Posted on 06/17/2011 9:37:22 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
It’s what dictators do.
Excellent and another reason why the occasional FReeper wish for a military coup to ‘correct’ America would simply make things worse.
Which other Presidents have ignored it? They all say they don’t like it, but this seems unprecedented. Besides not following the law, Obama didn’t even consult with Congress, IIRC.
How? Ws he in those places 60 days without consulting Congress? No, the law seems to imply one can do what they want, but must get approval for extended operations. Both of those examples were only hours and days long.
-——then it is murder.-——
What does the grandfather of the murdered grandchildren think?
Wen an RPG takes out the black Yukon carrying the Obama girls, is that war or retribution?
1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.
1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.
1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
RL32267 — The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years
March 11, 2004
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Appendix 2. Instances Not Formally Reported to the Congress Under the War Powers Resolution
In some instances where U.S. Armed Forces have been deployed in potentially hostile situations abroad, Presidents did not submit reports to Congress under the War Powers Resolution and the question of whether a report was required could be raised. Representative examples of these instances since 1973 include: (105)
evacuation of civilians from Cyprus in 1974
evacuation of civilians from Lebanon in 1976
Korean DMZ tree-cutting incident of 1976
transport of European troops to Zaire in 1978
dispatch of additional military advisers to El Salvador in 1981
shooting down of two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra on August 19, 1981, after one had fired a heat-seeking missile
the use of training forces in Honduras after 1983
dispatch of AWACS to Egypt after a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan March 18, 1983
shooting down of two Iranian fighter planes over Persian Gulf on June 5, 1984, by Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes aided by intelligence from a U.S. AWACS
interception by U.S. Navy pilots on October 10, 1985, of an Egyptian airliner carrying hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro
use of U.S. Army personnel and aircraft in Bolivia for anti-drug assistance on July 14, 1986
buildup of fleet in Persian Gulf area in 1987
force augmentations in Panama in 1988 and 1989
shooting down 2 Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea on January 4, 1989
dispatch of military advisers and Special Forces teams to Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru, in the Andean initiative, announced September 5, 1989, to help those nations combat illicit drug traffickers
transport of Belgian troops and equipment into Zaire September 25-27, 1991
evacuation of non-essential U.S. government workers and families from Sierra Leone, May 3, 1992
a bombing campaign against Iraq, termed Operation Desert Fox, aimed at destroying Iraqi industrial facilities deemed capable of producing weapons of mass destruction, as well as other Iraqi military and security targets, December 16-23, 1998
_______________________
IMO, there are not, and have never been three co-equal branches of govt. Legislative, Executive & Judiciary, in that order of power.
Let me clear up the cognitive dissonance over at DU. Hum the following Mantra while manipulating Tibetean prayer beads and everything will be ok:
Cheney
Haliburton
blood for oil
war monger
baby killer
blackwater
Enron
Bush
war profiteer
visualize whirled peas
stop the violins
baby seal
Canadian Club
Still No mention of the Al Qaeda terrorists said to be intermingled with the Libyan Rebels? Anyone in Congress investigating this and exposing the truth? If true, why are we still there? Congress is strangely silent as they have been since January 2009 on many issues not good for the country. Why? Many questions for The Tea Party to be asking in the days and months leading up to November 2012. Anyone wanting to be re-elected or elected for the first time better have a lot of answers for We The People; don’t ya think?
FUBO!
“Barry the Commie Bastard” must go.
The constitution lists these among the powers of congress:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
“Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said. “
interesting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Thanks.
But why not 109?
:-)
The president does NOT have the legal power under the Constitution to initiate a state of war with a country at peace with us by attacking that country.
The massive bombing and cruise missile attacks and destruction of the Libyan air force and command centers and barracks were acts of war.
The president has unilaterally declared war on a peaceful country.
Yes, it is true the president as commander-in-chief may use the military to response to attacks upon us by a foreign power.
But when the president INITIATES the state of war against a country at peace with us, he usurps Congress's power under the Constitution.
I agree. The insertion of laws and lawyers into every aspect of decision making is ruining this country. I believe that before any missile can be shot at insurgents or enemy soldiers that a military lawyer has to sign off on it. I think a good first step for reform in the military would be to place 9 out of 10 of the lawyers in the military to front-line active combat positions.
Not individual missiles Wmarshal but the war itself needs congressional NOT “united Nations” approval.
The truly insulting part of this whole Ordeal is If Obama wanted to launch a few strikes while the Libyan Rebels controlled most of Libya and Gaddafi’s military was mostly idle in their basis that is one thing.
But Obama didn’t launch strikes when the picking was easy and instead dithered around for weeks trying to get “united Nations” approval. If he had time to get “united Nations” approval then he also had time more then enough time to synonymously get congressional approval as well.
THAT is the whole underlining point here! The only reason any president is allowed to launch strikes at the spur of the moment is in situations in which he doesn’t have time to get congressional approval.
A presumption congress has most generously given him anyway, even thou it was demonstratively not the case.
But Obama did not even bother get Congressional approval, Obama did not even bother to get congressional authorization after 90 days! Instead in a display of ultimate contempt for whatever is left of our Constitution, his job, and Congress he continues to disregard the law.
If you ask me not only should Obama be impeached, more importantly the military Generals blindly carrying out his illegal orders should be tried and convicted of illegal action.(Yes The foot men are ultimately responsible for upholding their oath to uphold the Constitution.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.