When Barack Obama went to war on Libya he cited the War Powers Act as his justification for doing so.
A few days ago, on March 22, President Barack Obama informed Congress formally about his unilateral decision to assist in the coalition of nations protecting rebel forces and civilians in Libya from attack from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s loyalist troops. In the formal letter, reprinted in USA Today, the president used as justification the War Powers Resolution. But said resolution is very specific in the conditions under which a president can involve the nation’s armed forces in a conflict against other nations without Congressional consent. Some wonder if Obama exceeded his authority.
Now in a report sent first to the NY Times and sent to Congress later, Obama argues that the War Powers Act does not apply to his actions.
In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.
“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
Now that’s pretty interesting.
Under this definition Obama is free to bomb anyone on Earth with drones for an unlimited amount of time and spend an unlimited amount of money doing it. Further, Obama could drop a nuke each on Syria, Libya and Yemen and be in accordance with the above definition. Obama could take out John Boehner or Sarah Palin under that definition.
This is the guy who opposed “dumb wars” (i.e. not those he starts)
This is the guy who said our involvement would be “days, not weeks.”
This is guy who said “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.”
This is the guy whose VP said he’d impeach a President who took us to war without Congressional approval.
We are now in several wars without Congressional approval.
The other screaming question is- if the War Powers Act doesn’t apply, then exactly what was the justification for involving the US in this war in the first place?
What we are seeing with great pain is the amount of sheer dishonesty Congress is willing to tolerate from a lying President. What ought to worry everyone is that tolerance for dishonesty and tolerance for trashing the laws of the land sets the stage for the emergence of dictatorships. Impeachment may be the only remedy for Obama’s disregard for the law.
By now democrats would have impeached George Bush had he done something like this, so you’re not just an idiot to believe anything Obama says, you’re an idiot to believe anything a democrat says.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
As amazing as it was to watch Bill Clinton come up with new definitions and/or parse words as to his actions, he is an absolute amateur compared to this lying sack of S…. who is the current inhabitant of the White House! Believe him? I’d believe Weird Willie over this clown!
relax, that’s “rain” you feel on your back …
warm rain
Not true. Bush was using predator drones in Pakistan… not a theatre of operation… and no suggestion of impeachment came up.
No POTUS has liked the War Power Resolution, however most have attempted to comply and include Congressional opinion and input. Now we’ll see if the GOP has the stomach to simply defund the Libyan “non war” NATO intervention, or just play partisan talking points.
Obama promised healthcare and a path to single payer… check
Obama promised green technology and to increase costs of energy…. check
Obama promised he’d get his energy agenda thru, even if it went thru the EPA…. check
Obama promised to pursue a social justice agenda change… check
Yup… I believe him.
PS ADD: Curt has been alerted to offensive comment by Robbins Mitchell in #4. (PS ADD update 2: Now since deleted… good riddance)
Why does Obama act like he does?
If he had gone to Congress one of two things would have happened….both better for him than what is happening now.
1. Congress approves, the conflict continues.
2. Congress disapproves, we make a graceful exit.
But instead Obama is asking for trouble from all sides……….
Congress is unhappy (both sides of the aisle).
Obama’s anti-war base is unhappy.
An ongoing ”war” makes it look like it was mere luck that Obama was pres when Osama was killed.
Obama cannot take credit for Gadaffi’s death or regime change, as those were not his goals.
Hmm. Via Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/17/nyt-obama-overruled-top-pentagon-doj-lawyers-on-libya-war-powers/
No surprise there, HR….
Point is, there’s no criminal of no one presses charges. ahem, Congress. They can defund Libya and haul the WH up against it for legal analysis, or they can do both.
Then again, the third option is they do nothing and let it slide.
Obama’s actions don’t surprise me because I listen and watch… and believe him to be true to his promises for “remaking America”. The question is, what will a GOP majority House and Dem Senate do?
I would argue that it was part of the Afghan operation since targets directly involved in the war hid out there. There is no such analogue in Libya, where we are supporting the goals of Al Qaida.
Obama and Hillary Clinton need to get their story straight!
