Plan B Forum

quaddriver wrote:ok Im confused who is doing all the heavy lifting.

liberty1 wrote:Either way it was illegal to not get congressional approval when required.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Imagine what the public response would be if former President George W. Bush, during his term of office, had engaged in armed conflict with some country without securing congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution, adopted in 1973.

That resolution allows the president to engage in “hostilities” for a period of 60 days (with a further 30-day withdrawal period) without congressional authorization in order to have the necessary freedom to act immediately to protect the national interest.

For example, if American citizens were in danger in some country and American military forces were needed to rescue them, the president could do that on his own discretion and get out. However, if he wants to stay more than 60 days, he is required to come to the Congress, explain why and seek congressional authorization.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, according to The New York Times of June 16, “had sent a letter to Mr. Obama warning him that he appeared to be out of time under the Vietnam-era law that says presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue.”

The president immediately sent a 38-page report that arrived the next day. That report had been prepared as a result of earlier demands enacted by the Congress. The report argued that the U.S. had not been — in Libya — “in hostilities.”

Lawyers for the administration stated, reported the Times, “the military mission was constrained by a United Nations Security Council resolution, which authorized air power for the purpose of defending civilians.”

The War Powers clause had been passed during the Vietnam era and vetoed by President Nixon. That veto was overridden by the Congress.

The Obama administration does not contest the legality of the War Powers Resolution. A spokesman for President Obama said, “We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of hostilities envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

On June 18, The Times reported, “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 participation in the air war in Libya without congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.”

The Times continued, “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 they believed that the U.S. 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.”

The Times of June 11 reported, “Still the White House acknowledged the operation [Libya] has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current state of operations.”

President Obama, stated The Times, “has the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.”

Imagine what the response by Congress and the American public would have been had either President Nixon or President George W. Bush done what President Obama has done in continuing a war after the expiration of the 60-day time period permitted. Dozens of members of Congress would have denounced the president and lined up to add their names to an impeachment resolution.

And this wasn't a pre-emptive war. This was saving a people already under attack from imminent genocide. But I guess the lessons of Rwanda, Bosnia, etc. weren't enough; the world should have stood by and did nothing while the same scenario repeated itself in Libya. But hey, they're brown and mostly Muslim, so clearly they don't matter

A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. It is a war which preemptively 'breaks the peace'. The term: 'preemptive war' is sometimes confused with the term: 'preventive war'. The difference is that a preventive war is launched to destroy the potential threat of an enemy, when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned, while a preemptive war is launched in anticipation of immediate enemy aggression.[1] Most contemporary scholarship equates preventive war with aggression, and therefore argues that it is illegitimate.[2] The waging of a preemptive war has less stigma attached than does the waging of a preventive war.[3] The initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter (see 'Legality' below), unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action. (Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun',

liberty1 wrote:A failed resolution of Congress to force BO to pull out troops is not the same thing as BO seeking approval in the first place.

A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes.

The offensive wasn't "inevitable", "impending", or "unavoidable", it was already in progress. There was nothing pre-emptive about this, it was a response to an attack that was already well underway

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Long Run wrote:Seems like our intervention was a good choice based on what we know for now. Also, highly unlikely that France and UK could have made this happen without our support. Even though this appears to have been a good policy, there are many who believe that Obama violated the law by not obtaining express authorization from Congress within the timelines in the War Powers Act. Sub (c) simply gives Congress the right to mandate the return of military forces by resolution; it does not eliminate the requirement of sub (b) for the president to get authorization or terminate military activities.

The Administration danced around its obligations by arguing the lack of "hostilities", i.e., only defending innocent civilians. Clearly, we now know that more was at stake than merely preventing a humanitarian disaster. Not getting Congressional approval in this instance sets a precedent that people defending the president may regret when a president they don't like does the same thing in a place they may not agree with such action. Like I said, I'm glad Obama made this call and glad it worked out, but I wish he would have gotten Congress to sign on to the action.