American diplomats and American politicians are going on British television and stating, repeatedly and vociferously, that America is NOT effecting a war of aggression against Gaddaffi - in fact, they’re even saying that Gaddaffi himself isn’t a target. Why do you think that is?
The War Powers Act doesn’t just talk about declared states of war. It also discusses “specific statutory authorization” which means a scenario other than a declared state of war... for example, situations described persuant to the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act (1976). “Peace keeping missions”. Multi-lateral action. Treaties which America has signed with regard to protecting an ally. And so on.
Congress and the Constitution have to allow for the possibility that a situation might arise in the future where POTUS and the Joint Chiefs agree some form of military assistance or action is necessary but it falls short of declaring war, BUT the action has to be both immediate and decisive.
These days, one guy with something in a rucksack can lay waste to a city block, and a country’s economy can be decimated by someone tapping away on a keyboard. You can’t expect Congress to spend a couple of days making an informed debate if things are that fluid. It’s not like Korea and Viet Nam where there was ample time to get Congress on side and the incumbent POTUS couldn’t be bothered to go through the proper channels.
The retrospective Congress approval is catered for in your legal process precisely because Congress knows it can’t always react in time.
Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.
He’s got two unhappy choices: take an executive decision to save the ally and let the diplomats sort out the diplomatic fallout later... or don’t.
Ultimately any POTUS has to be able to make an executive decision to act in those situations. This time round it just happened to be Obama exercising that decision and you don’t agree with what he’s done or how he’s gone about it, but one thing’s for certain: he’s not the first POTUS to do it and he won’t be the last POTUS to do it.
There’s no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But I’m not sure it should be closed.
Hard cases make bad law.
“There’s no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But I’m not sure it should be closed.”
I don’t see that Libya is that much different to Iraq. If Congressional approval was necessary in the one case, why not the other?
It certainly wasn’t a bomb in a suitcase matter.
“Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.”
I’m at a total loss on the logic of this statement. How about Israel taking care of their own business? What would happen if the dirty bomb exploded as the attack occurred? What if innocent women and children were killed or injured?
No, No, No! ONLY immediate action that perils the United States directly are to be acted upon under these directives...NOT THE UN!
WTH does the current illegal war have to do with any of "those situations." There is/was no imminent threat to the US, France or England -- that broadest of broad coalitions. The only threat from Daffy was to "rebels" to his government. We do not even know who those alleged "rebels" are. For all we know they could be the MB or AQ. It is simply mind boggling that there is anyone of FR trying to defend the actions of the usurper.