Obama says it is NOT a war.
Here’s Hillary:
why would they start a war, when they don’t have the desire to end it, the ability to let the troups fight it,
to take some needed weapons and componants from AFGHANISTAN’S YOUNG ARRIVED TROOPS TO SEND IT TO ANOTHER WARZONE ,THEREFOR PUTTING ONE SIDE IN DANGER IN ORDER TO SUPPLY THE NEWEST DEMANDS OF MILITARYS, WHY WOULD HE START A WAR WITHOUT THE MILITARY FORCES NEEDED RENEWALS THAT THEY DON’T HAVE RELOADED, PUTTING THE LOAD ON THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY FOUGHT 1/3 OF THE CENTURY’ WAR IN ALL OVER THE WORLD BEING SHOT AT MANY TIMES, AND NOW REALYSING THEIR OWN NEED TO RETIRE IN PEACE LOVING FUTUR THAT IS GETTING SHORTER FOR THEM, AS THEY ARE KEPT IN MORE MISSIONS UNABLE TO REFUSE BEING KEPT UNDER THEIR OATH AND BEING RESPONSIBLE AND CARING SO MUCH AS THEY COULD RUN THIS NATION INTO THE PATH OF RIGHTYOUSNESS BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.
THE CHIEF COMMAND DISREGARD FOR STARTING A NEW WAR WHEN THEY KNOW TO NOT HAVE THE DEPLOYMENTS OF NEW ENFORCEMENTS ARE TO BE IN SHAME TO KEEP ON THE OLDER TROOPS TIRED OF A WAR OF 10 LONG YEARS THAT KILLED THE BEST OF AMERICA YOUNG AND OLD BY EXPLOSIONS , BY ENNEMIE’S FIRE UNDER A STUPID ROE COMMANDED BY A IGNORANT LEADER IN CHARGE OF THE PENTAGONE WHICH OBEY BLINDLESLY HIS INSANITY. RULES OF DON’T HURT HIS FRIENDS , JUST SCARE THEM WHILE THE SOLDIERS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO WIN A WAR BECOME SO CONFUSE AND CANNOT FIND A WAY OUT EXCEPT TO BLOW THEIR BRAIN UP.
is it what the intent is, building his civilien army while destroying the MILITARY IN MULTIPLE WARS? IT HAS ME WONDERING
You can argue that until the cows come home, drj. But it still doesn’t alleviate your original claim that if it takes Congress to okay any air warfare, sans troops on the ground, then predator drones in Pakistan fit the same description that is subject to impeachment.
You can also argue that Pakistan=Afghanistan. I doubt that any sane human would concede that two separate state sovereignties… one of who we went to war against their ruling Taliban leadership, and the other who *used to* be a more overt ally are the same theatre. If you do, you’ve just made a case for Libya, where most of those who went into Iraq to fight the US coalition, came from.
You can’t have Congress okay action against Afghanistan, and just casually say that a US ally’s sovereign territory is included in that action. If you do, you’ve just thwarted the argument where you and I agree… that we have no business in Libya.
What you cannot argue with any substantive evidence is that Libya is siding with the AQ or the global Islamic Jihad Movement. Yes, I agree that.. just like Egypt.. the vaccum left post Gaddafi is going to be very unfriendly to the US. But since you can’t nail down Libya’s civil war movement to only AQ or the jihadi movement, that argument doesn’t work there either.
Libya is wrong. And oddly enough, I have to do battle with many like minded conservative friends on this. To their mind, Libya/Gaddafi is justified for his direct involvement with attacks on foreign soil that took US lives. These would be the same conservatives that cannot find justification for desposing Saddam. They clearly see a link with Gaddafi. They do not so clearly see the link with Saddam.
The boiling cauldron this bozo-in-chief has left us with is a Gaddafi who… altho became somewhat a more friendly to the US despot… is now a guy who will have a memory like an elephant against Americans any and everywhere. If Gaddafi is not killed, the next US innocent’s death in some part of the world by an attack orchestrated by Gaddafi is not only blood on Gaddafi’s hands, but Obama’s as well.
