Obama Says He Doesn't Need Congressional Approval to Go to War

[Dusty]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...nal-autho.html

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”

“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”

The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”

Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.”

[Pete]

Notice how quiet the left is........

The right is none too happy with Obama on Libya but has not revolted outright.

But the left - who would be screaming if a Republican did this - is grumbling here and there but little voiced outrage.

Don't see legions of Code Pinkers surrounding the White House - well, at least the MSN ain't focusing the nightly news on them.

[Paslode]

Well...some Tea Party Senators don't like it

May 18th, 2011
06:57 PM ET

Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline
mug.dana By: CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash

Washington (CNN) – As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.

"Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response," wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.

The letter was signed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

The GOP senators said they believe the president already violated part of the War Powers Act – which says the president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

But the president did follow the provision in the 1973 law requiring him to provide information to Congress about committing U.S. forces. Now the question is whether he will abide by the part of the War Powers Act which says he must get Congressional permission within 60 days.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Tuesday that he is "talking to the administration" about what exactly Congress and the White House might do to abide by that looming 60-day deadline Friday with regard to Libya.

"We want to make sure we're not stretching anything inappropriate. So we're looking at some language," Kerry said as he entered a weekly policy lunch in the Capitol with Democratic senators. "We're really looking at it very seriously to keep everyone on the same page."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a vocal advocate of U.S. military support for the Libyan rebels, has been in talks for weeks with Democrats and Republicans about a resolution backing the Libya mission – but perhaps something short of voting on a War Powers resolution. He said Tuesday that congressional leadership has not shown an "inclination" to vote on something.

McCain said he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional and therefore he doesn't believe the president needs congressional authorization to continue the mission.

"I've never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, either Republican or Democrat," McCain said.

But Sen. Rand Paul told CNN congress should not let any president get away with launching military action without congressional approval, and that he and his colleagues may go to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling on whether the president is in violation of the law.

"There is a law. It's on the books, and in plain reading of the War Powers Act, he appears to be in violation of the War Powers Act," said Paul.

Paul said they will also attempt to push "legislative remedies" on the Senate floor, but acknowledges that may be hard to accomplish since Democrats control the schedule.

"To me it's the most important debate we'll ever have up here. If we're going to send someone, your son or my son to war, its important that it be done properly, and its important that if there are constitutional restraints, we obey them," said Paul.

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...iref=allsearch

And some on the left are upset......

New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?
May 18, 2011

Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.

President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
Published on American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org)
Source URL: http://www.aclu.org/new-authorizatio...ar-without-end

http://www.aclu.org/print/new-author...ar-without-end

[Gypsy]

This guy is unbelievable.

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

This guy is unbelievable.

Which one, McCain or BHO?

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

Which one, McCain or BHO?

Mostly Obama but in reality both, and any one else who disagrees with the need for Congressional approval.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

Mostly Obama but in reality both, and any one else who disagrees with the need for Congressional approval.

I disagree. I believe a President does need to be able to deploy troops quickly to meet certain situations.

But we are now into our third month on this "situation" and no real explanation is coming from the administration - and other than the resolution - no real debate in congress.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Pete

I disagree. I believe a President does need to be able to deploy troops quickly to meet certain situations.

But we are now into our third month on this "situation" and no real explanation is coming from the administration - and other than the resolution - no real debate in congress.

Well, I see your point...and there instances when it is probably necessary. Problem is then, as you mentioned, there is no real explanation or debate. Considering how "transparent" this current administration is...well, it's a problem.

Does the need outweigh the rest?

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Regardless of a president's competency, the POTUS needs a fist to strike the face of offenders. The POTUS should not have cart blanche to commit the entire military to satisfy an issue.
The Army or Navy(Marines) should have several Regimental Combat Teams (BCTs) assigned to the POTUS's will.

He/She would have the ability to make quick correction internationally as sen fit. Follow on troops would be Congressionally approved.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Pete

I disagree. I believe a President does need to be able to deploy troops quickly to meet certain situations.

But we are now into our third month on this "situation" and no real explanation is coming from the administration - and other than the resolution - no real debate in congress.

I agree with Pete on this one.............

Big Teddy

[Hacksaw]

It's not a question of if POTUS can deploy troops, he can. However, the timeline remians the same, without congressional approval regardless of what degree of US military involvement he has 60 days to get permission to continue. More importantly, why are we stopping muslims from killing muslims again?

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

Which one, McCain or BHO?

Both, but McCain takes the cake for me and makes me really wonder if he shouldn't have made his residence in Hanoi. McCain is a disgrace, he doesn't agree with the War Powers Act so he won't work to enforce it and it appears that he and others are trying to side step it.

With misguided representation like McCain's the President isn't subject to checks and balances we might as well have a Monarch, Emporer or Dictator running the show. Which to a growing degree we do...it is why we have Obama Care, No Border control and a economy in the sewer.

[Hacksaw]

I agree, McCain is skipping without a rope and has for a very long time. Sadly, I think it was better that Barry got elected, can you imagine how much further to the left we'd be this next election cycle if McCain had been elected? I believe the term maverick is a nicer way of saying nutjob.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

I agree, McCain is skipping without a rope and has for a very long time. Sadly, I think it was better that Barry got elected, can you imagine how much further to the left we'd be this next election cycle if McCain had been elected? I believe the term maverick is a nicer way of saying nutjob.

Yeah, I'm glad I lay down my softail on the dirt road coming up the mountain last Tuesday. Can you imagine how fucked up it would be if I had have wrecked it on the highway?

[Paslode]

In what will come as a shock to the Tea Party and yet probably not rival the recent royal wedding in London for viewership, Republican Congressman Buck McKeon and Republican Senator John McCain plan to crown President Barack Obama King of America. They're not kidding, and this is no stunt.

Here's what noted Republican Abraham Lincoln once wrote on the subject:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't." The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

But what if you can create laws that violate the Constitution, and then obey those laws, the Constitution be damned? And what if being a Republican today means striving to expand presidential power as far as possible -- in fact beyond the power ever held by any king? And what if being a Democrat today means the very same thing?

Then you get something like H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and in particular Section 1034:

"Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities."


Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. This language would put into law the perilous policies now acted upon outside of the law. President Obama's war in Libya is absolutely unconstitutional, and nobody is about to do anything about that; so perhaps this doesn't matter. But with this language on the books, Obama and every future president would be able to legally, albeit unconstitutionally, justify launching any war at pleasure.

This new "legal" language would get presidents around the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution, which does not permit unauthorized wars when the United States has not been attacked, which requires the reporting of information to Congress that, in the case of Libya, has not been reported, and which only permits wars -- when it does permit wars -- for 60 days, a deadline that has now been reached in Libya. According to the War Powers Resolution:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

In addition:

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

In the case of Libya, Obama carefully avoided any consultation with Congress but took the time to consult with just about everybody else around the world.

The War Powers Resolution also requires that:

"[T]he President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth --
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement."


Obama's report to Congress on Libya fell short of A and B and did not even attempt C.

When it comes to the now-surpassed 60-day-limit, the law is clear:

"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, 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."


The War Powers Act, in allowing 60-day unconstitutional wars is itself, of course, a step back from the Constitution as its authors, most readers, and President Lincoln have understood it. The Constitution devotes Article I to bestowing the vast majority of governmental power on Congress, including here:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . . . To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

In tiny little Article II, the U.S. Constitution establishes the duties of the president:

"[H]e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

What else shall he do?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Let's go to constitutional scholar, Barack Hussein Obama for an explanation of this supreme law of the land:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -- candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007.

"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." -- candidate Barack Obama, August 1, 2007.


David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=24882