倍可親

民主黨人認為奧巴馬越權,反對出兵利比亞聲明 (中英文對照)

作者:Cannaa  於 2011-3-24 00:45 發表於 最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

作者分類:瞎侃瞎聊|通用分類:熱點雜談|已有17評論

民主黨支部反對美國參與空襲利比亞政府軍,理由如下:

美國的行為是在插手一個主權國家的內戰;
這次行動既沒有尋求也沒有得國會承諾;
出戰決定是倉促的,出戰理由過於簡單,解釋過於潦草,甚至違背政策,也沒有考慮到美國眼前和以後的軍事危險;
在展開軍事行動前,沒有對有關事項進行審查,沒有得到全國範圍的認可;
聯合國對利比亞採取軍事行動的決議(安理會第1973(2011))沒有給美國總統超越或取代憲法的權威;
這次出兵沒有全國性的開支計劃做後盾;
目前還不清楚是否利比亞反政府派別,我們正在支持的派別,有能力組建一個全國性政府。

民主黨支部認為,奧巴馬總統對利比亞的出兵決定超越了他的許可權。黨支部非常認同2007年奧巴馬作為總統候選人時發表的聲明:

「根據憲法,美國總統沒有權力單方面授權發動軍事攻擊,除非這種攻擊是為了阻止對美國實際發生的威脅或迫在眉睫的威脅。」 巴拉克奧巴馬 -2007年12月20日。

起草人:托馬斯,豪勞克, 2011年3月24日
Statement of a Democratic Town Committee regarding acts of war by the U.S. against Libya:

The Democratic Town Committee opposes the involvement of the United States in air attacks against the government and armed forces of Libya on grounds that:
The engagement comprises interference in a civil war within a sovereign nation;
Congressional approval was neither sought nor gained for this commitment to war;
The decision to war was made precipitously, upon a sudden and poorly explained reversal of policy, without urgent or foreseeable military danger to the United States;
Little effort was made to examine the issues and win national approval for war before military action commenced;
The United Nations resolution encouraging war on Libya (UNSCR 1973 (2011)) does not override or replace lack of constitutional authority;
The attacks are a national expenditure without appropriated funds;
It is unclear whether the Libyan rebels, whom we now seem to support, have the ability to form a government of national unity.
The Democratic Town Committee therefore believes that President Obama has overstepped his authority in leading the military attack on Libya, and agrees with the statement of candidate Obama of 2007:

"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." Barack Obama - December 20, 2007.

drafted by Thomas Hollocher, 24 March 2011

1

高興

感動

同情

搞笑

難過

拍磚
4

支持
2

鮮花

剛表態過的朋友 (7 人)

發表評論 評論 (17 個評論)

回復 海外憤青 2011-3-24 03:11
美國總是出些另類,也不可把他們太當真。
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 04:01
海外憤青: 美國總是出些另類,也不可把他們太當真。
Thanks. I often received notes from friends who are really thoughtful. Here is another. I will take time to sort of them.
-----
Yes, that's true, but it was not approved by the U.S. Congress- - per Art.I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America! (see The NYT today, p.A11).  This point highlights a steady morphing  of our constitutional government to imperial government.  The power to "declare war" has migrated from Congress to the President, and second, from the President to generals: see  Richard A. Clarke's "Cyber War," 2010. Clarke claims a general needs to prepare the battle field in advance of the war he expects/wants to fight. This is particularly true for cyber war which the U.S. used to shut down Libya's communication systems prior to launching its Tomahawk missiles and fighter jets.
    Third, declaring war has been delegated by our generals to army clerks in Florida who trigger drone missiles to kill specific individuals in Yemen, a country not at war with the U.S.A.  If the Yemen's President approved those killings, apparently our generals have delegated (???) Congress's power "to declare war" to the president of a foreign nation. While covert killings may have been an on-going practice of our CIA, these have been covert actions for a damned good reason - these are illegal minus the context of a declared war.
    This is one of many examples on the increasing obsolesces of Constitution. President Bush illegally authorized 'wiretapping' citizens communication within the US; a violation of the 4th Amendment (privacy protection).  This sort of violation is continuing under President Obama.  See the  NYT today, p. A17).  The utility/vitality of Constitution of the United States is not fairing much better under President Obama.  
    In summary, the Constitution is increasingly becoming obsolete; its has become more an icon of worship for the Tea Party folks than a utilitarian tool of governance 'to create a more perfect union,' its primary purpose when it was adopted in 1787.      