I suspect we agree in this aspect. I also know we agree that this joke of a CiC is way out of line with his own particular brand of “non war” mongering and his duties under the War Power Resolution. However to argue it as an impeachable offense is a net so very wide that it includes far more acts of warfare by prior POTUS, in addition to Obama.
Oh, BTW… Obama promised he’d be more active in Pakistan territory… check
Yup… I believe him.
Mata, I’d like for you to point out where this argument was made.
That isn’t what I said. Obama sought no one’s permission to do anything. Pakistan is part of the Afghan theater and Bush always sought permission from Congress for his actions. Bush did not cite the War Powers Act and then say it didn’t apply. The two could not be more different.
drj, it’s a combination of two sentences/paragraphs in your post:
Point in fact, George Bush did not seek Congressional approval for drones in Pakistan, and was doing it for years…. stepping up the activity in his last. Obama stepped it up even more after that.
There were no calls for impeachment by the Dems in Congress.
And of course, the allusion to Boehner or Palin is absurd since “an act of war” using our military is not declared on individuals, but nation/states. Wild stretch at best.
Now, you continue to insist that is because “Pakistan is part of the Afghan theater”. I will continue to impress that you cannot casually discard nation/state borders in a war… especially when one was supposed to be a sovereign ally. Then there is that pesky detail that Pakistan has long been on record that they were not enthralled with US operations within their borders, including predator drones. Under Musharraf, we usually got tacit, under the table approval from the Pakistani authorities, and they got public whimpering rights in exchange to keep the peace with their people.
Obama abandoned that practice of tacit approval, and just charged in… another *promise* he made, said, and kept…. check. Yup, I believe him.
But here’s your own fly in the ointment. If you want to consider Pakistan included in the Afghan theater, you can only do so because the war is not on Afghanistan and their militant leadership that harbored the AQ (the original reason for going in) … but actually is on the global Islamic jihad movements.
The moment you magically remove those nation borders, and declare it part of the much wider GWOT theater, then you just made the case to justify Libya… another ally but one where jihad insurgents came from in Iraq to fight the US. After all, Gaddafi was in charge when all those insurgents passed thru his borders to attack the US forces in Iraq. And Gaddafi also has US blood on his hands from decades ago.
You can also justify Yemen being “a part of the Afghan theater” in the same GWOT way. In fact, that could extend to any sovereign nation where Islamic jihad militants are active, and the leadership is half hearted in it’s aid to police them. Additionally, it already has since the US has been predator bombing Yemen as well.
Where’s the beef about Yemen’s bombings and military ops from you or others, just to maintain consistency? If it’s okay to bomb Pakistan as “part of the GWOT theater), and it’s okay to bomb Yemen as “part of the GWOT theater”, then you’re going to have a hard time giving Libya a pass with their involvement as well.
I agree that Bush handled both Afghanistan and Iraq differently, the latter having the AUMF from Congress to wage war. However the only reason extending drones to Pakistan wasn’t questioned was because the Dems didn’t make an issue of it. It was all about UBL and whether he was in Afganistan or Pakistan. But they sure didn’t approve a war on Pakistan territory. What they did was say nothing about it…. either party.
Libya’s somewhat different…. but not all that different. It’s a whole new war for a different publicly stated reason… which is the prime reason the War Act Resolution *should* come into play. That given reason was “humanitarian” in presentation.
But then again, Libya’s just another hot spot in the same old war. Whether humanitarian or just another bad guy hangout, the difference between bombing Pakistan and Yemen… which is okay with you… and bombing Libya, is only the sheer might and scale of US air power used.
I agree that Obama’s foray in to Libya was stealth snarky, and one of the worst foreign policy errors I’ve seen in my lifetime. He sent the obligatory notice to Congress on Friday eve… the moment they were leaving for spring break. Likely deliberately. I honestly believe that Congress is divided… both parties… on the wisdom (or lack thereof) in this decision. It was an error as a humanitarian mission, and it would be an error as “a part of the Afghan theatre” as well.
