War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

More at the link --

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Guess it comes down to the definition of "war".

[guruoo]

5. That, and other legal conflicts and amiguties that WPA failed to clearly address nt.

[whatchamacallit]

12. "It's the fault of that stupid WPA for not addressing future presidential abuse!"

:eyes:

[guruoo]

22. If one assumes that WPA's authors intended for there to be no conflicts, ambiguties, or

exceptions. In this case, the question of "abuse" is in the eye of the beholder, i.e., an opinion.

[Distant Observer]

14. Congress call Presidents to account with respect to Grenada and Panama. Why not Libya?

[guruoo]

23. They did? nt

[Abq_Sarah]

15. I'm thinking if you've got missiles raining down on you

You probably believe war is being waged upon you.

If you drop bombs on another country or send troops in without the express permission of that country, it's an act of war.

[Distant Observer]

18. Sec of Def said before congress that NFZ was, in itself, an act of war. Why is it now questioned

even though the intervention has gone far beyond an NFZ

[Abq_Sarah]

21. You're correct

I'd forgotten about Gates testimony back in March when he said a NFZ starts with an attack on Libya.

[Distant Observer]

26. NYT:"Gates, who told Congress that a no-fly zone is, after all, an act of war. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/opinion/09iht-edgreenway09.html?_r=1

[noeasyway]

32. Bombing the shit out of someone

isn't war? okay.

[Hugabear]

36. It's only a "war" if Congress declares war. Therefore, there is no war.

See how convenient that is?

[FLAprogressive]

2. Wasn't everyone using the War Powers Act as a justification when this shit started?

I know people here were .

[TheWraith]

6. You mean, when we were actually involved in it? Yes.

After we stopped being involved, not so much.

[FLAprogressive]

13. when did we stop being involved?

[jberryhill]

38. It is a NATO action now

And if you recall what the "T" in NATO stands for, then you can probably figure out where the lawsuit is headed and why it is outside of the War Powers Act at this point.

[JackRiddler]

50. Ludicrous rationalizations are not improved by arrogant pedantry, did you know?

[JackRiddler]

49. If you make a big lie ridiculous enough, maybe it will look smaller?

The US provides the largest share of forces involved in the NATO attack on Libya. The label on the umbrella doesn't make them anyone else's.

[Tesha]

3. Of course not (rolls eyes) (NT)

[damntexdem]

4. I'm torn. I support the Lybia intervention.

But I'd like to see the War Powers Act upheld and strictly implemented.

If the U.S. were to stop its support of the intervention, it could mean the deaths of many thousands and misery for millions.

But if the War Powers Act were to be applied stringently from now on, it could prevent far worse outcomes.

[guruoo]

7. I can imagine the outcry if Obama had just stood by and allowed

the rebels to be massacred.

[rhett o rick]

9. Who said he should stand by? There are laws to follow. If the Congress doesnt want to wage

war in Lybia, then we shouldnt. It isnt Pres Obama's decision. Beside, why cant NATO handle it w/o us? WE CANT AFFORD ANOTHER WAR.

[guruoo]

24. Some say yes, some say no. It's going to take SCOTUS or WPA rewrite for a definitive answer nt

[rhett o rick]

31. I say we need to get Congress involved. WHAT DO YOU SAY? nm

[rhett o rick]

39. Once again, WHAT DO YOU SAY? It is easy to rail against others but do YOU have an opinion? nm

[guruoo]

41. I'm not railing at anyone.

Already stated my opinion in post #24. WPA needs clarification, and a ruling as to it's appairent
conflict with the Constitution, RE: treaties. Congress could handle the former, SCOTUS the latter.

[rhett o rick]

43. Of course. In the meantime, should we be at war in Lybia? Yes or No? I say No. nm

[guruoo]

45. I'm ok with the level of support we've provided NATO so far. nt

[rhett o rick]

46. You call killing people "level of support"? I guess rationalization is the key to happiness. nm

[guruoo]

47. Whatever.

[rhett o rick]

48. It's time we spend our money on saving Americans. nt

[guruoo]

54. Best argument against it. nt

[rhett o rick]

55. Agree. Peace. nm

[JackRiddler]

57. This is a highlight for weasel words: "the level of support we've provided NATO."

Yeah, it's just some NATO thing... not a war really, just some NATO thing and we are providing a level of support for it. It's not like "we" (the US) decided anything. Gosh, no! The actions of US military in this case aren't covered by US law, it's a NATO thing...

