In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then.
(bold mine)And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.
Originally Posted by Misterveritis
LOL. The spanking *is* coming. The one term president Obama will not have his splendid little war.
I'd say that's up to Congress to decide at this point wouldn't you?
Such political wrangling over war powers is common in Washington, with presidents frequently seeking to expand their freedom to commit U.S. forces and Congress battling to exert influence on the process.
Boehner's letter said that, in this case, "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."
With his letter, Boehner raised the stakes on an issue that could prove politically embarrassing to Obama, with increasing numbers of Republicans and Democrats opposing the Libya mission.
Vietor said late Tuesday that the White House information would probably be delivered to members of Congress on Wednesday.
"We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya, including those raised in the House resolution as well as our legal analysis with regard to the War Powers Resolution," he said.
Since March 1, administration witnesses have testified at more than 10 hearings that included a "substantial discussion of Libya" and participated in more than 30 member or staff briefings on the matter, according to Vietor.
In announcing the mission in March, Obama said U.S. forces would take the early lead in establishing a "no-fly" zone over the country to enforce a U.N. resolution calling for the protection of Libyan civilians from forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The U.S. forces eventually assumed a supporting role as NATO took over the mission.
Congressional opponents of the mission say that its objective of civilian protection fails to match the stated U.S. goal of Gadhafi's resignation or ouster and that the Libya situation could become a stalemate.
The White House says incremental progress is occurring through increasing diplomatic, political and military pressure on Gadhafi to step down.
In a coincidence of scheduling, Obama and Boehner are set to play golf together for the first time Saturday, a day after Boehner's deadline for information from the administration and the day before he says it could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.
ecofarm,
See my post #87 as well as this blog entry. It explains how the United Nations Participatory Act (UNPA) applies here.
bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution
This simply refers the UN Resolution to the WPA (or joint resolution/declaration of war) and is why congress approved the use of the WPA, almost 90 days ago. Right?
Translation: You got nothin' on this issue except platitudes and political rhetoric. NEXT!!!
I bring to the reader's attention posts #428 and #429 from the thread. The combined commentary from those posts along with that of my post #71 in this thread should put an end to this nonsense.
The President has not violated the War Powers Act nor the Constitution in any way. What we're seeing from members of Congress equates to political posturing, nothing more.
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution
In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then. And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.
Because both Iraq actions were authorized by Congress...
Weaker on international law. However, still short of a declartion of war. Time to end the useless WPA and move to having congress declare war.
Or at least change the WPA. I believe it is ok for the President to have some leeway on the use of the armed forces in cases of national emergency, which a re-tweaked WPA should still do.
International law does not matter in the current discussion, it is U.S. law. The WPA gives the president the authority to use military forces for a short period of time and a longer period of time is Congress approves. Congress approved in both cases with Iraq and with Afghanistan. Congress has NOT given approval for Libya. That is the legal difference from the purpose of U.S. law.
All four conflicts are legal from an international perspective, but as of Sunday, the Libya one will become ILLEGAL from a U.S. perspective.
I don't think we disagree much, but if you bring in Bush as a comparison, you have to mention international law. And, no, Iraq was not legal from an international sand point.
However, I don't think congress has beening doing it's job, especially with Bush. Simply allowing the president to decide is shirking responsibility, making them little more than an after thought. They have been charged with responsibility and should step up. If this congress thinks the WPA means anything, they shold treat it like it does.
3. "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 america forces"
Yep, don't sound like a war to me, or even a conflict, or a squabble.
look, it's obama's war, he's president, he can do what he wants
but are you sure he's NOT an idiot?
party on, peaceniks
Iraq was legal according to the letter of international law, even is many beg to differ. And it was also legal according to US law as it was authorized by Congress.
LETS see the proof of your assertions. Like they say in Cal, white breasts have never seen the sun.
According to international law, the current mission skirts on legality, but it seems to certainly be legal. However, as of Sunday, it will NOT be legal according to U.S. law.
Yeah, I think we agree about 90% on this, however...
As the WPA supercedes and required the president to gain approval, the President is indeed in violation of the law (or at least will be on Sunday)
Once again, you got the tan, show it dude. Where is your law and proof of your assertions??
He is not in violation of law until Monday, right? If Gaddafi is removed or Obama transfers/withdraws before Monday, he's good. I don't see why he's getting his homework in at the last minute, this late in his academic career. Then again, I procrastinate/screw-around plenty. He's really creating a stir though... 3 days until possible impeachment hearings that will stick.
I wonder which of the three options he's going to go with. If he targets and pops Gaddafi, I'll crap.
...the WPA came afterward and if there are any contradictory provisions, the more recent law supercedes it. As the WPA supercedes and required the president to gain approval, the President is indeed in violation of the law (or at least will be on Sunday)
Weaker on international law. However, still short of a declartion of war. Time to end the useless WPA and move to having congress declare war.
The matter of declaring war -vs- armed conflict isn't so cut-N-dry as many people may think. Read the two linked articles below then consider how the Libya conflict squares with both Congress' war power and international law(s) because both are relevent.
Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
[URL="http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war.html]Declaration of war[/URL]
Both links are, in reality, pretty simplistic. However, it doesn't change the fact that President Obama's powers as commander in chief of the United States armed forces is governed by the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed by Congress, and not by international law.
Iraq was legal according to the letter of international law, even is many beg to differ. And it was also legal according to US law as it was authorized by Congress.
According to international law, the current mission skirts on legality, but it seems to certainly be legal. However, as of Sunday, it will NOT be legal according to U.S. law.
Yeah, I think we agree about 90% on this, however...
We are exempt to the degree we want to be.But we're not exempt from international law, or more specifically from the agreements we made and signed and ratified through congress.
We are exempt to the degree we want to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?