Thread: Gaddafi's daughter sues over deadly Nato air strike

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Absolutely not IMO.

I have never forgotten or forgiven Gaddafi for his many acts of terrorism over decades. I especially have never forgotten Pan Am Flight 103 never mind other airlines he blew up.

The Lockerbie hole might as well be Shanksville to me or the other sites where bin Laden's AQ gang flew those men, women and children (yes, even babies were on those planes) into their deaths in order to kill many more like them. Yet, nobody--nobody--hunted Gaddafi down for that as a pariah and 'most wanted' criminal.

I don't wish to give a personal pass to people who intentionally blow up commercial airliners for terrorism nor should the world set that precedent. Given bin Laden has now been made to pay for his crimes, getting Gaddafi would be the 'two for' to set that precedent. If someone does that, they should be hunted down and killed unless they surrender first and face justice.

It's not a matter of him 'turning a new leaf' on that as if that should be an excuse for ultimate accountability. Once the UN resolution passed to get him to stop a threatened massacre of his own protesting people, he threatened to do it again rather than just abide by the UN resolution:

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: GADDAFI: I'LL BLOW UP HOLIDAY JETS

He refused to properly destroy his chemical weapons stockpile despite 'agreeing' to do so.

Libyan chaos raises worries over chemical weapons stockpile - CNN

He got this current UN mandate and NATO action because he was threatening to slaughter those who opposed his regime that would have created a massive harm and death toll and causing a human catastrophe of refugees far worse than what already exists. Even the ICC wants him now for his long list of international crimes. It's time he faced justice for all his crimes.

As for Germany, I was disappointed it did not participate in this endeavour.

First, it would have been nice to see Germany take the side against an international criminal and threatener of mass slaughter like Gaddafi given its military legacy of WWII and beforehand. It is involved in Afghanistan, but that was obligatory by the NATO agreement given signatory nations as well as itself were and are being threatened and attacked by AQ with the shelter and assistance of its Taliban ally. It helped stop the Yugoslavian slaughters, a good thing. Other than that, it would be nice to see Germany developing a legacy of using its military for beneficial purposes such as situations like this and as a way of making up for past bad acts by being a 'good guy' against a 'bad guy,' if you will. Instead, it has made Germany seem--fairly or not--that it historically had no problem using its military for wars of imperialism, aggression and/or atrocity but when it comes to ridding the world of a 'bad guy' on the flip side threatening or committing slaughters, it can't be bothered with properly stopping it.

Second, Germany and its citizens have been attacked itself over the years by Gaddafi. The 1986 raid was even in response to a Libyan bombing of a German disco. German citizens were even killed on Pan Am Flight 103.

Third, Germany has a much larger role and obligation for itself and as a central EU member to see that Europe is not swamped with refugees and other negative collateral consequences of Gaddafi's misconduct that led to this intervention and would result if he was allowed to remain in power. It's getting a 'free ride' on others' tail here who are doing the heavy lifting and taking the responsibility for it.

As for Gaddafi's daughter filing that nonsense...so what. Belgium shouldn't even be entertaining these kinds of 'universal jurisdiction' claims because not only are they legally dubious insofar as jurisdiction but also because they are so often mischievous and frivolous anyway on merit, and it should be tossed out. Aisha Gaddafi is currently under a travel ban UNSC Resolution 1970 and is well known for advocating and representing Saddam Hussein and various terrorist organisations, not the least of which is her own father and family of which she is a participating member and a part of their oppression of the Libyan people, never mind crimes against others.

That's fine and all but we should have gone after him at that point. Regardless of how you feel about what or who someone is the rule of law has to stand and this war is illegal. There was absolutely no effort on Ghadaffi's side to attack other countries.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

That's Regardless of how you feel about what or who someone is the rule of law has to stand and this war is illegal.

You're still repeating this canard after abdicating on your pledge to find support for it?

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

You're still repeating this canard after abdicating on your pledge to find support for it?

I don't know what you are saying. The President does not have the legal authority to have enacted this war.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I don't know what you are saying.

This is the post to which I'm referring. Former GA Rep Cynthia McKinney giving aid and comfort to Gadhafi

I can't believe I'm actually in agreement with fishjoel for once.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

This is the post to which I'm referring. Former GA Rep Cynthia McKinney giving aid and comfort to Gadhafi

Oh, lol...I honestly completely forgot about that.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

I can't believe I'm actually in agreement with fishjoel for once.

I think we've agreed on some things before. This is a matter that I've actually changed on from what I would have believed just a little while ago. As mulish as I come across I do listen and I do change my beliefs if I think the argument has merit.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

You're still repeating this canard after abdicating on your pledge to find support for it?

War Powers Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

As you can see, the authority to declare was lies with the Congress, not the President.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

As you can see this is in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, Obama is currently in violation of the violation. So I dunno what that makes what he's doing. Do two negatives make a positive?

As to the third demand you made....I have no need to answer that as what you said contradicts itself and doesn't even make logical sense. So basically you answered that demand yourself using a logic fallacy.

Happy?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

War Powers Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, the authority to declare was lies with the Congress, not the President.

That relates to the power to declare war. You said: "Minus the War Powers Act the President can't carry out any acts of war, for any period of time, w/o Congressional approval." Mr. Obama has not declared war; that would be in contravention of the Constitution. He's ordered the military to engage in combat, which is within his purview as Commander in Chief, and anticipated by the War Powers Resolution.

Do you also think it was "illegal" when Thomas Jefferson ordered combat actions in Libya?

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see this is in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, Obama is currently in violation of the violation. So I dunno what that makes what he's doing. Do two negatives make a positive?

You're now saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Please clarify.

You didn't quote any language from the War Powers Act, much less any language authorizing the President to conduct war in contravention of the Constitution.

As to the third demand you made....I have no need to answer that as what you said contradicts itself and doesn't even make logical sense. So basically you answered that demand yourself using a logic fallacy.

Your argument depends on the logical fallacy. Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by statute, giving the President powers he doesn't otherwise have. Do you acknowledge that?

You claim to have developed this belief that the action in Libya is illegal based on some argument that has merit but you've yet to share it with anyone.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

That relates to the power to declare war. You said: "Minus the War Powers Act the President can't carry out any acts of war, for any period of time, w/o Congressional approval." Mr. Obama has not declared war; that would be in contravention of the Constitution. He's ordered the military to engage in combat, which is within his purview as Commander in Chief, and anticipated by the War Powers Resolution.

Do you also think it was "illegal" when Thomas Jefferson ordered combat actions in Libya?

Only someone who is trying to be a shiesty lawyer and get around the law would say that carrying out acts of war as a country is not tantamount to declaring war. You're also confusing what being Commander in Chief means. It does not mean he has the right to declare war or carry out acts of war. It means that when we declare war he is the one that is responsible for how it is prosecuted.

You're now saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Please clarify.

You didn't quote any language from the War Powers Act, much less any language authorizing the President to conduct war in contravention of the Constitution.

There is no such thing as the War Powers Act. There is the War Powers resolution and it is categorically unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states that the ability to declare war is solely with the Congress. Congress cannot just make up a rule that lets the president prosecute a war on his own w/o actually making an amendment to the Constitution. You see, we live under the rule of law. If you don't like the law you need to change it in the proper way, not just turn a blind eye towards it because it's convenient.

Your argument depends on the logical fallacy. Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by statute, giving the President powers he doesn't otherwise have. Do you acknowledge that?

Yes, if they want to pass something that is not allowed by the Constitution then they actually have to pass an amendment. Therefore, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

You claim to have developed this belief that the action in Libya is illegal based on some argument that has merit but you've yet to share it with anyone.

I did share it with you, it's called the Constitution.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Only someone who is trying to be a shiesty lawyer and get around the law would say that carrying out acts of war as a country is not tantamount to declaring war. You're also confusing what being Commander in Chief means. It does not mean he has the right to declare war or carry out acts of war. It means that when we declare war he is the one that is responsible for how it is prosecuted.

OK. Is it fair to say, then, that you believe that the reservation to Congress of the power to declare war precludes the President from giving combat orders without a Congressional declaration of war?

There is the War Powers resolution and it is categorically unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states that the ability to declare war is solely with the Congress. Congress cannot just make up a rule that lets the president prosecute a war on his own w/o actually making an amendment to the Constitution.

Can you cite the language in the resolution that purportedly grants to the President the power to prosecute a war?

I did share it with you, it's called the Constitution.

And this is something new you've discovered?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I don't know what you are saying. The President does not have the legal authority to have enacted this war.

Aren't we more or less just assisting NATO on this one though? I mean we were a pretty significant part of the initiation of hostilities, but as long as it's ultimately a NATO action that we're supporting, I don't know if the war powers act comes into play.

Originally Posted by Porras

Aren't we more or less just assisting NATO on this one though? I mean we were a pretty significant part of the initiation of hostilities, but as long as it's ultimately a NATO action that we're supporting, I don't know if the war powers act comes into play.

There is no War Powers Act. There is the War Powers Clause, that's in the Constitution, and there is the War Powers Resolution.

Regardless of that, we have committed acts of war against Libya. We seized $33 billion dollars belonging to Libya. If another country seized $33 billion US dollars would you consider that an act of war? How about the hundreds of tomohawk missiles we've launch? If another country's government carried out attacks on US soil launching hundreds of missiles in tactical strikes on the US would you consider that an act of war?

I seriously don't understand the viewpoint that the US is not at war with Libya. Just because we have not prosecuted the war in an all-out manner does not mean it's any less of a war.