It is now early Friday, May 20, the 60th day since President Obama informed Congress that he had begun attacking Libya (the attacks technically began on the weekend, March 19, but were reported to Congress on Monday, March 21). This is particularly important because, under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President is obligated to obtain Congressional authorization for any use of military force lasting longer than 60 days, or halt all hostilities.
Today then marks a serious test for that act of Congress, because President Obama indicated yesterday during his speech that the war would continue, and has not sought any Congressional approval. Under 50 USC 1541-1548 the War in Libya will be, barring some surprising action, illegal.
A number of Senators have sought clarification on the president’s intentions, most recently in a letter submitted by six of them earlier this week. No official reply has been noted, and the White House took the rather unusual move of pulling Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright from a Senate hearing at the last minute on Thursday. The hearing was canceled.
It seems the move was designed to avoid answering uncomfortable questions, yet the State Department was openly using the War Powers Resolution as a justification for the use of force without Congressional authorization as recently as last week, and further questions are bound to come up.
Short of some rather dubious suggestions that the president might order the war “paused” for a few minutes so he could restart it and claim a fresh 60 days (which would probably create even more opposition for the war’s shaky justification), the administration seems to be hoping that Friday, May 20 will come and go without notice. Clearly it will not.
But with the administration openly conceding early on that the war was not a “vital” interest of the United States in the first place, their options are limited. The war is unpopular, and it is unimaginable that a last second vote could be mustered in Congress to authorize it, particularly when the only reason for such haste is that the president totally shirked his legal requirements in starting the war in the first place.
The likely option, then, seems to be ignoring the law and assuming that the Senate will not react. Though it is unclear if there is much Senate support for taking him to task over the war, such a challenge would, if ignored, allow the president to commit to open-ended wars on literally no pretext and fearing no legal recourse. Such a claim must eventually face Congressional opposition.
"Such a claim must eventually face Congressional opposition." Don't hold your breath for that one. It is the right of any Washington- American patriotically to lie, ignore, kill, torture at whim.
Not only was the U.S. attack on Libya illegal, but now sixty days later the attack on Libya is, still illegal. The difference being, it is illegal as of the end of today, under a different legal framework. The laws Obama and Company are breaking are really surmounting; one wouldn't be surprised if they surpass Bush Jr. and Company. In fact, one anticipates that.
Obama violated the Constitution when he initiated bombing and he also violated the War Powers act at that moment. The impeachable offense was committed long ago. Thus Glenn Greenwald writes on Salon, as carried today on Antiwar.com:
When President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval (even though, to use his words, it did "not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"), the administration and its defenders claimed he had legal authority to do so for two reasons: (1) the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) authorizes the President to wage war for 60 days without Congress, and (2) the "time-limited, well defined and discrete" nature of the mission meant that it was not really a "war" under the Constitution (Deputy NSA Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Obama OLC). Those claims were specious from the start, but are unquestionably inapplicable now.
From the start, the WPR provided no such authority. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's why Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman — in an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Obama's Unconstitutional War" — wrote when the war started that the "The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing" and that "in taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency."
The one mistake that's made is to attribute these things to one President or another. So, we hear that 'Obama is breaking new ground ….'
Except, Congress unanimously goes along. Everyone. If any files a measure to begin at least an investigation into impeachment, then they aren't 'going along'. If any files a measure to prohibit any monies being spent on this war, then they aren't going along. Whiny talk about the President doesn't count. Either file the above resolutions or bills, or co-sponser someone elses, or be a part of the problem.
The problem is that when we say "Obama does this" or "Dubya does this", we are misleading the people into thinking its just this one person and thus playing into the myth that by changing Presidents from Dem to Repub and back we can stop such behavior. Instead, if we clearly stated that both the Democrats and the Republicans are both nearly unanimous is approving such an extension of the imperial presidency we would have a better grasp on the problem that faces us and the solutions that are required. Like never electing another Democrat nor Republican to be so much a city dog-catcher ever again.
Seems rather simple. One of three things must occur.
1) Military operations against Libya end today.
2) Congress gives authorization
3) If neither of the above occur, Congress begins impeachment proceedings against the President.
Too bad members of Congress who don't obey their oath to defend the Constitution aren't automatically removed when they fail to do so.
How much money have we spend on something that has nothing to do with the security or well-being of ordinary Americans in fighting this war?
We are told that we have to bear the costs of balancing the budget.
We are told that as a nation we have to be laying off teachers and nurses because we can't afford them.
We are told as a nation that those struggling to keep their homes can't get any help because we can't afford it.
We are told that we can't have any stimulus that helps anyone who isn't a Wall Street banker because we can't afford it.
But, we can afford a completely useless war apparently.
seems like the republicans – if they were going to say something in opposition(other than the gang of 6) – would have said it by now. I'll bet they'll look the other way. And thereby make themselves complicit in the illegality of this war.