Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

ABC: White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization


SnyderShrugged

Recommended Posts

President Obama seems more a Bush clone everyday.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”

“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

more at link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama seems more a Bush clone everyday.

You mean because he sent hundreds of thousands of US troops into Libya and is planning on doing the same in Syria?

:ols::ols::ols:

I don't like how he's trying to avoid having Congress do their duty on this though.

That said, the role in Libya has been extemely limited (probably unecessarily and disadvantageously so for the Libyan people), since the first few weeks of intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Precedent on War Powers

Posted in Presidency by Robinson O'Brien-Bours

"No more ignoring the law when it's convenient. That is not who we are...We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers." ~Senator Barack Obama, August, 2007.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Senator Barack Obama, December, 2007.

From now on, citing President Obama's entrance into the Libyan Civil War as precedence, American presidents will now be able to unilaterally wage war or target bombing against any nation or any individual at any time.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/

:beavisnbutthead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Precedent on War Powers

Posted in Presidency by Robinson O'Brien-Bours

"No more ignoring the law when it's convenient. That is not who we are...We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers." ~Senator Barack Obama, August, 2007.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Senator Barack Obama, December, 2007.

From now on, citing President Obama's entrance into the Libyan Civil War as precedence, American presidents will now be able to unilaterally wage war or target bombing against any nation or any individual at any time.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/

:beavisnbutthead:

Does Congress not exist? I could have sworn they were there for checks and balances and all that. Must have been my imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Precedent on War Powers

Posted in Presidency by Robinson O'Brien-Bours

"No more ignoring the law when it's convenient. That is not who we are...We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers." ~Senator Barack Obama, August, 2007.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Senator Barack Obama, December, 2007.

From now on, citing President Obama's entrance into the Libyan Civil War as precedence, American presidents will now be able to unilaterally wage war or target bombing against any nation or any individual at any time.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/

:beavisnbutthead:

Didnt we go there as part of a coalition with a violation of UN resolution which we are a part off, what was so unilateral about what we did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe he should get congressional support. This might not be breaking the War Powers Act (only the courts can make that decision), but with something like war (or close to being a war), there is no reason to not be cautious and having the conversations and discussions required to get Congressional approval would likely help even the members of the administration better think through the objectives, goals, and required resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't this been pretty much SOP for every military operation we've undertaken since WWII?

Either we're leading a UN coalition or we're "limiting our involvement".. the results are the same. We don't declare war, and we go anyway.

I'd hardly credit Bush or Obama coming up with these skirts.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe he should get congressional support. This might not be breaking the War Powers Act (only the courts can make that decision), but with something like war (or close to being a war), there is no reason to not be cautious and having the conversations and discussions required to get Congressional approval would likely help even the members of the administration better think through the objectives, goals, and required resources.

I do agree with this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt we go there as part of a coalition with a violation of UN resolution which we are a part off, what was so unilateral about what we did?

The UN does not direct the US military,the CIC does.....we went by choice,not compulsion

Unilaterally refers to the justification under the War Powers Act

added

I wonder if our people there get intermittent, kinetic military pay or combat pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN does not direct the US military,the CIC does.....we went by choice,not compulsion

Unilaterally refers to the justification under the War Powers Act

added

I wonder if our people there get intermittent, kinetic military pay or combat pay?

Well they do get combat pay, because it's a deployment to support a military operation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe he should get congressional support. This might not be breaking the War Powers Act (only the courts can make that decision), but with something like war (or close to being a war), there is no reason to not be cautious and having the conversations and discussions required to get Congressional approval would likely help even the members of the administration better think through the objectives, goals, and required resources.

I couldn't agree more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article I, section 8, clause 11.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Also, citing the War Powers Act, since we have a military presence in Libya, it seems like this would fall under the jurisdiction of the War Powers Act.

I don't like this one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article I, section 8, clause 11.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. However, neither Article I nor Article II clearly proscribe whether the President, as Commander in Chief, may order the military to engage in combat without a declaration of war. Many people assume the drafters of the Constitution intended that, by granting to Congress the power to declare war, they also intended to grant to Congress the exclusive right to authorize the commencement of any sort of action involving our military forces.

An inspection of the debates regarding the drafting of Article I, Section 8 make clear that assumption is tenuous at best. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 originally granted to Congress the authority to make war. However, James Madison and other Founding Fathers were concerned that reserving the right to make war to Congress would be extremely problematic because Congress is slow to act and, sometimes, matters of war can't wait.

I'm not arguing the President has the unfettered right to make war and order our military to engage in armed conflicts of any nature without the consent of Congress. I'm simply arguing that the notion that the Constitution clearly prohibits the President from engaging in military action of any nature without the consent of Congress is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. However, neither Article I nor Article II clearly proscribe whether the President, as Commander in Chief, may order the military to engage in combat without a declaration of war. Many people assume the drafters of the Constitution intended that, by granting to Congress the power to declare war, they also intended to grant to Congress the exclusive right to authorize the commencement of any sort of action involving our military forces.

An inspection of the debates regarding the drafting of Article I, Section 8 make clear that assumption is tenuous at best. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 originally granted to Congress the authority to make war. However, James Madison and other Founding Fathers were concerned that reserving the right to make war to Congress would be extremely problematic because Congress is slow to act and, sometimes, matters of war can't wait.

I'm not arguing the President has the unfettered right to make war and order our military to engage in armed conflicts of any nature without the consent of Congress. I'm simply arguing that the notion that the Constitution clearly prohibits the President from engaging in military action of any nature without the consent of Congress is incorrect.

making war includes declaring war, when you "make war" on someone else you effectively declare war on them... military engagement doesn't have to include war though, for example, was Obama's air strike on OBL us making or declaring war against Pakistan? No, but once the President orders the military to intentionally destroy the state actors of another country/sovereign... I think that's definitely making/declaring war... In this case we definitely in war w/ Libya, even though it's no skin off our asses for the most part.

Personally, I don't think much of this is a big deal, I mean yeah it sounds like a very dangerous trend, but in this day and age, a nimble executive is very useful. Congress could always cut off funding, and there are political consequences, so all in all it's one of those unconstitutional trends that we just sort of have to accept (and maybe rationalize a little for the sake of others).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...