News Stories

[Ithekro]

Probably on board with the idea that the UN overrules Congress. (World > Country way of thinking)

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Probably on board with the idea that the UN overrules Congress. (World > Country way of thinking)

thats just stupid.
if anything, the U.N's opinions should be taking a backseat to the opinions of the country, and thats assuming the U,N should even BE taken into consideration (which it doesn't always deserve to).

a country looks after its own selfish interests.
the U.N is two hundred different countries, ALL looking out for their own specific selfish interests.
asking a country like the U.S to accept the idea that the opinions of Cube, Russia, China, Syria, Libya, Congo and Saudi Arabia overrule Congress is just silly.

or as a great man once said "Um Shmum" ("United Nations, Shmunited Nations").

[Ithekro]

Didn't say it was a good idea. Just that it might be what they are thinking. (of course it is easier to just say, "The UN Resolution says we can go in there and help people by blowing up stuff. Why would we need to get anyone else's say so, much less Congress'?")

However the real reason is probably the old one. The Act that made it so the President needed Congressional approval for use of the military is universally rejected by the Executive Branch and has been since before it was passed. No sitting president has acknowledged it as valid, and only pander to Congress because of it. It is believed to be a violation of the Constitutional powers between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch (Congress holds the right to declare war, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed Forces and gives the order. Having Congress say the President can't do his job as C-in-C, at least according to the Executive Branch, is a violation of the Constitution. Nixon vetoed that one, but Congress was able to pass it anyway with a 2/3s majority in 1973.)

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Sackett

Realize that Obama could probably get Congress to authorize combat in Lybia if he just asked.

But instead of doing that he's decided to tell us that firing missiles and killing people in Lybia is not "hostilities", leading to a separation of powers conflict and a Constitutional crisis.

It's not hostilities. It's just a really egregious case of friendly fire incidents.

[MrTerrorist]

The Total Defeat of the Man Who Said He Owned the Word ‘Edge’

And there was much rejoicing!

[ganbaru]

Oracle seeks up to $6.1 billion in Google lawsuit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75H0FP20110618

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Didn't say it was a good idea. Just that it might be what they are thinking. (of course it is easier to just say, "The UN Resolution says we can go in there and help people by blowing up stuff. Why would we need to get anyone else's say so, much less Congress'?")

However the real reason is probably the old one. The Act that made it so the President needed Congressional approval for use of the military is universally rejected by the Executive Branch and has been since before it was passed. No sitting president has acknowledged it as valid, and only pander to Congress because of it. It is believed to be a violation of the Constitutional powers between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch (Congress holds the right to declare war, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed Forces and gives the order. Having Congress say the President can't do his job as C-in-C, at least according to the Executive Branch, is a violation of the Constitution. Nixon vetoed that one, but Congress was able to pass it anyway with a 2/3s majority in 1973.)

1: If that is the argument, then Obama should just say that! Say: "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional and I won't obey it." Don't try and feed me some crap about how shooting missiles at people aren't "hostilities".

2: I'm don't agree with that interpretation of the constitution. The American Constitution say that Congress has the power to declare war. It says nothing about the President being able to make war without Congressional authorization. How is it meaningful to say that only Congress can declare war if the President can just go make war regardless of whether Congress has declared war or not?

If anything I tend to think that the War Powers act gives the President authority to act without Congressional approval- but only for a period of 60 days. After that he needs to get Congress to declare war. This is probably because Congress decided that modern warfare doesn't always allow congressional deliberation and sometimes needs immediate action.

And understand, I'm not a purist on this "declare war" stuff. If Congress authorizes the use of force but does actually call it a declaration of war- just semantics in my mind, Congress declared war. Or even if Congress doesn't formally authorize force but just votes to provide funds for the war. I can see that as Congressional approval.

But with Lybia, Congress has not voted to provide funds. Obama is just diverting money from a different fund authorized for other purposes.

And lets consider the practical implications. Do we really want the President of the United States to be able to attack other countries and make war on them without Congressional approval? Should one man really have that authority?