Clark
回復 qyed 2011-3-24 06:45
這個托馬斯是麻省的一個教授?所以這是麻省的一個民主黨地方支部?文章在網上找不到。日期的寫法也有點另類呢!
回復 JEFFSON 2011-3-24 08:34
聯合國對利比亞採取軍事行動的決議(安理會第1973(2011))是禁飛而不是斬首,此行動形成了一國獵殺另一國元首的居面。非常惡略。
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 08:49
qyed: 這個托馬斯是麻省的一個教授?所以這是麻省的一個民主黨地方支部?文章在網上找不到。日期的寫法也有點另類呢!
This is only a draft. The 黨支部 will discuss and will produce a final version.
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 08:49
JEFFSON: 聯合國對利比亞採取軍事行動的決議(安理會第1973(2011))是禁飛而不是斬首,此行動形成了一國獵殺另一國元首的居面。非常惡略。
I believe. This is much serious than the war in Iraq.
回復 torpedo1 2011-3-24 10:28
俄亥俄州的一個反戰民主黨議員,前天接受CNN採訪時,也大聲疾呼,奧巴馬擅自決定出兵,就憑這一項就夠啟動彈劾他的議程。但他說,目前,他還不打算這樣做。只是想讓總統知道,他犯了多麼大的一個錯誤。隨後,另外一個評論員說,理解這個議員的心情,但他不該當著公眾的面說,他應該給總統寫信。
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 11:11
torpedo1: 俄亥俄州的一個反戰民主黨議員,前天接受CNN採訪時,也大聲疾呼,奧巴馬擅自決定出兵,就憑這一項就夠啟動彈劾他的議程。但他說,目前,他還不打算這樣做。只是想 ...
不說就沒事了?還有共和黨呢,下次競選這是個硬傷,躲不掉的。
回復 torpedo1 2011-3-24 12:37
Cannaa: 不說就沒事了?還有共和黨呢,下次競選這是個硬傷,躲不掉的。
他們也知道要維護自己總統的權威呀,不想讓利比亞政府看到他們的內鬥,這不長了敵人威風了嗎?所以,言論自由還是有選擇性的。
奧巴馬在這次禁飛區問題上丟分是丟大了,如果收不了場,必須投入地面部隊,他怎麼到國會去交代。還有幾個議員說應該再縮減國防軍費,不能給這次行動撥款。看奧巴馬怎麼去做這無米之炊。讓他亂答應參戰。
回復 酒余飯後 2011-3-24 19:42
美國憲法中根本就沒有一定要國會同意總統才能發動戰爭(軍事行動,和宣戰不是一回事)這一條,歐巴馬並沒違憲,但總統要持續戰爭就要國會的支持,因為錢是國會批的,不管歐巴馬打的對不對,沒國會支持根本打不下去,一些有限的行動總統當然可以做決定。歐巴馬沒搞明白的是卡該打,利不該被濫炸,所以他沒一個明確的目標。這傢伙好象還是第一個人在外度假/訪問宣布軍事行動的美國總統,有點250。
回復 酒余飯後 2011-3-24 19:52
Cannaa: 不說就沒事了?還有共和黨呢,下次競選這是個硬傷,躲不掉的。
沒有什麼法律依據去彈劾,只是說說劃清界限罷了。歐巴馬應該被彈劾的是他缺乏Leadership,LOL,其實他拿著聯合國決議當擋箭牌行事才讓大夥鬱悶。
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 21:09
酒余飯後: 美國憲法中根本就沒有一定要國會同意總統才能發動戰爭(軍事行動,和宣戰不是一回事)這一條,歐巴馬並沒違憲,但總統要持續戰爭就要國會的支持,因為錢是國會批 ...
This is one of many examples on the increasing obsolesces of Constitution. President Bush illegally authorized 'wiretapping' citizens communication within the US; a violation of the 4th Amendment (privacy protection).  This sort of violation is continuing under President Obama.  See the  NYT today, p. A17).  The utility/vitality of Constitution of the United States is not fairing much better under President Obama.
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 21:10
酒余飯後: 沒有什麼法律依據去彈劾,只是說說劃清界限罷了。歐巴馬應該被彈劾的是他缺乏Leadership,LOL,其實他拿著聯合國決議當擋箭牌行事才讓大夥鬱悶。
拿著聯合國決議當擋箭牌行事,這回玩出了新名堂。
回復 Cannaa 2011-3-24 21:15
torpedo1: 他們也知道要維護自己總統的權威呀,不想讓利比亞政府看到他們的內鬥,這不長了敵人威風了嗎?所以,言論自由還是有選擇性的。
奧巴馬在這次禁飛區問題上丟分是丟 ...
搞不好被彈劾
回復 torpedo1 2011-3-25 00:10
Cannaa: 搞不好被彈劾
到後來得找個替死鬼出來,希拉里?拜登?
回復 insight 2011-3-25 05:06
酒余飯後: 沒有什麼法律依據去彈劾,只是說說劃清界限罷了。歐巴馬應該被彈劾的是他缺乏Leadership,LOL,其實他拿著聯合國決議當擋箭牌行事才讓大夥鬱悶。
美國總統只能在國家受到緊急打擊時可以自己決定開戰。否則,要通過國會討論。
回復 JEFFSON 2011-3-26 05:26
是的很嚴重的問題。

facelist doodle 塗鴉板

您需要登錄后才可以評論 登錄 | 註冊

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2024-11-14 23:51

返回頂部