Monday morning quarterbacking may be entertaining and educational, but it only has so much value. It would be a waste of time to argue to finer nuances of the War Powers Resolution and definition of engagement relating to Libya/Obama at this point. That’s because despite the sheer idiocy and chutzpah of this deplorable CiC decision, we are left with the consequences.
Obama’s stirred the lethal hornets’ nest, and Gaddafi is a proven vindictive leader. He’s killed Americans in attacks on foreign soil in the past for less cause. Can you only imagine what he would do now if left in power?
Obama’s royally PO’ed him by not only interfering in his civil war and not supporting his regime, but actually using military might against him. If the US or NATO doesn’t kill him, this POTUS has just put the lives of any American within Gaddafi’s reach at risk. In short, it’s now such a mess that to pull out without accomplishing neutering Gaddafi is an even more disasterous decision than going in to begin with.
Mata, what good does it do to ”be more active in Pakistani territory,” IF Obama tells the Pakistani gov’t where the bomb factories are only to have the Pakistani’s tell the ”terrorists” so they can vacate those premises before the place is dealt with?
God helps them that help themselves.
Apparently God has nothing to do with the one who asks the Pakistanis for help.
Nan G, not sure I see your point. Do I agree that Pakistan, as well as Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Saudi and Turkey are less than perfect allies? Heck yeah. That’s why I always call them quasi allies. We’ll never have the friends in them that we do in Israel because their populations do not want to be seen or considered a US puppet. About the best we can hope for from them is intelligence and some modicum of aid in the region.
As far as the Pakistan govt, alerting the terrorist… yes, that is a recurring problem. Long before Mr. Bhutto took over power from Musharraf, and even under Musharraf. It’s not necessarily because of the leadership, but because the military and pockets of the elected body are rift with rogue fundamentalists who will use that information to pass on to their jihad buds.
So, other than wringing our hands over the far from perfect relationship with Pakistan… a nuke nation who used to be an enemy… what are you suggesting? That we outright revert the relationship to being an overt enemy again? Certainly Obama’s doing a good job of attempting that path now.
Other than that, I don’t plant an onion, and expect a gardenia to pop up. They are who they are and, in reality, there is only so much they will ever do in thwarting terrorists (which some in their population and government support) in order to aid the west. We either have an enemy, or a quasi ally. I’ll take the latter.
No you don’t. Bush was operating with the tacit approval of Pakistan and Bush was not attempting to topple a government, which Obama is specifically trying to do and he most certainly does not have Libya’s permission. The militant targets in Pakistan are not nation states- they are individuals, as would be Boehner and Palin.
And just yesterday nine civilians were killed in Obama’s “non-hostilities.” Obama’s justifications for these actions continue to evolve. If revenge for the decades-ago events was the justification for attempting to murder Gaddafi then Obama should have said so.
It’s very difficult to know what Obama’s justifications are for many things.
drjohn, hi, he is transparent in dealing with the MIDDLE EAST,he will remove a leader by helping who he support, but don’t know to have intent to be better or worse toward AMERICA,
that is the question in supporting the worse by feeding it to become one country within all; A GIANT MONSTER, helped by our own defenders of freedom send by OUR GOVERNMENT.
a monster who will ruled by faith alone and programed by milleniums of years to follow one goal;
RULE THE WORLD BY INFILTATION AND LAST BY ARMAGEDON.
@ilovebeeswarzone: I agree, Bees. As bad as Gaddafi is, his replacement could be worse. It’s the same for Yemen and Syria. These guys keep a lid on the fundamentalists.
Mata and DrJ. I find it extremely difficult to give the Gaddafi regime the same “American ally” status as I would Musharraf/Bhutto. Your reasoning?
BTW, rich, Pakistan as an “ally” under the Benazir Bhutto regime is highly questionable. It was her administration that helped advance the NK nuke capabilities, as well as created and nutured the Mullah Omar Taliban. I would not put Musharraf and Bhutto in the same class at all. I found the western world’s canonization of Bhutto, during her return and her assassination, extremely lacking in historical context.