He doesn't even need to get Congressional approval for funds? Didn't we learn anything from the Iran-Contra affair? Didn't we learn from Vietnam?

No President has claimed this level of authority or power since Lyndon B. Johnson (and he was the first to claim it). Even Nixon assumed he needed Congress to explicitly fund the war.

[ganbaru]

Hackers target Sega Pass database in latest computer gaming attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...r-giant-hacked
Another one...

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Hackers target Sega Pass database in latest computer gaming attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...r-giant-hacked
Another one...

What's causing so much of this all of a sudden? Some kind of hacking renaissance?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

What's causing so much of this all of a sudden? Some kind of hacking renaissance?

it is Skynet. it is just testing us.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

What's causing so much of this all of a sudden? Some kind of hacking renaissance?

It is like the early-mid 1990s all over again. Cultdeadcow, l33tspeak, the Mentor, etc.

Every tech revolution has its own group of nerds and nuts. The Scene is always alive with new and old blood.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

What's causing so much of this all of a sudden? Some kind of hacking renaissance?

it's all in Saul Alinsky's playbook...

[mysterious]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

What's causing so much of this all of a sudden? Some kind of hacking renaissance?

A world wide governments' conspiracy to enforce more strict rules on the internet to finally control it

[flying ^]

Man Arrested After I.R.S. Mistakenly Deposits $110K In His Account


....... at least he tried to spend it wisely

[Xellos-_^]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...ult-fears.html

Senior sources have revealed that leading banks, including Barclays and Standard Chartered, have radically reduced the amount of unsecured lending they are prepared to make available to eurozone banks, raising the prospect of a new credit crunch for the European banking system.

Standard Chartered is understood to have withdrawn tens of billions of pounds from the eurozone inter-bank lending market in recent months and cut its overall exposure by two-thirds in the past few weeks as it has become increasingly worried about the finances of other European banks.

when banks start to run on other banks you know it is time to make your run.

[ganbaru]

Sega attacked, hacker group offers to take revenge
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75H1XE20110618

Springsteen saxophonist Clarence Clemons dies
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75I02E20110619

[Hooves]

Hackers vowing for revenge is strange to me somehow.

[Vexx]

Congress has the power to set the budget for any Executive action or even the entire DoD budget to ZERO dollars... they just don't have the guts or consolidated willpower to do it (either Dems or Repubs).

Originally Posted by Sackett

1: If that is the argument, then Obama should just say that! Say: "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional and I won't obey it." Don't try and feed me some crap about how shooting missiles at people aren't "hostilities".

2: I'm don't agree with that interpretation of the constitution. The American Constitution say that Congress has the power to declare war. It says nothing about the President being able to make war without Congressional authorization. How is it meaningful to say that only Congress can declare war if the President can just go make war regardless of whether Congress has declared war or not?

If anything I tend to think that the War Powers act gives the President authority to act without Congressional approval- but only for a period of 60 days. After that he needs to get Congress to declare war. This is probably because Congress decided that modern warfare doesn't always allow congressional deliberation and sometimes needs immediate action.

And understand, I'm not a purist on this "declare war" stuff. If Congress authorizes the use of force but does actually call it a declaration of war- just semantics in my mind, Congress declared war. Or even if Congress doesn't formally authorize force but just votes to provide funds for the war. I can see that as Congressional approval.

But with Lybia, Congress has not voted to provide funds. Obama is just diverting money from a different fund authorized for other purposes.

And lets consider the practical implications. Do we really want the President of the United States to be able to attack other countries and make war on them without Congressional approval? Should one man really have that authority?

He doesn't even need to get Congressional approval for funds? Didn't we learn anything from the Iran-Contra affair? Didn't we learn from Vietnam?

No President has claimed this level of authority or power since Lyndon B. Johnson (and he was the first to claim it). Even Nixon assumed he needed Congress to explicitly fund the war.

[MrTerrorist]

'Barefoot bandit' Colton Harris-Moore pleads guilty

[ganbaru]

Some evacuees in AZ, NM return home from wildfires

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-19-04-15-24