Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya - By Ron Paul

[Day]

Seemed like he won the argument to me.

[Plow]

Demo, see:

Top lawyers in the Obama administration think in fact that the continued participation in the Lybian conflict is in fact illegal, but the president instead decided to listen to lower level officials, which is a rare move.

for why I mentioned that Obama's background gives confidence in that he's capable of coming to most likely correct conclusions on the legality issue.

You also posted about the same shit.

I.E. while you're sitting here claiming Obama's position as a constitutional lawyer is meaningless, you're also arguing that he must be wrong because he's disagreeing with... dun dun dun... a few constitutional lawyers in high positions.

[archibaldcrane]

If he'd gone the other way, you could say he ignored the advice of his own White House legal counsel and State Department attorneys.

[Plow]

By the way, there looks to be a pretty legit shot of the house at least attempting to impact this via funding. It'll be an interesting precedent to set going forward if they do actually get it on the floor, although it's much easier for a congressman to feel safe about his career while cutting off funding for a war when there are no actual troops involved.

[Kuya]

Obama's decision to instead listen to the legal advice of lower level officials is important only in so far it represents Obama picking and choosing legal advice that he considers politically conveniant. That's why it's so rare.

The violation of the War Powers Resolution is as clear as day, considering that the 60 days have already passed, and the US has deployed drones and air strikes on Lybia, all of which consitutes at the very least a "hostility" and possibly even a war. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand why this is illegal, but you do need to be a lawyer to twist the truth into something conveniant.

[Alarial]

Obama's decision to instead listen to the legal advice of lower level officials is important only in so far it represents Obama picking and choosing legal advice that he considers politically conveniant. That's why it's so rare.

The violation of the War Powers Resolution is as clear as day, considering that the 60 days have already passed, and the US has deployed drones and air strikes on Lybia, all of which consitutes at the very least a "hostility" and possibly even a war. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand why this is illegal, but you do need to be a lawyer to twist the truth into something conveniant.

To be fair, you're argument is based on the assumption that legality is black and white, similar to the black/white morality argument.

The very fact that so many people disagree (on different legal levels) shows this issue isn't as clear.

That being said, I agree with you that this is a violation of the original intent of the War Powers Act. I don't however agree that it can't be argued to be legal today (and thus set a new precedence).

[aurik]

Obama's decision to instead listen to the legal advice of lower level officials is important only in so far it represents Obama picking and choosing legal advice that he considers politically conveniant. That's why it's so rare.

The violation of the War Powers Resolution is as clear as day, considering that the 60 days have already passed, and the US has deployed drones and air strikes on Lybia, all of which consitutes at the very least a "hostility" and possibly even a war. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand why this is illegal, but you do need to be a lawyer to twist the truth into something conveniant.

No, the violation of the War Powers Resolution is not clear as day.

Hope this helps you understand why you're wrong.

[Kuya]

I mention this because I learned that the Obama administration is claiming that it doesn't need congressional authorization for its Libyan intervention under the War Powers Act. Why? Because what we are doing doesn't amount to "full-blown" hostilities.

Oh, please. Let's start with the definition of "war" itself. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country." Now, let's see: what are we doing in Libya? What we know is that we've sent cruise missiles, and drones and U.S. aircraft to attack military targets in various places, including several attacks on Qaddafi's own compound. We are continuing to provide targeting information to our NATO allies, who are conducting additional raids on their own. Although U.S. ground troops are not present in force, it's a safe bet that U.S. special forces are operating in various places, probably helping provide some of that targeting info. And of course because the Obama administration isn't telling us everything that it's doing, we have no clear way of knowing exactly how involved we really are.

By any reasonable, common-sense standard, in short, we are at war. It doesn't matter that we aren't using our full strength to help the rebels or that other states are doing more than we are. The plain fact is that the United States is using its military forces and intelligence capabilities to attack Libyan forces. In plain English, we are killing (or helping to kill) Qaddafi loyalists (and occasionally innocent civilians), in an openly-acknowledged campaign to drive him from power. Sounds like war to me, and to anybody else who isn't being paid to find ways to evade or obscure reality.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

[aurik]

Thanks for posting the opinion of Some Dude On The Internet.

