Will Congress actually grow a spine on foreign policy? Stay tuned.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-usa-libya-congress-idUSTRE7525YW20110603
QuoteHouse wants explanation from Obama on Libya
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 3, 2011 4:18pm EDT
(Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Friday demanded that President Barack Obama clarify the U.S. role in the conflict in Libya, but rejected an attempt to force him to end America's military involvement there.
The votes reflected lawmakers' unease over a third war along with Iraq and Afghanistan, and a view that Obama did not adequately consult Congress before joining a multinational operation that began conducting air strikes in March to protect Libyan civilians from attacks by Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
But while the measure that passed increases political pressure on Obama over the clash, it lacks the force of law.
The House voted 268-145 for a resolution sponsored by House Speaker John Boehner calling for Obama to inform lawmakers within the next two weeks of the scope, duration and costs of the Libya mission.
The measure reaffirmed a House vote last week forbidding U.S. "boots on the ground" in Libya. It said Obama had offered no compelling rationale for the war, and asked whether NATO operations in Libya would be viable without the United States.
Lawmakers rejected a rival resolution by Democrat Dennis Kucinich directing Obama to halt U.S. participation in the Libyan war within 15 days. That vote was 148-265.
NATO is leading the Libya intervention with a U.S. contribution, but there are no U.S. troops on the ground.
Lawmakers have called for Obama to clarify the U.S. mission since he notified them on March 21 that he had ordered the intervention as part of a coalition conducting air strikes to shield Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's forces.
Boehner warned lawmakers could take further action if Obama gives them the brush-off. The resolution notes that Congress has the authority to cut off funds for military operations.
"This resolution puts the president on notice," Boehner said. "He has the chance to get this right, and if he doesn't, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and we will make it right."
Advocates of the Kucinich measure, an odd alliance of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, said Boehner's measure was toothless, noting there were no plans to pass a similar measure in the Democratic-majority Senate.
The Boehner resolution reprimands the president for not consulting Congress, asks for more information, "and then does nothing," said Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat.
The White House says it has been consulting regularly with lawmakers about Libya. Spokesman Josh Earnest said on Friday the resolutions before the House were "unnecessary and unhelpful."
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT?
Kucinich said Obama was disregarding the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to declare war, as well as the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which prohibits U.S. armed forces from being involved in military actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization.
"Many of us want to support our president. But the president has ignored Congress' essential war powers," said Kucinich.
The White House suggests that the limited U.S. action in Libya might not reach the War Powers Resolution's threshold.
Boehner introduced his resolution on Thursday to give lawmakers a way to send a message that they are unhappy about the Libyan situation without supporting the Kucinich resolution, which Republicans worried could "pull the rug" from under U.S. allies conducting operations in Libya.
But 87 Republicans still voted for Kucinich's resolution, outnumbering the 61 Democratic supporters. "With the civil war in north Africa, there is no clear and present danger to the United States of America," one of the Republicans, Representative Jason Chaffetz, said.
(Editing by Eric Walsh)
QuoteStay tuned
nah. This program sucks.
I think we could be heading for the end game; British Army now engaged in the fighting:
QuoteLibya: UK Apache helicopters used in Nato attacks
04 June 11
UK Apache attack helicopters have been used over Libya for the first time, Nato has confirmed.
They attacked and destroyed two military installations, a radar site and an armed checkpoint near Brega, the Captain of HMS Ocean told the BBC.
The Apaches are understood to have faced incoming fire.
French Gazelle helicopters also took part in simultaneous attacks on different targets in Libya for the first time.
On Wednesday, Nato extended its mission in Libya by 90 days.
Major General Nick Pope, the chief of the defence staff's strategic communications officer, said:"The Apaches were tasked with precision strikes against a regime radar installation and a military checkpoint, both located around Brega.
"Hellfire missiles and 30mm cannon were used to destroy the targets. The helicopters then returned safely to HMS Ocean."
He said the targets had been "carefully and rigorously selected" and said intelligence about the positions of the Gaddafi forces had been improving "despite their efforts to conceal themselves".
Defence Secretary Liam Fox added: "The attack helicopter is yet another potent and formidable aircraft type which has now been added to the Nato forces engaged on this operation. Those who are still supporting Colonel Gaddafi would do well to realise that the best way to remove themselves from danger is to understand that their future lies with the Libyan people, not a discredited regime."
The former head of the Army, Lord Dannatt, said the move has an "inevitable intensification".
