Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On March 1, the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution in regards to Libya

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:56 PM
Original message
On March 1, the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution in regards to Libya
On March 1, the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution in regards to Libya

Clause 7:

urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.85:

Article here: http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/4441/what-was-the-senates-intent


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Pssst! A resolution isn't legislation
It's kind of Congress' version of "we think you should do this," not, you know, a law or anything with the force of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's not the point.
The point is there's a bunch of Senator's on TV hollering about the no-fly zone, and this unanimously passed resolution shows that everyone was in support of it - and should not have been surprised when the UN voted to impose one.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Lots of resolutions get passed "by unanimous consent"
Because it's a risk-free and accountability-free way for some Senators to pop off. Sort of like anonymous posting online is for ordinary citizens. It's quite possible that of the "bunch of Senator's on TV," none of them were present when this non-binding resolution was adopted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. BUT - All senators had the opportunity to 'object', and none of them did. n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. All Senators present, that is
And, fortunately or unfortunately, there isn't a record of who's standing around in the Senate chamber when one of these unanimous consent resolutions is introduced and passed. Sometimes it's not even clear what's in the resolution until much later, when the Congressional Record is published. There's a Senate rule of long standing that when a Senator end his remarks ("I yield the balance of my time"), he routinely asks for "unanimous consent" to "revise and extend" his remarks. In this way - and it's happened routinely in the past - a Senator can be foursquare against something, but through the "revise and extend" procedure, he can have the Record publish as his remarks the exact opposite of what he said, so that he appears to have been on the "winning" side all along. The same thing happens with these resolutions, in that by "unanimous consent" the Senate resolves to urge the President to do something (make milk the national drink or something). It isn't until much later that the actual text of the resolution turns out to be entirely different from what someone was asking to be "resolved."

So, to say that Senators had the "opportunity" to object to the resolution but didn't, is to posit an orderly procedure that isn't present in reality. That's why non-binding Senate "resolutions," which are not on the regular calendar, aren't written up to be reviewed and debated, and don't have the force of law really shouldn't be relied upon by any careful observer of the political scene as evidence for what the Senate thinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. "the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent"
unanimous consent = ALL. OF. THEM.

Thanks for posting.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. You're welcome. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Every single one. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. So, we must have lots of money.
I don't think that statement and a vote by one House of Congress satisfies the Constitution. It says that Congress has the power to declare war. That is not a declaration of war and passage of a resolution by the Senate is not passage by Congress.

I don't think that a declaration of war would be defeated in either House, but from a technical point of view, this is not sufficient.

Did the Senate think about how much action by our military would cost us at a time in which they are cutting all sorts of programs like heating subsidies that keep Americans alive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. War has NOT been declared. The UN is emposing the no-fly zone.
And under The War Resolution Act of 1973 Obama has compiled by sending Congress a letter within 48 hours, and now the 60 day clock has started.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Sponsors
PDF

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 85

Whereas Muammar Gadhafi and his regime have engaged in gross and systematic violations of human rights, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, that have killed thousands of people;

Whereas Muammar Gadhafi, his sons and supporters have instigated and authorized violent attacks on Libyan protesters using warplanes, helicopters, snipers and soldiers and continue to threaten the life and well-being of any person voicing opposition to the Gadhafi regime;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council and the international community have condemned the violence and use of force against civilians in Libya and on February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed to refer the ongoing situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, impose an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the provision of mercenary personnel, freeze the financial assets of Muammar Gadhafi and certain family members, and impose a travel ban on Gadhafi, certain family members and senior advisors;

Whereas Muammar Gadhafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years by banning and brutally opposing any individual or group opposing the ideology of his 1969 revolution, criminalizing the peaceful exercise of expression and association, refusing to permit independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations, and engaging in torture and extrajudicial executions, including the 1,200 detainees killed in Abu Salim Prison in June 1996;

Whereas Libya took formal responsibility for the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, 189 of whom were U.S. citizens and high-ranking Libyan officials have indicated that Muammar Gadhafi personally ordered the attack; and

Whereas Libya was elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council on May 13, 2010 for a period of 3 years, sending a demoralizing message of indifference to the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 and Libyan citizens that have endured repression, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance or physical assault in their struggle to obtain basic human and civil rights: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and

(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. but congress was never informed, therefore this could not possibly have happened
why can't you get your facts straight?


