[...] Cory Booker! Whatever would g...
Did White House threaten Cory Booker for criticizing Obama’s attack ad? « Full Metal Patriot on Obama threatens to withhold Social Security checks despite sufficient funds [UPDATED] Social Security Chief Actuary exposes Obama deception
Obama To Congress: War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply To Libya
Once again, we see that when the Obama administration says “change,” they’re referring to changing the standards to which a Democrat President should be held. [emphasis added below]
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.
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.
I’ll bet the Libyans who are being hit with American missiles would argue the meaning of the word ‘hostilities.’ And since that is the primary word at issue here, let’s take a look at what the War Powers Act says concerning ‘hostilities:’
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;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Once the Commander in Chief has entered American troops into one of the situations described above, 50 USC 1544(b) then requires:
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
The goal of this “kinetic military action” has changed from defending people under attack by Muammar Gaddafi’s forces to outright regime change. Even by the Obama administration’s own admission, American soldiers are in Libyan waters and conducting missions in Libyan airspace. Sounds a hell of a lot like ‘hostilities’ as defined in the War Powers Act. And as such, President Obama is clearly in violation of the law. I don’t necessarily disagree with the removal of Gaddafi from power, but I do disagree with the way Obama is going about it. If he wishes to continue to spend $2 million dollars per day in a war against Libya, he needs to abide by the U.S. Constitution — and the War Powers Act — and obtain Congressional approval.
Obama clearly believes he is a privileged monarch who needn’t concern himself with trifles like law. Quibbling over the meaning of the word ‘hostilities’ is nothing more than employing a wartime version of the Clintonian equivocation: “It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.”
—
RELATED: Blogger Brian Dunn drops a bit of a…well, a bombshell on the logical fallacy of Obama’s “not-war” argument:
So people who like to say that “if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” argue that blockading the enemy at sea, suppressing enemy air defenses, identifying targets to be bombed, refueling aircraft that drop the bombs, engaging in electronic warfare to aid the planes that drop the bombs, and supplying many of the actual bombs themselves don’t count as waging war because we are not actually dropping the bombs (well, other than from our unmanned drones) and because the enemy is unable to effectively shoot back?
Well, the last part at least that fits with the old anti-war slogan that “it takes two sides to make war.” Although I suspect what they had in mind was that if we–and only we–stop fighting an enemy there would be no war–not that our shooting alone does not count as war.
I find this fascinating.
I do believe that under this logic, we could nuke somebody and not fall under the administration’s definition of war.
Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