"If you pick up the words from when President Obama was visiting, what we've heard the prime minister say, we don't want to let this thing linger on any more than we absolutely have to.
....
rest of article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13651736 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13651736)
Quote from: jamesww on June 04, 2011, 07:00:17 AM
I think we could be heading for the end game; British Army now engaged in the fighting:
Great. We stall at Caen and lose 1st Para to the Libyans.
Kucinich :x
Can't they find Libya themselves? I am sure Obama has more pressing matters to attend to.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2011, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: jamesww on June 04, 2011, 07:00:17 AM
I think we could be heading for the end game; British Army now engaged in the fighting:
Great. We stall at Caen and lose 1st Para to the Libyans.
lolz. Monty has also demanded his own B-17 to fly around in.
I dislike being right about these things. :(
I bet House was a dick about it, too. That's kind of his thing.
Quote from: Kleves on June 04, 2011, 02:06:28 PM
I bet House was a dick about it, too. That's kind of his thing.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2011, 06:32:29 AM
Will Congress actually grow a spine on foreign policy? Stay tuned.
Terrible idea.
The House can't even run the country effectively. We don't need them screwing up foreign policy with their idiotic populism.
Quote from: Kleves on June 04, 2011, 02:06:28 PM
I bet House was a dick about it, too. That's kind of his thing.
The way he manipulated Secret Service to gain access was pretty brilliant.
Quote
HMS Ocean
British standards in ship-naming have really slipped.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2011, 11:51:26 AM
Quote
HMS Ocean
British standards in ship-naming have really slipped.
iirc There was a CV named HMS Ocean, probably quite an old name.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 04, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2011, 06:32:29 AM
Will Congress actually grow a spine on foreign policy? Stay tuned.
Terrible idea.
The House can't even run the country effectively. We don't need them screwing up foreign policy with their idiotic populism.
Yes, far better to let the President wave his hand and have the legions go forth with no oversight. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on June 06, 2011, 12:49:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2011, 11:51:26 AM
Quote
HMS Ocean
British standards in ship-naming have really slipped.
iirc There was a CV named HMS Ocean, probably quite an old name.
You people fail at internet. <_<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean
Goes back to capturing a French vessel in 1759.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2011, 01:00:03 PM
Yes, far better to let the President wave his hand and have the legions go forth with no oversight. :hmm:
I do sometimes wonder why bother having a Constitution when we are just going to ignore it. Heck even the laws for allowing exceptions to the Constitution like the War Powers Act gets ignored.
Ah well.
I still think the best thing to do would simply be to pass an authorizing resolution and send it to the Prez. It's not like he's gonna veto it, and then all the constitutional bases are covered.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2011, 01:12:55 PM
I still think the best thing to do would simply be to pass an authorizing resolution and send it to the Prez. It's not like he's gonna veto it, and then all the constitutional bases are covered.
I know at least go through the motions.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2011, 11:51:26 AM
Quote
HMS Ocean
British standards in ship-naming have really slipped.
Invincible, Indomitable, and Victorious don't work as well when you've spent the past 100 years transforming the empire into a welfare state and a nation of bankers. HMS Social Justice and HMS Carry Trade just don't make the best ship names.
I'm pulling for HMS Crazy Diana and HMS Harry the Bastard. :)
HMS Chav, HMS Geordie
what exactly are US forces doing in Libya anyway? Is it possible for the WH to argue that US Armed Forces are not presently engaged in hostilities?
Anyway, I don't get what Obama is doing here. Should be pretty easy to get the authorization needed so why play games unless the intent is to repudiate by implication the War Powers Resolution.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2011, 02:02:18 PM
what exactly are US forces doing in Libya anyway? Is it possible for the WH to argue that US Armed Forces are not presently engaged in hostilities?
Anyway, I don't get what Obama is doing here. Should be pretty easy to get the authorization needed so why play games unless the intent is to repudiate by implication the War Powers Resolution.
Hasn't the White House, no matter which party is in power, repudiated the WPR?
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Hasn't the White House, no matter which party is in power, repudiated the WPR?
Why do you think Bush went to the Senate for a vote on Iraq II?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2011, 02:02:18 PM
what exactly are US forces doing in Libya anyway? Is it possible for the WH to argue that US Armed Forces are not presently engaged in hostilities?
"Non-kinetic military action". Come on, it's just what it sounds like. :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Hasn't the White House, no matter which party is in power, repudiated the WPR?
