800 bodies found in Cote D'Ivoirian village

[iamtechus]

Can't find anything in print yet but according to Al Jazeera the Red Cross has reported 800 bodies found in a Cote d"Ivoirian village.

If you have the bandwidth watch Al Jazeera here: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

[atreides1]

1. But it's not the same...

...as Libya! It's worse....

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Quick, find some oil, I wanna go in and do me some killin'!!

Civil Wars are traditionally the bloodiest and most acrimonious of wars; while it's alarming and depressing to watch, it's usually best to stay out. What the threshold is for intervention is a tough one, but this would have to be at least close.

[Very_Boring_Name]

4. Best for who?

[joshcryer]

6. Actually, Ouattara won't last much longer, 50k+ of his men defected.

He's only holding out with a few thousand loyalists who are causing atrocities, but they'll be vanquished in short order. If it gets protracted somehow the intervention is necessary, already France and the W. Africa bloc called for it, but no UN table as yet.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. ACTUALLY, you mean Gbagbo; just chalk that up as another colossal error

Do you, in fact, understand ANYTHING? You certainly don't understand the War Powers Act, even as most of the other insistent confused people give up resistance.

[joshcryer]

17. Thanks, you are correct, that was a certain mistake, I had not done that in many other posts before.

Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=794951&mesg_id=795185

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Sorry about that; a bit of a cheap shot, but it's hard to let a setup like that go.

Seriously, though: the war is illegal. It should be of concern to those of you who truly sympathize with the rebels, even if at the same time buying into the skewing and propaganda.

It's been a titanic struggle to get people to understand that he KNOWS that he needs Congressional authorization both under the War Powers Act and the UN Participation Act. To so flagrantly violate both shows more than just a character flaw, and if allowed to stand, will haunt us in our steady slide into euphemistic fascism.

[joshcryer]

19. When I'm learning how to spell foreign names I usually put the words in my clipboard.

I know that's what I did there because I don't know how to spell either of their names still!

Anyway, did you see this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=794664&mesg_id=799518

I do not think it is in any way illegal. Possibly skirting UN resolution ("protecting civilians" is subjective, but no doubt lawyers on every side in action will be able to argue that they were "right"). But not illegal by any means. The UN law Title 22, Chap. 7, Sub. XVI §§ 287—287l gives statutory authorization for the president to, without Congressional authorization, act within the War Powers Act.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. No, this, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SHOWN, specifically requires Congressional authorization

Here's what you mean, which is Title 22, Chap. 7, Sub. XVI 287d, and it seems to be the same as Section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Here's what I got from this number:

"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, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the 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."

I'm so tired of this; I've literally gone over and over and over this with you and others. Here's the explanation from Journal of American International Politics AGAIN.

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� 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 the 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.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

Is this clear enough for you? There is no way the Congress will cede its Enumerated Power to start a war to the President, and certainly not to a foreign entity, and they didn't. This has been standing law for 65 years.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

[iamtechus]

3. Also being reported on MSNBC n/t

[joshcryer]

5. Posted in GD three times that I saw, this would make the fourth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x794951

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x795805

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x796487

The "oil" quips are quite interesting. It's also unfortunate that no one is taking a stand on helping these people. (No, saying "there's no oil in the Ivory Coast" is not taking a stand for intervention.)

But I reckon Ouattara's freedom fighters will win this thing.

[ProSense]

7. What should be done about this?

Is the suggestion that the U.S. ignore these deaths as is being advocated in the case of Libya?

[sabrina 1]

8. The U.S. should have a consistent policy on 'humanitarian intervention'

Our policies are selective, usually when we to intervene for humanitarian reasons, there is oil involved. And, we are not publicly honest about it.

It would be far better eg, to tell the world 'we are going to Libya to intervene in a humanitarian crisis. Why have we chosen this country over the many others who are crying out for help? (Btw, the Ivory Coast did ask for international help). Well, we cannot be everywhere, but Libya and Iraq eg, had oil and we need to control the oil producing industry.'

As it stands, making the claim that we are doing it for humanitarian reasons is hypocritical and no one believes it anyhow.

[joshcryer]

10. France and the W. African bloc asked for UN intervention. The African Union was suspiciously...

...silent on the matter. Much different than the Arab League in the case of Libya.

The United States intervenes where it is viable. It tried to do so in Burma, it failed. Ivory Coast would be viable if the African Union wasn't a bunch of thugs.

I don't see how the US should get blame here.

[sabrina 1]

11. Of course France asked for intervention. They had a falling out

with Qaddafi and their 'business interests' were at stake. The Arab League is made up of leaders who themselves are threatened by the Arab Spring, a bunch of oppressive dictators. Why would they join, however reluctantly in intervening in Libya? Because in return they will receive backing and support as much as possible, from Western powers against their people and a guarantee that we will never go to their respective countries for 'humanitarian reasons'.

Either they are with us or against us. However, there is clearly a major shift happening in the world, starting a decade ago in Latin America, a region very much in sympathy with the coloniast victims in the Me and Africa, and spreading now to N. Africa and the ME. It is a huge movement to throw off their colonialist backed despots and take their countries back. I'm not sure that the Western Colonialists CAN stop it.

But Libya is not part of that movement, it was hi-jacked from the beginning. And even many of the rebels there themselves are admitting they have been fooled and are now leaving the fighting and going home to 'protect our homes'.

[joshcryer]

12. ...France asked for intervention in the Ivory Coast.

My entire fucking post was about the Ivory Coast except when I mentioned the Arab League. Please read. Thanks.

edit: and just so we're fucking clear here, every fucking goddamn shitty thing in the world doesn't have to be about Libya. I am really starting to resent all these posts using Ivory Coast tragedy as a jumping point to be derisive and deflect about Libya. :grr:

[newblewtoo]

13. I don't think a lot of

people understand France's long term involvment here. I would advise a brief look at the link:

http://af.reuters.com/article/ivoryCoastNews/idAFLDE6BL15720101222


This is about more than oil, cocoa involved. :hippie:

[joshcryer]

9. Post #2 appears to be advocating that.

I personally believe that if it doesn't come to a head very soon intervention should be called for. France and the W. Africa bloc already called for it. The UN should fucking listen.

However, I do believe it will end very quickly. I think a week or two at most, given how Ouattara's fighters have advanced.

Unfortunately the bloodshed will be enormous but black African's have to kill one another in much higher numbers before the world cares. :(

[Mimosa]

14. We never even heard of deaths in Libya.

The tale was that Gaddafi 'might' kill people if we didn't overthrow him.

[joshcryer]

16. I heard of a minimum of 3k deaths before Benghazi was about to be razed.

Current estimates are around 10k, that includes 3k combatants.

edit: clarification, 3k people were already killed before Benghazi was about to be razed.