Last week on Thursday the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that authorized a no-fly zone over Libya. In addition to that resolution the UN resolved that an "immediate establishment of a cease fire" and gave authorization to all UN member states to use "all necessary measures" to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. Based on this UN Resolution, President Obama authorized the use of United States military to carry out, jointly, an attack on Libya. Without a clear plan on what the United States role, conversation is taking place on whether a UN Resolution is enough to prompt the use of the United States military. Professor Oona Hathaway, Yale Law School, pondered the question if Obama's use of US military violated the US Constitution by saying, "Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/22/6323385-did-obama-violate-the-constitution-with-libya-military-action).
Should have President Obama gone to Congress for approval prior to using US military forces as President Bush did prior to the Iraq War? Or does the President of the United States have the power to use the US Military as he sees fit as stated in the War Powers Act of 1973?
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) suggested this week that, "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said. It's not even disputable; this isn't even a close question. Such an action – that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy – is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone." Kucinich said this during an interview with Raw Story.
Vice President Biden, then Sen. Biden warned that if President Bush forged forward without Congressional approval into Iran it would be an impeachable offense. See the interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA
Then Sen. Biden's logic was that it would be impeachable since, "Iran is no immediate threat to the Unites States of America". Which begs the question, whether Libya poses an immediate threat to the United States?
Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president can commit armed forces abroad without congressional approval for up to 60 days. After that he will need congressional approval. Congress has the power to revoke the armed forces after the 60 day period in which the president has to comply.
ReplyDeleteA good example would be Somalia in 1993. Congress revoked the troops fighting.
As far as "immediate threat to the US" that is sticky. However, like in Somalia, Clinton sent troops on a humanitarian mission. Now that mission was a dismal failure, but, I am not sure that it is against the war powers of the president to send the military for humanitarian purposes.
I am not a big fan of this Libyan thing. I personally think it is not much of our business at this point, however, I think that those who are up in arms need to calm down. I don't think the overall mission is more than just some planes and cruise missles taking out air and ground defenses. No troops are to be committed, and the whole thing is to be turned over to NATO.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole mission really is to just enforce a no-fly zone over Libya...right?
War Powers Act of 1973
ReplyDeleteSec 2 (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Sec 3
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
The 60 day window only applies if Sec 4(a)1 exists which states: In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances
By circumstances it means situation that is put the United States in immediate danger. Does Libya do that?
As for the last question you place, it is hard to tell since the White House is not giving out a clear concise message. As for troops, I did read on site, but have not been able to find another to verify, that 2,200 troops are earmarked and on the way to Libya.
Truman....why do I get notification of a post but don't see it. Anyhoo..the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were done via congressional approval unlike libya which you convientl leave out.
ReplyDeleteViper
ReplyDeleteWhat did Truman say?
Anonymous - Here it is..so unsure why I got notified but it doesn't show up...
ReplyDelete"By circumstances it means situation that is put the United States in immediate danger. Does Libya do that?"
Did Iraq? Did Afganistan? How can you argue against this action when you've never argued this position for either of those actions which have been ongoing for 10 years? Personally, it sounds like you're spouting off my demagogic crap. But feel free to defend your position.
"As for troops, I did read on site, but have not been able to find another to verify, that 2,200 troops are earmarked and on the way to Libya."
Really? What site? According to what governmental source? I searched this "fact" and found that it originates with Rush Limbaugh and he has not cited his source which makes it about as credible as the $200 million per day quote that he made about the President's trip to India.
Here's the facts.
On March 3rd, Secretary Gates inchop'd the Kearsarge (LHD-3) with it's contingent of 2,200 marines from the 5th to 6th fleets as part of a contingency plan designed to address the potential evacuation of US citizens from Libya should that become necessary.
Being deployed to the region is not the same thing as "earmarking" them for combat operations as part of an invasion force. And if you had served 1 day of service to this country you'd know that. Furthermore, you'd understand that 2,200 marines is not an adequate force for an invasion of a nation with a standing military such as Libya.
So again, perhaps you should get your "facts" straight before you start spewing off nonsense in a poorly veiled attempt to stir up support for a politically motivated hatchet job on the President.