Seems we’re going on to a different subject here, drj. The original tangent is whether air warfare, sans troops on the ground, is tantamount to a war that requires WH and Congressional interaction via the War Powers Resolution. We weren’t debating the reason the drones were flying, or the bombs were dropped. Nor were we considering whether the recipient sovereign nation approved or disapproved of that activity.
The War Powers Resolution debate is solely focused on whether communication between the WH and Congress is, or is not, required.
What you originally took offense to in your OP was the WH’s definition of activity that would trigger compliance with War Powers Resolution. Specifically the quote:
To which you commented:
I again point out this is not the case by Bush’s predator bombing of Pakistan. That he had tacit approval from Musharraf does not equate to the permission from Congress, which is what the War Powers Resolution is all about.
First of all, I agree with Wordsmith… and probably all prior POTUS… that I think the War Powers Resolution is highly questionable in Constitutional intent. But since it’s there, and unchallenged in our judicial system, it should be adhered to.
I also agree that Obama has done nothing close to it, nor appears to care, about compliance. Little surprise since this man has been reversed by courts a few times already in his brief temporary occupancy of the Oval Office. And hopefully, another big time reversal comes soon from the 11th Circuit.
But I also find it odd that if the War Powers Resolution is the major beef for Libya, why is that same complaint not used with Obama’s advent of predator drones and bombs in Yemen? Or is Yemen bombing okay because it’s part of a no-border global war against jihad and getting bad guys (like Pakistan, in your view), and Libya’s different because of it’s objective of getting the specific bad guy, Gaddafi?
I think it’s an inconsistent application of the Resolution.
Personally, I’m mixed on the use of drones targeting bad guys on foreign soil but, for diplomatic relations and continued intel, I’m way okay with it if the nation gives us their okay. I do not, however, want our CiC to have to go to Congress to ask if he can use drone bombing in these nations. Talk about too many cooks in the kitchen.
Because the stated purpose of the no fly in Libya was humanitarian (they never copped to regime change in the beginning), and because of the scale of US military resources, I think that Obama should have complied with the War Powers Resolution. I also wish our Security Counsel representative would have insisted there was less vague language in the UN Resolution. Right out of the gate, it was obvious this was never a “no fly” operation.
But at this point, I’m more concerned with the smart way out.
We can’t leave Gaddafi alive or in power, and we can’t bomb every infrastructure in Libya to do it. Gaddafi has enemies in both the western and Arab world. Personally, I think it would be prudent to pull out of the video and FB/Twitter NATO war, start collecting intel in a hurry, and send in an assasination squad to finish the deed. Much cheaper, more effective, and the Libyan’s don’t have to rebuild their entire cities.
Boehner and Palin are not declared enemies and on a US capture or kill list. There’s no equivalency to targeted jihadists that are being actively hunted, with or without the foreign nations’ or Congressional approval, and Boehner and Palin.
@rich wheeler, my reasoning is exactly what @what I posted to Nan G above, and our always-to-be-less-than-perfect relationships with Muslim nations.
Libya/Gaddafi dropped his nuke advances when Saddam fell, and became one of those “quasi allies” that cooperated with the US for the global Islamic jihad movement. Did this make him likeable or redeemed for past indiscretions? Of course not.
But I’ll say again… They are who they are and, in reality, there is only so much they will ever do in thwarting terrorists (which some in their population and government support) in order to aid the west. We either have an enemy, or a quasi ally. I’ll take the latter.
Mata Suggest there’s a reason “quasi” sounds much like queezy. Let’s get the genocidal Col. out asap with extreme predjudice if necessary.No evidence rebels are AQ led.
Bhutto may not be Musharraf but she sure as hay ain’t Col.G. either.
Prior to opening the can of worms by taking hostile miltary action against Libya, I would have disagreed with you, rich. I don’t advocate the removal of even “queezy” (I assume you mean queasy) allied leaders (i.e. Mubarak).
But now that Obama has erronously, and most stupidly, opened that can of worms, the lid must be put back on. However bombing the nation to smithereens isn’t the way to do it. And NATO is too inept to pull it off.
