Last time I checked, I thought Idi Amin Jr. was against this whole "bomb the brown people overseas" thing. Now we find he's boming the hell out of some brown people in Libya, which - last time I checked - was an act of war, especially without any provication whatsoever by Col. Mumu.

Should Idi Amin Jr. be impeached? Should Joe Biden be frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs?

Rahm has great timing ...

Impeached? What a joke.
A few cruise missiles here and there means nothing compared to all the other things past Presidents have done. As long as we back out of it quickly as **claimed** we will, who cares? I don't, unless the rebels are even worse than Qaddafi...

Monday, Mar 21, 2011 17:37 ET
Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable"
Both say President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by giving green light to intervention in Libya Video
By Peter Finocchiaro
Democracy Now

Outspoken critics on the left are raising hell over the Obama administration's authorization of military force in Libya, calling it "unconstitutional." Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently rattled off a list of U.S. military and intelligence directives -- apparently including action in Libya -- that he views as egregious violations of international law and grounds for impeachment:

Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich made a similar statement today. In particular, Kucinich castigated Obama for pursuing military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization:

President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said. It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action ... is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone.

Kucinich's and Nader's arguments against the constitutionality of Obama's authorization of force are based on an interpretation of the War Power Act. Passed by Congress in 1973 -- after a decade-long quagmire in Vietnam -- the legislation requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. military attack where national security is not at stake. President Obama submitted such a letter to House Speaker John Boehner today. Beyond that, the Act mandates that the commander in chief seek congressional approval after 60 days of military action.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment/ 

Freshman Republicans have joined the garden knome from Ohio in saying this is unconstitutional.
Like I said the cowboy at least got expanded powers from congress for legal cover.
Barry Satoro cares not one lick what any document forged by racist slave owners says. He was trained by American heros.....

i dont think a prez has gone to get permission from congress since ww2. As much as i dislike obama, i would have to say republican presidents have done worse without congressional authority. its just a few cruise missles (about $1 million each i think x 136 launched) and a lousy f15 fighter jet. They are only like $30 million i think. So we have only spent about $175 million on libya in a matter of days.

Well, there goes his chance of winning another Peace Prize this year.... 😟

It is hardly unconstitutional for the sitting US President to authorize military force when the UN Security Council has asked for it.

My opinions about the UN and our military not withstanding.

The President cannot declare war without Congressional approval and, as indicated in post 6, all the President is required to do is inform them.

Given the coverage of the action, it would be very difficult for Congress to claim they are uninformed.

Well, more than usual anyways ....................

Yeah the 1973 war powers act is waaaaay overrated........

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.


“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”



Just sayin'...so was he too.

What? Since when does the constitution mention the UN?

it's somewhere towards the back.... 😟

Its enumerated in the penumbra. Didn't you know that?

Under the 1973 war powers act we're attacking Lybia for "humanitarian " reasons (quoting POTUS Barry Sotoro).
oh media watch dogs.....where art thou?

It's all ok. Since he really wasn't born here and he is not the legit Prez no laws have been broken (at least not the 73 thingamabob).

You have to admit we come up with some of the coolest names

Operation Urgent Fury , Operation El Dorado Canyon , Operation Nimble Archery, Operation Classic Resolve, Operation Just Cause, Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, Operation Provide Comfort, Operation Provide Promise, Operation Uphold Democracy, Operation Deliberate Force, Operation Desert Fox, Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Operation Bank Rupt

😞 all thos operations and still no CROS......

He was wounded during my favorite undeclared war, Operation Urgent Fury. Thats when he lost the use of his first leg.