The US should not be involved in the internal politics of Libya, Egypt or the ME.
their countries ... their problems On Jun 3, 12:46 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Obama Flouts the War Powers ResolutionbySheldon Richman, June 3, 2011 > NATO announced that the Libyan intervention will be extended for another > three months. So what President Obama said would be a matter of days, not > weeks, will in fact last many months. It’s safe to assume that Western powers > will be meddling there a year from now. > One thing we know for sure, however, is that the U.S. intervention is doubly > illegal. Obama had no legal authority to enter the war, and given that he > entered it anyway, the 1973 War Powers Resolution required that on May 20 60 > days after the intervention began Obama either procure authorization from > Congress or cease all operations. > He asked for a resolution, but Congress has not complied. In fact a > bipartisan move is afoot to demand withdrawal from Libya. The Republican > leadership blocked that resolution from a vote. So Obama is prosecuting a war > without congressional approval beyond the 60-day limit. That’s illegal. > The founders of this country were concerned about warmaking. Thus, the > Constitution gives only the Congress the power to declare and appropriate > money for war. But since 1942 no president has asked Congress for a > declaration of war. (Blank-check “authorizations” don’t count.) The War > Powers Resolution was a half-hearted attempt to restore some measure of > congressional authority over warmaking. But no president has accepted it, and > members of Congress generally have been scared to resist a president. > So presidents have repeatedly gotten away with lawlessness. As Glenn > Greenwald notes, that does not make new violations lawful. > Under the War Powers Resolution a president can commit troops to combat on > his own say-soonlyin “a national emergency created by attack upon the United > States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Thus the Libyan > intervention is illegal. > What does the administration say? “[The] President had the constitutional > authority to direct the use of force in Libya because he could reasonably > determine that such use of force was in the national interest,” a Justice > Department Office of Legal Counsel memorandum states. > In other words, if a president judges a military operation in the national > interest, he mayon his owncommit forces. > The only problem is thatthe War Powers Resolution forbids that. > What about the 60-day rule? According to the New York Times, “Administration > officials offered no theory for why continuing the air war in Libya in the > absence of Congressional authorization and beyond the deadline would be > lawful.” > The closest we got to a justification came from Jay Carney, the press > secretary, who said that the commentary about the Resolution “could fill this > room, and none of it would be conclusive.” Even if that were true, the > interests of the American people demand a presumption in favor of dispersed, > rathen than concentrated, power. > The Times quoted the Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who ran the Office > of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, on the unprecedented nature of Obama’s > action: “There may be facts of which we are unaware, but this appears to be > the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution’s > requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after > the initiation of hostilities or get Congress’s support.” > Some of the president’s allies argue that that the Resolution doesn’t apply > because deadly drone attacks (which have killed noncombatants) and the U.S. > supporting role for NATO don’t constitute warfare! But Secretary of State > Hillary Clinton recently said, “Even today, the United States continues to > fly 25 percent of all sorties. We continue to provide the majority of > intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets.” > That looks like war. > Some may wonder why Obama didn’t ask Congress for authorization, since he > could surely have gotten it. Greenwald knows why: “The Obama White House is > simply choosing not to seek it because Obama officials want to bolster the > unrestrained power of the imperial presidency entrenched by [the Bush > administration].” > It would behoove Obama to heed his own the words, spoken when he ran for > president: “No more ignoring the law when it’s inconvenient. 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.” > We’re waiting, Mr. President.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106d.asp -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