I’m not sure that I put Bhutto much ahead of Gaddafi. While he did finance and orchestrate terror activity against US citizens on foreign soil, Bhutto’s enabling NK nukes and creating the Taliban isn’t a pile better. I don’t care how much she talked up “democracy” post power and while in exile. The damage she had done to enable terrorism and advance NK is on a par with Gaddafi, IMHO.
When we say certain country is our ”ally,” we are walking into trouble with the people victimized by the Islamists inside that country at the leadership’s allowance.
Like, today, in Pakistan.
A little girl, only 8 years old was kidnapped by Islamists in Islamabad.
They forced her to wear a suicide vest (homicide vest?) and walk toward a security checkpoint.
She was saved.
Only 6 weeks ago a 12 year old boy was blown up by whoever detonated the vest he was in.
He was at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Other, captured children are so brainwashed they actually believe they can go home after they detonate their vests!
What must their parents think of the USA, standing with obvious enablers of the Taliban and al Qaeda?
(We are ”in talks” with the Taliban in Afghanistan. We are supporting a Pakistani gov’t that tells our enemy we are coming.)
I bet those parents hate our guts.
I’m confused at your words, “the leadership’s allowance”, Nan G. The girl was stopped, and taken into custody by authorities in Pakistan. The last link, the Afghans held that kid, as well as others, in detention and some were held on criminal charges.
I don’t see where “allowance” comes in since the authorities clearly consider this criminal activity. Certainly when the jihadists recruit and train, this stuff happens… and more there than here (to our knowledge) But to say the leadership “allows” this is like saying the US “allowed” the Ft. Hood shooter.
@MataHarley:
But, Mata, there are many people who do say the USA allowed the Fort Hood shooter.
Remember, Nidal Hassan gave away his radicalism to persons in the US Navy many times in many ways.
It was the political correctness of the US policy they kept those witnesses from acting against him before his murderous rampage.
Same in Pakistan.
The government knows how many of their country’s regional leaders are radicals.
But they forewarn them of us or their military coming anyway.
They don’t even try to clean them out.
Why not?
Because, in a way, the Pakistani government uses their radicals to do some of their dirty work for them.
In another way, every once in a while, the Pakistani government uses the USA to do some of their dirty work for them.
It just depends on who the Pakistani government is most scared of at the time.
The game the Pakistani government is playing is sometimes called, ”hoping the crocodile eats you last.”
-We lose so many trucks full of supplies trying to get into Afghanistan from Pakistan – because the Pakistani government allows it – that we don’t even hear about the destruction anymore.
I’m not one of those people, Nan. Are you?
@MataHarley:
You stand in a pretty lonely place, Mata.
NOT WITH HIS FELLOW STUDENTS:
________________________
NOT WITH HIS FELLOW COLLEAGUES:
___________________
NOT WITH THE FBI:
“This whole report is designed to tell people we need to start
looking for internal threats, but it doesn’t say what those
threats are…and calls into question people’s privacy and
constitutional rights,” said John Gallagin.
__________________________
NOT WITH THE SENATE:
A Senate investigation of the Fort Hood shootings faults the Army and FBI with missing warning signs and not exchanging information that could have prevented the massacre.
At a news conference Thursday, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the probe’s “painful conclusion is that the Fort Hood massacre could have and should have been prevented.”
In particular, Lieberman said the report, issued by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, indicates that the FBI had compelling evidence of extremism that should have led to Hasan’s military discharge and made him the subject of a counterterrorism investigation.
Nan G says “U.S.. allowed the Ft.Hood shooter” Did the U.S. allow 9/11? Just askin.
Exit? Where was BHO born?
@MataHarley:
This is what I was getting at. He cited the WPA as justification to try to kill the leader of a sovereign nation but then claims it doesn’t apply?
Doesn’t wash.
Technically, drj, he cited the Resolution for US aid in establishing a no-fly zone, as voted in by a UN Resolution, for humanitarian purposes. Didn’t fool any of us. We all knew they were playing “regime change” and int’l assassination squad masked under the language.
I don’t disagree at all with the belief that Obama should be complying his butt off. I have no qualifications as to the legal definition in our courts as to what meets the “hostilities” criteria for needing Congressional approval, tho. Like all attorneys, they have varying opinions.
