WC > Politics
in violation of the law
Page 1 / 1
in violation of the law
05/29/2011 1:35 pm

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
The U.S. intervention in Libya's civil war, intervention that began with a surplus of confusion about capabilities and a shortage of candor about objectives, is now taking a toll on the rule of law. In a bipartisan cascade of hypocrisies, a liberal president, with the collaborative silence of most congressional conservatives, is traducing the War Powers Resolution.

Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, the WPR may or may not be wise. It is, however, unquestionably a law, and Barack Obama certainly is violating it. It stipulates that a president must terminate military action 60 days after initiating it (or 90, if the president "certifies" in writing an "unavoidable military necessity" respecting the safety of U.S. forces), unless Congress approves it. Congress has been supine and silent about this war which began more than 70 days ago.

All presidents have resented the WPR but have taken care to act "consistent with" its 48-hour reporting requirement. So on March 21, two days after the administration took the nation to war in Libya, Obama notified Congress of this obvious fact, stressing that U.S. operations would be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope" in the service of a "limited and well-defined mission." Months ago, before it metastasized into regime change, the "well-defined" mission was to protect civilians.

In his March 28 address to the nation, Obama said "the United States will play a supporting role." But the WPR does not leave presidential war-making utterly unrestrained if it is a "supporting role."

After 60 days, on May 20, Obama wrote to congressional leaders noting that since April 4, U.S. "participation" has involved "non-kinetic support" (intelligence, logistics, refueling) — but also decidedly kinetic attacks on Libyan air defenses and other targets of "the NATO-led" forces. He said U.S. support is "crucial" but "we are no longer in the lead."

This is meretricious. We are not conspicuously leading this war by committee, aka NATO, but NATO would not act without us, and absent U.S. assets, the Libyan campaign could not continue.

Sen. Richard Lugar — former chairman of and currently ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee — normally is as placid as an Indiana meadow, but in a tart May 23 letter to Obama, Lugar charged that Obama's commitments to consult with Congress and act "consistent with" the WPR "have not been fulfilled." Lugar said the administration recently "canceled without explanation" a committee briefing on Libya by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and declined the committee's request that a Defense Department official testify at another hearing — where the one administration official who did appear, from the State Department, "declined to answer questions about our military operations in Libya on the ground that such questions would be more appropriately answered by the Defense Department."

Stonewalling is, perhaps, prudent when policy is ludicrous. It is, however, intolerable in the third month of a war that Obama said would involve days, not weeks. And as Lugar said with notable understatement, U.S. operations "have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them." Obama has made a perfunctory request for congressional approval of this war, but clearly will proceed without it.

Liberals are situational ethicists regarding presidential war-making: Imagine their comportment if Obama's predecessor — who got congressional authorization for his uses of force — had behaved as Obama is doing regarding Libya. Most conservatives, who preen about their commitment to keeping government on a short leash, seem anesthetized by the administration's sophistries.

"No president," says Sen. John McCain, "has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act and neither do I. So I don't feel bound by any deadline." Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not "recognize" it? Now, there is an interesting alternative to judicial review, and an indicator of how executive aggrandizement and legislative dereliction of duty degrade the rule of law.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
06/02/2011 4:00 am

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
beuler?
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
06/04/2011 2:38 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
I like the War Powers Act.  That McCain doesnt, vindicates (to me) my refusal to vote for the old fool last time around.  Hero or not, I'm no fan of John McCain.  

Congress is supposed to be the entity that declares war, and the WPR guarantees it.  Until it is repealed, the WPR is the law of the land.  And people like Obama and McCain are wrong if they ignore it just because they dont like it.

I was never in favor of this action in Libya.  I think its in Europe's backyard and I hoped they would be the ones to handle their own affairs.  Imo, we are meddling and in danger of getting mired down in this thing.  We have enough on our plate without aiding people who may have been trying to kill our own soldiers only months ago.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
06/04/2011 6:25 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE
  
Quote   
06/05/2011 7:40 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 131
Posts: 466
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
  



You don't say?

:-P
Quote   
06/05/2011 10:43 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
Cat got yer tongue?  
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
Page 1 / 1
Login with Facebook to post
Preview