[Kuya]

This is especially so when an active-duty American officer remains at the top of NATO’s chain of command. As supreme allied commander, Adm. James Stavridis “leads all NATO military operations.” While a Canadian air force general, Charles Bouchard, is in charge of the Libyan campaign, the buck doesn’t stop with him but with Stavridis, who also reports to the Pentagon as head of the U.S. European command. Even if American drones discontinue their operations before the deadline, an American admiral will still be in a position to call the shots.

This is no accident. NATO has been a key vehicle for American military interests since the 1950s. It would create a terrible precedent to pretend otherwise. Once Obama crosses the Rubicon, future presidents will simply cite Libya when they unilaterally commit America to far more ambitious NATO campaigns.

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...35G_story.html

Thanks for posting the opinion of Some Dude On The Internet.

lol

[aurik]

Thanks for posting the opinion of Two Other People From The Internet.

[Plow]

Who knew that the branches of government have means of interacting with eachother and creating these... these... they're kind of like checks and balances when you think about it, huh?

So, I'm curious.

If congress can declare war, make all funding decisions, and determine in every event whether or not the military can get involved...

And all of these things can be done with a strong vote overriding a presidential veto...

What exactly checks and balances are there on the congress?

I mean, obviously by your interpretation commander in chief just means "guy that asks congress what to do," so the military is clearly not a part of the executive branch and cannot reject any congressional decision.

[Demosthenes11]

To be fair, you're argument is based on the assumption that legality is black and white, similar to the black/white morality argument.

The very fact that so many people disagree (on different legal levels) shows this issue isn't as clear.

the fuck is this?

[archibaldcrane]

Just so I have past historical adoption of the War Powers act straight - did congress vote to approve military action in Pakistan? Yemen? Somalia?

[Kuya]

So, I'm curious.

If congress can declare war, make all funding decisions, and determine in every event whether or not the military can get involved...

And all of these things can be done with a strong vote overriding a presidential veto...

What exactly checks and balances are there on the congress?

I mean, obviously by your interpretation commander in chief just means "guy that asks congress what to do," so the military is clearly not a part of the executive branch and cannot reject any congressional decision.

Laws passed by Congress can also be vetoed by the president. If you've read the federalist papers, you'd also know that the founding fathers considered that the legislative branch should be the strongest in any republic. Except maybe Alexander Hamilton who preferred a stronger executive branch.

[Plow]

past historical adoption of the War Powers act

In a nutshell: nobody gives a fuck. It's a blatantly illegitimate power grab by congress that no president has ever acknowledged following, only stated that their course of action has matched up with it.

[Kuya]

Just so I have past historical adoption of the War Powers act straight - did congress vote to approve military action in Pakistan? Yemen? Somalia? Kosovo?

Clinton's argument was that Kosovo was authorized when Congress appropriated funds for the war. Air trikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia are argued to be authorized by Congress because of a anti-terrorism law that authorizes the president to fight Al Qaeda wherever it may be. That's why the justification for attacks in these countries is that Al Qaeda is there, no matter how spurious the claim might be.

[archibaldcrane]

It sounds like Clinton followed it in regards to Kosovo (persuading Congress for a funding vote within 60 days), or am I misreading that above?

[Plow]

Laws passed by Congress can also be vetoed by the president. If you've read the federalist papers, you'd also know that the founding fathers considered that the legislative branch should be the strongest in any republic. Except maybe Alexander Hamilton who preferred a stronger executive branch.

Right. The veto can be ignored by a strong enough agreement in congress (see: the war powers resolution).

So if the president's veto doesn't actually stop anything, where is the check/balance against the congress?

[archibaldcrane]

Clinton's argument was that Kosovo was authorized when Congress appropriated funds for the war. Air trikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia are argued to be authorized by Congress because of a anti-terrorism law that authorizes the president to fight Al Qaeda wherever it may be. That's why the justification for attacks in these countries is that Al Qaeda is there, no matter how spurious the claim might be.

Ok, so it's not 100% clear that he's in violation, if the US has some interest in Al Queda activity in Libya? This is being argued by...someone?