Puke!

[FLAprogressive]

10. Just like all that outrage when the people of Bahrain were getting massacred, huh?

[guruoo]

25. No NATO call there. nt

[Abq_Sarah]

16. What outcry?

Like the American people rising up to demand that President Obama bomb Syria?

[guruoo]

27. Try googling "libyan protestors" using DU's site search in the upper right of this page

[loyalsister]

40. He was in an impossible situation, really

Think how bad we as a country would have looked if congress declined and it escalated. There was a chance they would say no, I think it's possible that Obama's best choice was to what he did.
That said, I am glad that congress is addressing it now.

[guruoo]

42. People here once lamenting that he wasn't doing anything to aid the protestors

[JackRiddler]

52. I can imagine the outcry if US hypocrisy were exposed in a controlled experiment...

Imagine long-standing tyrannical regimes simultaneously engaged in mass-murders of their own people to put down uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. Would the US did respond consistently in accordance with its stated principles of humanitarianism? Or would it have different responses, in each case tailoring its actions according to the US geostrategic interest, so that one of these regimes is supported, one attacked, one tolerated, and the chaos of the fourth (Yemen) is used as an excuse to escalate a separate US war in the country?

Well, we just had that controlled experiment, and the results are in, and guess what? Where's the outcry over the hypocrisy of US policy? Where's the outcry over support for Bahrain, and taking orders on drone strikes from Saudi intelligence?

[rhett o rick]

8. I am not torn at all. We are (or were) a nation of laws and the rule of law.

We are no longer. The president, whether Bush or Obama, has no right to make these decisions. The position of President is getting more and more power, and that is exactly what our Founders feared. We need to put a stop to this bullshit while we have a Democrat for a president.

[Romulox]

11. "Special" rules for Obama will turn into special rules for Mittens

if we're not careful.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Just like Bush

JUST the fuck like Bush.

[QC]

20. Except this place would be melting down if this were Bush. n/t

[tritsofme]

28. Just like Bush!

And Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon And Johnson and Kennedy and Eisenhower and Truman...

[joshcryer]

29. Bush vs. Obama:

http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/selective-outrage-about-war.html

[whatchamacallit]

33. Yeah, except when Obama continued and expanded those big red circles on the left

they became his wars. Thanks for playing.

[joshcryer]

34. They're Bush's obligations.

And Obama isn't very aggressive and listens to his advisors. I'm glad he had people advising him to take a backseat role in Libya and he took that advice. Admittedly most here would rather harp on Libya than the Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire.

I agree with you he should withdraw immediately, obligations or legalities be damned.

[JackRiddler]

51. No, they are Bush's CRIMES and Obama has continued them seamlessly, with escalations...

If the new government doesn't prosecute criminal enterprises but instead continues and escalates them, then it has taken ownership of the crimes.

In Iraq, ALL withdrawals so far are under the schedule set in the SOFA, a treaty between the Bush regime and the Maliki government. Obama had nothing to do with that. The Obama admin is now working on ways to DELAY the SOFA deadline for all foreign troops to be out, by Dec. 31, 2011.

In Afghanistan: two escalations by 60,000 troops. Massive escalations of drone bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan and also Yemen, with thousands of civilian casualties (contrary to your lying graphic which wants to cover up these post-Jan. 2009 murders). Orders to assassinate US citizens wherever they may be found.

The same exact wars continue, with additions in Libya and Yemen and with proxy involvement in the new war of Saudi Arabia to suppress uprisings on the Arabian peninsula. Long as the US maintains its fleet base in Bahrain, it also owns that massacre.

Your graphic is a shameless piece of propaganda, for pretending scientific objectivity but using obvious lies (such as lining up the Bush-Obama wars under a "Bush only" column).

[JackRiddler]

56. PS - Talk about Orwellian language: "Obligations"

The illegal, unprovoked, murderous aggressions of Bush, which bankrupted the nation, also OBLIGATED Obama to continue them!?

[OnyxCollie]

35. How many contractors are still there?

And how much are we continuing to pay them?

[Distant Observer]

19. A CRYING SHAME. U.S. President of African descent would so belittle the bombing of Africans

[IamK]

30. He is an equal opportunity bomber.....

[hulka38]

37. The idea of this country is in grave danger. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. "Bring it on!" "Smoke 'em out!" All that's missing is the cowboy boots.

[krabigirl]

53. Please return that peace prize.

[somone]

58. Just like The He-Man Decider never left