No. Each administration has stated that the WPA isn't binding on the President, and each has scrupulously adhered to it's reporting requirements.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2011, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2011, 01:16:29 PM
HMS Social Justice
:lol:
HMS Whinger Ginger Minger, and of course my all-time fave-rave, HMS RIGHT WOTS ALL THIS THEN
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2011, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Hasn't the White House, no matter which party is in power, repudiated the WPR?
No. Each administration has stated that the WPA isn't binding on the President, and each has scrupulously adhered to it's reporting requirements.
Ah, so I was partially right, but not entirely. Thank you for the clarification.
Boehner throws down the gauntlet. :hmm:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6858503-boehner-asks-obama-to-justify-legal-grounds-for-libya-mission
QuoteBoehner asks Obama to justify legal grounds for Libya mission
House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter Tuesday to President Barack Obama asking for a "clear explanation of the legal standing" the administration has to continue military operations in Libya after an upcoming 90-day mark.
Boehner says the White House will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution after this coming Sunday unless Congress authorizes the operation or the military withdraws.
The House voted earlier this month on a non-binding resolution that would have required the U.S. to pull out of Libya within 15 days. The vote failed 265-148, but 87 Republicans voted for the measure.
Libya has been wracked by conflict since February, after uprisings overturned governments in Tunisia on the west and Egypt to the east. There have been weeks of deadlock between the rag-tag rebel army and government forces, though air strikes by NATO that began in mid-March have taken their toll on Gadhafi's better-equipped troops.
Gadhafi's forces control the capital, Tripoli, while the rebels are based in Benghazi in the east.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed frustration with the administration's Libya policy. Liberal Democrats questioned the constitutionality of missile strikes there in March. In last night's GOP presidential debate, several 2012 hopefuls - including Rep. Michele Bachmann, who voted for the Libya resolution earlier in June - criticized Obama for a "flawed" policy enacted using "inadequate" intelligence about the rebels there.
Here is the full letter:
Dear Mr. President:
Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.
Since the mission began, the Administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action. It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many Members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the Administration's strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution.
You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009 in which you swore to "faithfully execute the Office of President" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.
Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions: Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached? Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch? In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011? Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011.
From the beginning, the House of Representatives has sought to balance two equal imperatives regarding Libya which have been in direct contradiction: the House of Representatives takes seriously America's leadership role in the world; our country's interests in the region; and the commitments to and from its steadfast allies. At the same time, strong concern and opposition exists to the use of military force when the military mission, by design, cannot secure a U.S. strategic policy objective. The ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your Administration.
I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief, though I remain deeply concerned the Congress has not been provided answers from the Executive branch to fundamental questions regarding the Libya mission necessary for us to fulfill our equally important Constitutional responsibilities. I believe in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East. I sincerely hope the Administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution and the requests made by the House of Representatives, and that you will use your unique authority as our President to engage the American people regarding our mission in Libya.
Respectfully, John A. Boehner
Tell him to take it up with McCain and Graham.
He cried while writing that.
Republicans. :lol:
How the hell did I miss this yesterday.
link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hFtsR7ij3rVqBIAIxljLnUdIidug?docId=CNG.ee00cd993c4221a5ac150a9aab17ca0b.561)
QuoteUS Congress votes against Libya funding
(AFP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya.
Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163.
A number of members of Congress have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at President Barack Obama's decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorization.
The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.
Sherman's text states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act."
According to the War Powers Resolution, the president must seek congressional authorization to send US troops into combat and must withdraw American forces within 60 days if Congress has not authorized the military action.
The same measure was presented in another bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security but failed to pass on June 2.
Lawmakers must still approve the appropriations bill as a whole and the measure must still be approved by the Senate.
The White House has been under rising pressure from congressional critics demanding details about US goals in Libya and questioning the likely costs and duration of the campaign, in which Washington now has a supporting role.
The House of Representatives recently passed a symbolic resolution chiding Obama for not seeking congressional approval for US involvement in Libya and giving him until June 17 to respond.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 15, 2011, 01:35:29 AM
Republicans. :lol:
Republicans supporting the troops. :lol:
Can we be done with that myth already?
Great, now what?
Obama has responded that the activities of US forces in Libya are such that they are not subject to the War Powers Act.
