WC > Politics
Libya
Page 1 / 1
Libya
06/18/2011 7:26 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 131
Posts: 466
OFFLINE
2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

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.

Presidents have 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.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration’s interpretation is “aggressive” and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while “this is not an easy question,” Mr. Obama’s position was “both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations.” Still, he criticized the administration’s decision-making process.

“Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies,” he said. “The president always has the power of final decision.”

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.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, “Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do.”

I dunno, firing missiles at someone sounds sort of hostile to me....
Quote   
06/18/2011 10:09 am

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
i have a feeling this would've been leading nearly every news program were his predecessor still in power.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
06/21/2011 4:28 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
All Congress can do is impeach him.  And i doubt they'll do it with the election coming up soon.  But we need to get out of Libya.  i dont like the idea of helping people who were likely shooting at our troops only a few months ago.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
06/21/2011 6:49 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i have a feeling this would've been leading nearly every news program were his predecessor still in power.



From what I've seen it is.
Quote   
06/21/2011 6:51 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
All Congress can do is impeach him.  And i doubt they'll do it with the election coming up soon.  But we need to get out of Libya.  i dont like the idea of helping people who were likely shooting at our troops only a few months ago.



Because Gaddafi has never supported terrorist attacks on Americans.
Quote   
06/22/2011 12:43 am

Forum Fanatic


Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
All Congress can do is impeach him.  And i doubt they'll do it with the election coming up soon.  But we need to get out of Libya.  i dont like the idea of helping people who were likely shooting at our troops only a few months ago.



Because Gaddafi has never supported terrorist attacks on Americans.



Not to mention that they won't even think about impeaching Obama. It isn't really an impeachable offense. Yes we have the War Powers Act, but no other President since it was enacted has heeded it. Not only is it hypocritical to **** about only when there is someone of the other party in office, this action against Libya could be put under the umbrella of The War on Terror.

This is something that should be fixed. I agree with the spirit of the War Powers Act, but I don't see making a big fuss over it just because Obama is involved.
Quote   
06/23/2011 9:28 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
Well, what I was talking about is the war powers act.  Congress could decide that Obama has violated it.  In which case, impeachment would be an option.  However it'd be tough to do and with the election fast approaching, I doubt they'd try it.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
06/24/2011 8:47 am

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i have a feeling this would've been leading nearly every news program were his predecessor still in power.



From what I've seen it is.

'



are you kidding me? are you telling me this even remotely close to the fervor kicked up by the left when bush invaded iraq? even though bush at least got congressional approval? are you that nearsighted? where are the anti-war marches on washington?
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
06/24/2011 11:04 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i have a feeling this would've been leading nearly every news program were his predecessor still in power.



From what I've seen it is.

'



are you kidding me? are you telling me this even remotely close to the fervor kicked up by the left when bush invaded iraq? even though bush at least got congressional approval? are you that nearsighted? where are the anti-war marches on washington?



From what I've seen there has been a bit of anti-Libya and by extension counter-Obama coverage from what your type would call 'Liberal Media' (ie not Fox).  That said, Libya and Iraq are not equivalent and as such people's reactions are different.  If all we did was overthrow Saddam and then leave, there wouldn't have been that big of a anti-Iraq War movement.  Most Americans are sympathetic toward the Libyan rebals, however if we where to commit combat troops on the ground I'm sure things will change fast.
Quote   
06/24/2011 3:38 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
If we could be sure of who[/b[ the Libyan rebels were, I'd feel more comfortable about it.  But I just dont know if we're helping bad guys or not.

On what Congress can do about this, I neglected to mention that Congress could also vote to stop funding for the effort in Libya.  Unfortunately they tried today and I think the plan to stop funding was narrowly defeated.  I dunno what the next step will be.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
06/25/2011 7:01 am

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

From what I've seen there has been a bit of anti-Libya and by extension counter-Obama coverage from what your type would call 'Liberal Media' (ie not Fox).  That said, Libya and Iraq are not equivalent and as such people's reactions are different.  If all we did was overthrow Saddam and then leave, there wouldn't have been that big of a anti-Iraq War movement.  Most Americans are sympathetic toward the Libyan rebals, however if we where to commit combat troops on the ground I'm sure things will change fast.



a bit? yeah, a few off the cuff remarks here and there, and quiet grumblings of the left. but their boy is in office, so it's okay. how about this. how about if bush was still in office, and we were in the exact position we're in now? if you think the reaction would be quite so casual, then there's just not even any point in trying to have a conversation with you about it.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
Page 1 / 1
Login with Facebook to post
Preview