Making Bush's Lawyers Look Smart: Obama's Libya Defense by David Swanson

[Better Believe It]

Weekend Edition
June 17 - 19, 2011

Making Bush's Lawyers Look Smart
Obama's Libya Defense
By DAVID SWANSON

The arguments made to "legalize" war, torture, warrantless spying, and other crimes by John Yoo and Jay Bybee and their gang are looking rational, well-reasoned, and impeccably researched in comparison with Obama's latest "legalization" of the Libya War.

Here's the key section from Wednesday's report to Congress:

"Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the Resolution's 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."

Whatever the president's "foreign affairs powers" may be, they do not, under the U.S. Constitution, include the power to launch "military operations" or "hostilities" or "wars." Nor has the distinction between "military operations" that involve what ordinary humans call warfare (blowing up buildings with missiles) and "hostilities" that qualify for regulation under the War Powers Resolution been previously established. This distinction is as crazy as any that have come out of U.S. government lawyers in the past.

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson06172011.html

[qazplm]

1. then why

did so many presidents from the very start do the exact same thing if its so clearly not allowed? Why have so many Congresses just been fine and dandy with it?

The idea that somehow this is some new issue is what is crazy. The idea that the founders even anticipated a standing professional army is crazy.

[offmybrain]

3. "The idea that the founders even anticipated a standing professional army is crazy"

The founding fathers indeed wanted a standing Army.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[Brianboru]

2. Looks like 0bama want to prove he's better than Bush -

two new wars, one more to go for three. This isn't what we voted for.

[ProSense]

4. Anyone who

thinks Obama makes Bush Lawyers looks smart isn't wrapped too tight.

Letter from the President on the War Powers Resolution

[Better Believe It]

5. kick

[treestar]

6. Lawyers can argue anything

Being "smart" isn't just arguing the conclusion you want.