Next move: Weeping Jimmy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2011, 05:46:01 PM
Obama has responded that the activities of US forces in Libya are such that they are not subject to the War Powers Act.
:lol: "It's not illegal when the President does it."
The CNN hairdo who reported the story insuated that the argument rests on the fact that a) there are no troops on the ground and b) the US is not being fired upon. Whether she got that from a background brief or made it up herself I couldn't tell.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2011, 05:53:13 PM
The CNN hairdo who reported the story insuated that the argument rests on the fact that a) there are no troops on the ground and b) the US is not being fired upon. Whether she got that from a background brief or made it up herself I couldn't tell.
Seems to be the main thrust of their argument, lets see if Congress buys it.
I don't think the act makes that kind of distinction
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43414648
/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
Quote
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The New York Times
updated 6/15/2011 3:59:01 PM ET 2011-06-15T19:59:01
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.
Supporting role
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in "hostilities" at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.
They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.
"We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own," Mr. Koh said. "We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of 'hostilities' envisioned by the War Powers Resolution."
The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.
On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.
Boehner: Explain rationale
"Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution," Mr. Boehner wrote. "The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made."
It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration's argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House's response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of "hostilities" and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.
"There is no clear legal answer," he said. "The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn't accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can't continue without affirmative authorization from Congress."
Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Wednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.
The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a "war" in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.
Shift in mission?
Since then, the conflict in Libya has dragged on longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya may be a diplomatic goal, the military mission is separate, and remains limited to protecting civilians.
The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities. But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.
While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon's veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress's constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.
Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.
It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House's interpretation of what "hostilities" means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations
Mr. Koh argued that the administration's interpretation of the word was not unprecedented, noting that there have been previous disputes about whether the 60-day-clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments where — unlike the Libya operation — there were troops on the ground and Americans suffered casualties.
Still, such previous cases typically involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited to take part, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence, like those in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. Libya, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardment of a government's forces.
The closest precedent was the NATO-led air war over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, the Clinton administration's legal team characterized the campaign, which involved many piloted American warplanes, as "hostilities" even though there was little exchange of fire from Serb forces after their air defenses were destroyed and there were no United States casualties.
In Kosovo, however, Congress appropriated specific funds for the mission before 60 days had passed. The Clinton administration decided that by providing the money, Congress had satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
This article, "War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues," first appeared in The New York Times.
I entirely agree with Boehner - who I generally rather like - I wish that I didn't feel this was more motivated by the President's party than anything else. But still it's a good.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2011, 06:33:17 PM
Seems to be the main thrust of their argument, lets see if Congress buys it.
I don't think the act makes that kind of distinction
I agree.
As I read it, if a US controlled platform is delivering a payload to a target overseas (eg drone attack or a cruise missile) that is sufficient to trigger the act. There is no requirement for boots on the ground, or any human being being put into fire. The conditions are that "the United States Armed Forces" be "introduced" either (1) "into hostilities", or (2) into foreign territory or airspace while equipped for combat, or (3) "substantially" enlarging an already existing commitment.
Predator drones are part of the United States Armed Forces and they are both operating in foreign airspace while equipped for combat, and engaging in hostilities (what else could one call it when explosives are dropped on a target?)
This is the sort of thing we got from Gonzales and the Bush atty general's office clowns in the bad old days.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 01:30:31 PM
This is the sort of thing we got from Gonzales and the Bush atty general's office clowns in the bad old days.
It just follows a tradition that the Executive Branch protects its authority no matter who the President is.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2011, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 01:30:31 PM
This is the sort of thing we got from Gonzales and the Bush atty general's office clowns in the bad old days.
It just follows a tradition that the Executive Branch protects its authority no matter who the President is.
But from Harold Koh? Very disappointing. :cry:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 16, 2011, 01:16:33 PM
I entirely agree with Boehner - who I generally rather like - I wish that I didn't feel this was more motivated by the President's party than anything else. But still it's a good.
Ass.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 01:30:31 PM
Predator drones are part of the United States Armed Forces
Not if they're owned and operated by the CIA.
QuoteThis is the sort of thing we got from Gonzales and the Bush atty general's office clowns in the bad old days.
You ever notice how Congress only pisses a bitch with the WPA when we're involved in a multinational operation, as opposed to unilateral excursions?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
Not if they're owned and operated by the CIA.
That's Yemen and Afpakistan.