My only disagreement was that enormous stretch that it could apply to the extent you thought it did. This is best exampled by the fact that no one is talking about Obama bombing Yemen, but they are talking about bombing Libya. No one was bothered about Bush bombing Pakistan either. And most notably, no one seems to be bothered that Obama invaded a sovereign territory with troops on the ground and an assassination mission to get Bin laden either. (another promise that he made, and kept… whether diplomatically wise or not).
I personally think Obama’s fave lawyers are on to something when they use that air warfare definition in most circumstances, because it seems to work in other scenarios. In Libya’s case, it becomes more convoluted because of a NATO agreement, US’s membership in the UN, and our “aye” vote in the UNSC resolution to impose the no-fly zone.
What I can’t remember was whether Congress was consulted about the Iraq no-fly zone enforcement in 1992. That was essentially a condition of the Gulf War’s cease fire. But was Congress consulted, and approved of that? No memories, and no time to search. Perhaps someone can dig up if Congress indeed did approve that very long term “non war” formally. That is probably the closest analysis and precedent of what can be done with, and without, Congressional involvement. Because technically, per the UN resolution, this is still enforcement of a “no fly zone”.
DrJohn, wow, that confirm what I was thinking,
glad you came out with it,
his deliberate death wish, that did not concretise, hopefully yet,
but look at the cost and lives where he used as an excuse,and the devastation of that COUNTRY FOR THE ONLY PERSONAL WISH of one person who is obeyed completely by the pentagon to follow
THE UN’S PARTICIPATION OF THAT DEVASTATION, without the approval of the CONGRESS,
NOT LEAVING OUT the financial interest that FRANCE, ENGLAND AND OBAMA’S GOLDEN SASH FRIEND
against the terms of the CONSTITUTION, AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHICH ARE THE CONSERVATIVES WHO EXPRESS THEIR RELUCTANCE TO IT
Nan G, hi, you know what struck me is when I heard that he was a psychiatrist assigned to some
military which had some form of psd. and some had complained about him teaching the religion to them,
enough to get them angry for good reason, as they where back from the war,.
this realy hurt me as those where not able to be heard because they where the one
under treatments, and there for so vulnerable and seen as non important to have weight in their word enough
that could have been the first clue to face and prove the madness of their doctor with a big ph after his name having more value.in the eyes of other,
So does this mean that that you include the US, along side Afghanistan and Pakistan, with your accusation that they/we see Islamic victimization also “at the leadership’s allowance”? And since you said that as the ultimate slap upside the head as a quasi ally, doesn’t that mean you don’t think of our own country as a good “ally”, so to speak?
And, oh, BTW, I never have feared “lonely places”. Never been much of a herd mentality type myself.
OK, curiousity got the best of me and I’m ignoring tasks at hand to at least present, for everyone’s scrutiny, a March 2011 CRS report on legitimacy of the Libya no fly zone, sans Congressional approval.
Unfortunately, there is no smoking gun.. yup it’s cool, no it’s not… answer here. First let me put some of the text under the “Congressional Approval” section, starting on the PDF’s pg 9, here below.
Nothing here in favor of Obama and his fave attorneys. Then again, as I said, did the Iraq no-fly zone have “Congressional approval”, or just a continuing tacit approval by continued funding? There seems to be no mention of such an approval in this CRS document referenced. We do know that Bosnia and Kosovo did not have any Congressional involvement. That, in itself, may be a legal point for the Obama attorneys.
Legalities aside, Obama still exhibits his disdain for law when he wants to do what he simply wants to do. But on the specifics of Libya, we have to consider the consequences that the original piss poor decision to go in there, guns blazing, incurs.
We can’t leave Gaddafi alive or in power now, because his likely revenge is unconceivable and unacceptable. Don’t think bombing the entire country is the answer either.
And we can all thank the idiot in the Oval Office for putting us in this scenario, right along with the UNSC, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and Hillary.
@MataHarley:
More, with many internal links here.
I think ”allowed” is the proper term for what our present gov’t is doing in this regard.