https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/15/irs-ap-benghanzi-not-real-scandals

@Lola probably not, they got these things called consulate offices in each other's countries, y'know? Like how Assange is hiding out in one of 'em.. but hey, someone makes a few shekels along the way so it's all good

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ so you want to focus on libya?

we can do that

And Syria

both were illegal wars

one at the time perhaps?

How can you not explain your point to me

sure

You just put a statement in the chat and I'm trying to understand you

Lola, I can't understand madness nor explain it

```In 2011 when President Obama ordered American warplanes into action over Libya, he never bothered to get congressional authorization to do so. Presidents are not forbidden to do such things, but under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), they are required to notify Congress within 48 hours of the onset of US military involvement. They then have 60 days to get formal authorization from Congress and if they fail to do so must cease operations within 30 days.``` @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

Yes

which was illegal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

he isnt forbidden of not asking congress

So you think your point is insane @unit ??

thats the important part

"but under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), they are required to notify Congress within 48 hours of the onset of US military involvement."

read the war powers act

I think the situation is insane

notifying is different from asking permission

@unit how so

Do you think it's reasonable to deny access to family and friends in another country

basically the WPR says that the president has to send a letter to congress 2 days after war starts saying: "oh btw we're at war now, cya later"

Her'es the actually quote

"It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Have you ever heard of Berlin Wall, @unit

It wouldn't be reasonable to recreate this kind of situation

```President Obama found an out in the law; namely that he can bypass the requirements of the WPR if the US is not engaged in active "hostilities". This was precisely the position taken by the White House … even though at the time US planes were dropping bombs in Libya, firing missiles from off-shore and, according to some reports, coordinating with British forward air controllers on the ground. Only by the most tortured definition do such actions not qualify as hostilities. Indeed Obama's own office of legal counsel determined that US actions represented "hostilities" and required congressional authorization to continue. They were overruled by the president.``` the article says that even though that there were hostilities, clearly, they found a way of itnerpretation of the definition of "hostilities" that allowed it to be bypassed - a loophole if you will

@Lola yeah it's the Montague's & Capulets all over again, eh?

@unit no

the real question is: is there political will to actually go after the president for an alleged illegal action? at the time apparently not

"in active "hostilities""

How is that not active hostilities

US planes literally conducting sorties

Similar ScowlToday at 19:14
the real question is: is there political will to actually go after the president for an alleged illegal action? at the time apparently not

ahaha yes

very soon

You would only worsen the situation

the point is that the obama administration found a loophole in the definition