In Libya the drone strikes are being coordinated as part of the overall NATO op, no?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:42:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
Not if they're owned and operated by the CIA.
That's Yemen and Afpakistan.
In Libya the drone strikes are being coordinated as part of the overall NATO op, no?
Not from what I've heard.
If there is no Pentagon control, and all the strikes are being directed by the CIA, then CIA has probably well exceeded its statutory authority, and the White House has a different, and perhaps even bigger, legal problem.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
You ever notice how Congress only pisses a bitch with the WPA when we're involved in a multinational operation, as opposed to unilateral excursions?
I seem to recall that they made some noise about it during the Mayaguez incident, and that was unilateral. But it was basically over with so quick that it was done almost before the reporting requirements kicked in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
You ever notice how Congress only pisses a bitch with the WPA when we're involved in a multinational operation, as opposed to unilateral excursions?
No, but I haven't been paying that much attention. When did Congress decline to piss a bitch about the WPA during a unilateral excursion?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
You ever notice how Congress only pisses a bitch with the WPA when we're involved in a multinational operation, as opposed to unilateral excursions?
Wisely or not, the Congress explicitly approved those unilateral excursions.
QuoteWASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military's activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to "hostilities." Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military's activities fell short of "hostilities." Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office's interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been "a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process" that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.
"It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict," Mr. Schultz said. "Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy."
Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration's legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama's legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House's contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not "hostilities."
The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.
"The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn't answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them," he said. "The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we've got drone attacks under way. We're spending $10 million a day. We're part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi's compounds. It just doesn't pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities."
A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.
As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.
In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel's thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.
A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was "legitimate" because "everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make" and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.
The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in "hostilities" as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.
The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.
That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration's interpretation is "aggressive" and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.
Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while "this is not an easy question," Mr. Obama's position was "both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations." Still, he criticized the administration's decision-making process.
"Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies," he said. "The president always has the power of final decision."
Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass's view, officials said.
Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, "Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_xVMq9EcISoU%2FSlWyM4_ye4I%2FAAAAAAAACrY%2FKpT4Icq9o8Q%2Fs400%2FObamaBush.bmp&hash=4869b389ecacd25f1f654f60755bf17b7feb0cc3)
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_xVMq9EcISoU%2FSlWyM4_ye4I%2FAAAAAAAACrY%2FKpT4Icq9o8Q%2Fs400%2FObamaBush.bmp&hash=4869b389ecacd25f1f654f60755bf17b7feb0cc3)
LOL OBABUSHITLER
Man it would be totally weird if this is thing that brings Obama down (don't expect it to happen).
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2011, 08:48:24 PM
LOL OBABUSHITLER
Why didn't ObaMao ever catch on? Was does it always have to be Hitler?
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2011, 09:24:48 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2011, 08:48:24 PM
LOL OBABUSHITLER
Why didn't ObaMao ever catch on? Was does it always have to be Hitler?
To busy calling him a welfare thug.
How could this possibly bring Obama down?
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 09:49:58 PM
How could this possibly bring Obama down?
I don't expect him to get impeached or anything, but this could do a lot of damage with his progressive base if he gets in a big fight with congress over it. They stay home on election day, he'll lose.
Quote
Report: Obama overruled lawyers on Libya air war
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.
The president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.
Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.
One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.
Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.
The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.
White House spokesman Jay Carney addressed the internal debate over the resolution at his briefing Thursday.
He said "there was a robust process through which the president received the advice he relied on in determining the application" of the War Powers Resolution.
He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973.
"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy."
Barry has always been a lousy constitutional scholar. Nonetheless, he can overrule executive agencies whenever the fuck he wants. He just better be willing to suffer the consequences.
Quote from: Scipio on June 18, 2011, 12:07:45 AM
Barry has always been a lousy constitutional scholar. Nonetheless, he can overrule executive agencies whenever the fuck he wants. He just better be willing to suffer the consequences.
I wonder what those consequences would be.
I would say zero, in this case.
Congress doesn't have to balls to actually do anything if the WPA is violated (and, while the President's position that it isn't being violated is shaky, it's not 100% clear that it its technically being violated) and even if they did, it's not a given that the WPA would hold up if its constitutionality were ever challanged in court. Even more important, the public isn't up in arms over bombing Libya, and won't be unless things go totally balls up--and our involvement is so little that it's hard to see how things could go totally balls up for us.
I would actually like to the WPA enforced. It seems to me a reasonable law.