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
13. Finally! Jenny Backus on Hardball brought up the Senate's March 1st resolution!
I've been waiting for some dems to talk about that on the TV box :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. Even if you want to think this is the equivalent of consent, the Senate is 1/2
of congress, the House of Representatives, obviously, is the other. Has the House passed any similar resolution? If not, the President has not gotten congress' approval for his action and thus, I fail to see the point of this OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thunderstruck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. B-bb-but bah...b..
..but...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shining Jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. This point of the OP is ....
to show that the U.S. Senate passed a resolution urging the UN to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, and 'The UN' did.

The UN did.

So, all the Obama bashing about him not getting approval from Congress is STUPID, because President Obama has NOT declared war, and The USA has NOT evaded Libya.

The help that the USA is giving in Libya is NOT unilateral - we are only one country of many that are involved.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Bush never declared war on Iraq either. Also, we did not go in there
by ourselves, other countries joined us for a little while at least.

If fact, when was the last time the US actually declared war? 70 years ago?

The "help" we are giving one loosely organized faction in a civil war is unilateral in a constitutional sense in that the executive branch did not seek consent of the co-equal branch, congress.

A few questions for you as you seem to put a lot of stock in the UNSC resolution:

Does the President need to get Congressional approval for military action in Libya if it lasts longer than 60 days?

If they do not give approval, can he continue to act based on the supposed legal authority of the UNSC resolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Obama is adhering to the ....
the rules of The War Resolution of 1973.
President Obama sent a letter outlining the mission within the required 48 hours.
And I am assuming that the 60 day clock has started and that President Obama will continue to do what he is legally required to do.

p.s. There was no declaration of war in Korea (police action), Vietnam, either Gulf War, Somalia, Afghanistan, or any of the smaller actions. The last time that the US declared war was against Italy and Germany in World War II.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I did read about the President sending the official notice to congress
yesterday I believe. However, my question to you basically was does he need congressional approval persuant to the War Powers Act or, without the approval of congress, could he continue to have US military assets involved in Libya based on the UNSC resolution alone?

My point about no wars being declared in the past 70 years (2011-70 = 1941) was to counter what I thought was your assertion that the US was not at war as no declaration was made so no problem. I was trying to point out that Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I and II et al were not "wars" either.

Lastly, again Bush went into Iraq with other countries as well so the fact that some others are with us in Libya (and thus, not unilateral action) is not, in itself, a justification for our actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. He didn't need to; he needed Congress' Authorization, and he got it
Semantics aside, if not attacked, the President needs either a Declaration of War or an Authorization.

Bush asked for and got it. So did his Daddy for Iraq (although he fudged Panama as imminent danger, which is a stretch, but certainly quasi-respect for the law) and he got an understanding to do Somalia. So did Reagan for Lebanon, and although he didn't for Grenada, he used a similar imminent threat sneak to justify it, as well as talking with O'Neill. Clinton did for the continuance of the Somalia mess, and he lobbied successfully to get permission to stay there longer than Congress wanted.

Obama did nothing. He sought no Declaration or Authorization, and he did not consult at all. He sent a letter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thank you for providing the facts. All the Obama bashing has been ridiculous.
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 09:13 PM by ClarkUSA
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Take a look at the discussion posts regarding Obama & Libya on the link below

http://www.politico.com/arena/

there's some pretty good posts there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-24-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Direct link to the correct page below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
24. Congress also authorized the use of force against Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

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