reply #43 |
44. A Venn diagram for you: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 11:43 AM Response to Reply #44 |
49. This is incorrect, too; you made it yourself, right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-07-11 08:30 PM Response to Reply #49 |
51. Yes, I made it, feel free to try to make one, yourself. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-08-11 12:46 PM Response to Reply #51 |
54. No, I'm not saying that at all, no matter how many times you say I and Lind are |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-08-11 09:04 PM Response to Reply #54 |
56. No special agreements were made. You *are* saying that they must make them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 02:03 AM Response to Reply #56 |
58. Are you KIDDING? Go get your sworn enemy Mr. Dictiionary; that's NOT what pursuant means!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 05:28 PM Response to Reply #58 |
61. If those agreements don't exist then it says "and pursuant to no other agreements." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 11:50 PM Response to Reply #61 |
64. Over and over you refuse to respond to the American Journal of International Law, so, AGAIN: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 01:41 AM Response to Reply #64 |
67. It wholly fails to recognize what agreements and special agreements means. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 04:06 PM Response to Reply #67 |
69. US law REQUIRES them in this instance. It is not optional. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-12-11 09:16 PM Response to Reply #69 |
76. Where in the UN does Article 42 mention agreements or special agreements? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-13-11 04:03 PM Response to Reply #76 |
79. It doesn't. It doesn't have to. US law REQUIRES THEM for Article 42 Resolutions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 01:47 AM Response to Reply #79 |
84. HOw can US law require them to do something that the UN doesn't have a mechanism for? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-10-11 02:12 PM Response to Reply #61 |
65. Please don't make up phrases and put them in quotes like this; this exists nowhere |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 01:42 AM Response to Reply #65 |
68. You're the one claiming that you don't need Article 43 agreements or special agreements. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 05:28 PM Response to Reply #58 |
62. dupe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-08-11 09:07 PM Response to Reply #54 |
57. BTW, I challenge you to make a similar diagram. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 04:01 AM Response to Reply #51 |
59. No, again, I am not saying he needed an article 43 agreement |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 05:26 PM Response to Reply #59 |
60. YES YOU ARE. ARTICLE 42 DOES NOT ASK FOR SPECIAL AGREEMENTS. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-09-11 11:43 PM Response to Reply #60 |
63. "in order to take action under art. 42 of said Charter AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 01:36 AM Response to Reply #63 |
66. AND SUCH ARTICLE 43 AGREEMENTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 04:14 PM Response to Reply #66 |
70. Where do you get THAT language? "Such special agreement" is in the sentence with Article 42. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 07:59 PM Response to Reply #70 |
73. ARTICLE 42 HAS NO SPECIAL AGREEMENTS. THAT SENTENCE IS REFERRING TO ART. 43. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 08:54 PM Response to Reply #73 |
74. Then what does "and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements" mean to you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-12-11 09:07 PM Response to Reply #74 |
75. "...use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949..." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-13-11 04:12 PM Response to Reply #75 |
80. Yes, Acheson was clear: "The answer to that question is 'no', that the President may not do that." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slipslidingaway (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-13-11 09:19 PM Response to Reply #80 |
81. And some people forget about the 1949 amendments and the original intent... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 01:47 AM Response to Reply #81 |
83. LOL, a Repub wouldn't even go with the UN... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-12-11 09:18 PM Response to Reply #74 |
77. And article 42 makes mention of special agreements, where? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-13-11 03:59 PM Response to Reply #77 |
78. US law does as they pertain to Article 42. Are you REALLY saying Dean Acheson was wrong? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 01:46 AM Response to Reply #78 |
82. Yes, Article 42 must specify special agreements for your argument to work. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 02:09 AM Response to Reply #82 |
85. So YOU'RE right, and Dean Acheson is wrong when he says US law REQUIRES agreements for Art. 42? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 02:34 AM Response to Reply #85 |
86. Yes. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Article 42 has no special agreements. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 04:32 AM Response to Reply #86 |
87. So Dean Acheson spoke nonsense? Again: "and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 05:09 AM Response to Reply #87 |
88. You still don't understand. Article 42 does not have special agreements with the UN. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 01:46 PM Response to Reply #88 |
89. You're changing your story; in #16 you say that there are agreements. US law REQUIRES them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 07:17 PM Response to Reply #89 |
92. No, I'm saying that the UN is quite specific when they are talking about agreements. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-15-11 01:58 AM Response to Reply #92 |
93. What they want in this case is not the issue; it's what US law REQUIRES |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vaberella (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 08:14 PM Response to Reply #17 |
37. Neither does the OP in response. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Keith Bee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-05-11 04:00 AM Response to Original message |
26. Ech! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 04:33 PM Response to Original message |
71. Is there an attorney here who cares to weigh in on this? I'm sick of the obfuscation & fabrication |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-11-11 04:45 PM Response to Reply #71 |
72. "...no opportunity in the UN Participation Act...for unilateral military action by the President." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Keith Bee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 01:51 PM Response to Original message |
90. Oy! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Keith Bee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-14-11 02:01 PM Response to Original message |
91. Michael Lind is a fool |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:10 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC