Oct 30th, 2011
via War Costs
Showing posts with label Anti War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti War. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Libyan Legality
April 6th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
UPDATE 11:54PM CST
As Ben Smith noted earlier, some very prominent partisans are really pushing impeachment:
"Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama's course that "Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
Read on to learn how wrongheaded Mr. Fein and his cohorts are.
Original Post
There has been plenty of chatter from across the spectrum stipulating that Obama's use of military power in Libya was "not legal" because he "failed to get authorization from congress."
Although I was utterly opposed to this excursion, what I actually find shocking is that so many people don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Pat Buchanan smarmed about it. Howard Kurtz wrung his hands over it. Right wing loon Jeffry T. Kuhner shrieked that it was an offense worthy of impeachment. Papers from the left and the right wasted ink and interweb space over Security Council Resolution 1973. Dr. Abdul Ruff, "terror expert," not only argued it's being illegal but dusted off the phrase "technocracies" in doing so. This was an impressive and rare moment of creativity from the chorus.
I agree that the Libyan intervention is incredibly ill-conceived. However, it would seem that none of these critics have ever actually read a standing American law called The United Nations Participatory Act. That's just plain lazy. Perhaps they are Google-challenged.
There are dozens of cogent arguments against this misadventure. Legality is not one of them.
I direct your attention to section 22 U.S.C. § 287d, of the UNPA and this passage in particular:
"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"
So. Libya. Our involvement is a really stupid set of incredibly bad moves resulting from poor strategic thinking. However, until we outlaw hubris or repeal the UNPA, it's also perfectly legal.
Major hat tip to Jenkinsear for illustrating this better than I.
by F. Grey Parker
UPDATE 11:54PM CST
As Ben Smith noted earlier, some very prominent partisans are really pushing impeachment:
"Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama's course that "Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
Read on to learn how wrongheaded Mr. Fein and his cohorts are.
Original Post
Although I was utterly opposed to this excursion, what I actually find shocking is that so many people don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Pat Buchanan smarmed about it. Howard Kurtz wrung his hands over it. Right wing loon Jeffry T. Kuhner shrieked that it was an offense worthy of impeachment. Papers from the left and the right wasted ink and interweb space over Security Council Resolution 1973. Dr. Abdul Ruff, "terror expert," not only argued it's being illegal but dusted off the phrase "technocracies" in doing so. This was an impressive and rare moment of creativity from the chorus.
I agree that the Libyan intervention is incredibly ill-conceived. However, it would seem that none of these critics have ever actually read a standing American law called The United Nations Participatory Act. That's just plain lazy. Perhaps they are Google-challenged.
There are dozens of cogent arguments against this misadventure. Legality is not one of them.
I direct your attention to section 22 U.S.C. § 287d, of the UNPA and this passage in particular:
"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"
So. Libya. Our involvement is a really stupid set of incredibly bad moves resulting from poor strategic thinking. However, until we outlaw hubris or repeal the UNPA, it's also perfectly legal.
Major hat tip to Jenkinsear for illustrating this better than I.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Martin Luther King, Jr. "You Don't Know Me."
Jan 17th, 2011
"When you go to jail for a righteous cause you can accept the inconveniences of jail with a kind of innocence, of calm and an inner sense of peace."
1968 - Martin Luther King's Prophetic Last speech - Remember
Jan 17th, 2011
Already this morning, I have been subjected to the diminishing nonsense that revisionists continue to make of Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy. His was not some quaint poetry. It was not even simply a message of civil disobedience. It was a call to intellectual arms. It was a blistering challenge for America to live up to it's promises. It was the very epitome of liberation theology. It was inarguably revolutionary. And it ought be honored fully and truthfully.
Martin Luther King, Jr. on War
Jan 17th, 2011
Last week saw yet another act of vile misappropriation of the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. At the Pentagon, a speaker argued that, were he alive today, King would likely support our wars in the Middle East. Please read the quote and then watch the video below.
From HuffPo:
DOD General Counsel Jeh Johnson suggested that today's wars are in line with the reverend's teachings.
"I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation's military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack," Johnson said. "Every day, our servicemen and women practice the dangerousness -- the dangerous unselfishness Dr. King preached on April 3, 1968."
A Day Of Multiple Commemorations
Jan 17th, 2011
As we are called to honor the memory and the message of Martin Luther King, Jr. today, we also mark the 50th anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address. It makes a fine companion to the words of King. Whereas the legacy of the former is more under siege than ever before, the warning of the latter continues to go largely unheeded. Our quality of life, level of freedom and achievement of domestic tranquility are now more than ever under threat for failing to live up to either. Below is the full Eisenhower message to the nation in two parts. I have chosen not to cherry pick but to present the address in it's entirety.
As we are called to honor the memory and the message of Martin Luther King, Jr. today, we also mark the 50th anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address. It makes a fine companion to the words of King. Whereas the legacy of the former is more under siege than ever before, the warning of the latter continues to go largely unheeded. Our quality of life, level of freedom and achievement of domestic tranquility are now more than ever under threat for failing to live up to either. Below is the full Eisenhower message to the nation in two parts. I have chosen not to cherry pick but to present the address in it's entirety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
