2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

NY Times ^ | 17 June 2011 | Charlie Savage

[Hoodat]

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

[SF_Redux]

all 3 comets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swhme7X7tWI

[Polybius]

Click on the New York Times link and read the Reader Comments about Obama. They are scathing. Every last one of them.

In the New York Times!

Finally, an issue that we and the Liberals can fully agree on: Obama is out of control and arrogantly ignoring the mandates of the U.S. Constitution.

Comment from a Leftie reader:

"Let’s face the unpalatable truth folks. You fell for one of the greatest hoaxes to have been perpetrated on our country. Obama is merely a better sounding puppet of our permanent war machine and of the looters. Obama needs to join his alter ego Richard Nixon and face impeachment."

[CPO retired]

Question,

How can the legislative and judicial branches “hold him accountable”? With words? Rulings? He has the guns and the “Justice” department, they don’t. It looks like pure muscle to me. Look how scared the USSC is to even hear cases regarding eligibility.

[Neoliberalnot]

Arrogance? no, tyranny and criminal behavior yes. These are the actions of a dictator seeking to assist his islamofascist brothers while submitting to the UN and running over congress. This is impeachment in the making.

[KwHorn77]

The arrogant SOB needs to be removed from the White House for the sake of our country.

[cruise_missile]

[gleeaikin]

Meanwhile, the War continues, with rebels engaged in hot fighting in the city of 1/4 million, Dafniya, which is 20 miles closer to Tripoli than Misurata. For military buffs, the video and videos on other links shows actual fighters shooting at their enemy. Unfortunately, my audio doesn’t work, and I don’t know enough to interpret what is actually happening in the videos or the arms being used.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8583901/Libyan-rebels-engage-in-fierce-combat.html

[gleeaikin]

How close is our support to NATO to the use of Lend Lease when we were supporting Britain prior to declaring war on Germany in WWII?

[crosshairs]

His goal is to get the Muslim Brotherhood fully ensconced in every Middle East country in order to try to bring down Israel and the U.S.

[Marine_Uncle]

Such video are hard to interpret. Nothing verbal as to who they where firing at if anyone. It would not be the first time one may have viewed videos that where staged events.
That being said. Perhaps they where actually firing their weapons at known targets. Who knows. The video doesn't reveal much.

[Hoodat]

How close is our support to NATO to the use of Lend Lease when we were supporting Britain prior to declaring war on Germany in WWII?

Lend-Lease was legislated by Congress and signed into law by the President. There has been no such Congressional action on Libya.

[Hoodat]

You are correct except that the Congress made a law that gives the President some leeway. That is, the Congress made an allowance for time and expediency to allow the President to act but still maintain Congressional control.

It doesn't work that way. Congress can't pass a law that supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America. According to the Constitution, the power to go to war rests with the Legislative Branch - not the Executive Branch. Any law to the contrary would in fact be in opposition to the Constitution and thus unconstitutional.

The Line-Item Veto law is a good example of this. Congress granted the Executive Branch the right to veto specific lines of legislation rather than entire bills. The courts ruled that there was nothing in the Constitution that granted this power, thus the legislation was unconstitutional. In effect, one branch cannot grant powers to another branch that are not already delegated by the Constitution.

[Munz]

>You ain’t speaking ‘bout that thar shindig where they crossed the Delaware an’ some such, is ya? ;p<

It’s ringing a bell ... with me yeah ... ;)

It may have been written about in some federal papers or something way back when .... but as i said, I am no real history buff.

[cruise_missile]

[acapesket]

Un Un...
My dog is dumber than your dog.
I can damguarantee that.

[gleeaikin]

I am not aware of details behind how the deal was done, but is there any disagreement that the Lockerbie bombing was done at Gaddafi’s orders? Is there any disagreement that Ronald Reagan did the right thing when he bombed in retaliation? At any rate for those who are interested in how this might end up with Gaddafi out, here is a long article from the UK Telegraph, with quite a lot of on the ground information by their reporter who apparently evaded his government minder and was taken around the back neighborhoods of Tripoli to hear that many people are ready to rebel again as soon as the ground fighting is near Tripoli.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8584268/In-Tripoli-Muammar-Gaddafis-opponents-are-preparing-for-a-new-uprising-when-rebels-draw-closer.html

[no-to-illegals]

Thanks for the pings gleeaikin. To answer the questions:
1) and 2) for myself are both No, though I believe with
certainty more than two thirds or more
of the world would disagree and answer in the affirmative.
Sometimes, or rather most of the time, when one tells the
truth, that one telling the truth faces overwhelming odds
by those individuals willing to put forth a lie(s). The way of the world. (sigh)

[no-to-illegals]

gleeaikin I thought of something else to illustrate my prior point

Is there any disagreement that Islam must be defeated?

now the kicker question ....

What percentage of the world would disagree? Answer: two thirds or more

places the emphasis on overwhelming odds, especially based
on the way our leaders are fighting back, and are our
leaders participating with the two thirds or more to increase
the odds of another American defeat?

From all indications of actions, by current leadership, my answer would be in the affirmative.

[zzeeman]

The izlamists have been infiltrating all aspects of Western Civilization for a very long time now. (To be truthful it has been a constant since the formation of this evil cult.) Universities all throughout Western Civilization and governments have been the steady targets for decades.

There have been a few articles recently on this topic: Why Is Weiner’s Muslim Brotherhood Wife Not Resigning? Chances of any msm outlet even mentioning this? Slim to none. We've had an izlamist mole embedded in the highest levels of the federal gubmint for quite some time (first in the Clinton WH now at State). Sadly this is only one example of dozens, and no one will say squat about it.

The Suicide of Reason Radical Islam's Threat to the Enlightenment

[a fool in paradise]

He’s on record as disliking the Constitution as a LIMIT on the powers of government and he doesn’t seem too happy with the whole checks and balances thing (Queen Sheila Jackson Lee doesn’t either, she sees attempts to restrict abortion by CHANGING LAWS through the legislature to be an unconstitutional/seditious challenge to the Supreme Court gods).