• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Power outage: Libya war shows limits of War Powers Act

In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then.

Umm... they had congressional approval prior to military action.


And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.
(bold mine)

Someone clarify, please. I presume one of the acts is the WPA.

The congressional resolution was approving the use of the WPA as appropriate? If so, that doesn't mean "until..."; it means until 90 days, lacking further approval/authorization within 60 days from the resolution. He had to provide further explanation, and get authorization from congress, within 60 days, to get more than 90. He does not get more than 90, any way shape or form, at this point (under the WPA). He is, however, still required to submit explanation to congress (I believe before the 90 day period), even though he waved the opportunity to extend the WPA resolution within 60 days.

It's thursday here. He's got 3 days to remove Gaddafi (making it a different mission, and restarting the 'paperwork'), give the gear to NATO or withdraw it. If none of those happen by Monday morning, impeachment proceedings will begin. In which case, I hope he's got an Oliver North.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm,

See my post #87 as well as this blog entry. It explains how the United Nations Participatory Act (UNPA) applies here.

Misterveritis,

Then let it come. It's within Congress' power to compel the President to withdraw military forces. I'd have no problem with that whatsoever.

One last thing (for today anyway) on this whole Libya constitutional/unconstitutional/WPA violation debate, I think this CNN article (partially provided below) kind of puts the debate in it's proper perspective. Notice how the White House responds...

Such political wrangling over war powers is common in Washington, with presidents frequently seeking to expand their freedom to commit U.S. forces and Congress battling to exert influence on the process.

Boehner's letter said that, in this case, "the ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your administration."

With his letter, Boehner raised the stakes on an issue that could prove politically embarrassing to Obama, with increasing numbers of Republicans and Democrats opposing the Libya mission.

Vietor said late Tuesday that the White House information would probably be delivered to members of Congress on Wednesday.

"We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya, including those raised in the House resolution as well as our legal analysis with regard to the War Powers Resolution," he said.

Since March 1, administration witnesses have testified at more than 10 hearings that included a "substantial discussion of Libya" and participated in more than 30 member or staff briefings on the matter, according to Vietor.

In announcing the mission in March, Obama said U.S. forces would take the early lead in establishing a "no-fly" zone over the country to enforce a U.N. resolution calling for the protection of Libyan civilians from forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The U.S. forces eventually assumed a supporting role as NATO took over the mission.

Congressional opponents of the mission say that its objective of civilian protection fails to match the stated U.S. goal of Gadhafi's resignation or ouster and that the Libya situation could become a stalemate.

The White House says incremental progress is occurring through increasing diplomatic, political and military pressure on Gadhafi to step down.

In a coincidence of scheduling, Obama and Boehner are set to play golf together for the first time Saturday, a day after Boehner's deadline for information from the administration and the day before he says it could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.
 
Last edited:
Qaddafi Coddled by U.S. Oil Companies Whose Hearts Are Where The Money Is - Bloomberg

"U.S. oil producers nonetheless rallied on behalf of Qaddafi, according to formerly secret State Department cables published this year by WikiLeaks and lobbying records. The six U.S. oil companies, including Occidental, and two U.S. units of foreign companies doing business in Libya, boosted lobbying expenditures 63 percent to $75.8 million in 2008, when they were pursuing the waiver for Libya, filings show.

Congress voted in July 2008 to spare Libya from the terrorism measure in exchange for its promise to create a fund for victims. The companies’ wooing of U.S. lawmakers and officials seemed to have paid off. "


obama and congress is doing pretty much what he and his predecessor were told to do by those that own them..
 
ecofarm,

See my post #87 as well as this blog entry. It explains how the United Nations Participatory Act (UNPA) applies here.

I looked at #87.

bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution

This simply refers the UN Resolution to the WPA (or joint resolution/declaration of war) and is why congress approved the use of the WPA, almost 90 days ago. Right?
 
This simply refers the UN Resolution to the WPA (or joint resolution/declaration of war) and is why congress approved the use of the WPA, almost 90 days ago. Right?

From my interpretation of both that section of the UNPA and the WPA, I'd have to say yes.
 
Translation: You got nothin' on this issue except platitudes and political rhetoric. NEXT!!!

I bring to the reader's attention posts #428 and #429 from the thread. The combined commentary from those posts along with that of my post #71 in this thread should put an end to this nonsense.

The President has not violated the War Powers Act nor the Constitution in any way. What we're seeing from members of Congress equates to political posturing, nothing more.

From your own link...

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution

I supposed the bolded part escaped your attention.

Furthermore, the WPA came afterward and if there are any contradictory provisions, the more recent law supercedes it. As the WPA supercedes and required the president to gain approval, the President is indeed in violation of the law (or at least will be on Sunday)
 
In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then. And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.

Because both Iraq actions were authorized by Congress...
 
Because both Iraq actions were authorized by Congress...

Weaker on international law. However, still short of a declartion of war. Time to end the useless WPA and move to having congress declare war.
 
Weaker on international law. However, still short of a declartion of war. Time to end the useless WPA and move to having congress declare war.

Or at least change the WPA. I believe it is ok for the President to have some leeway on the use of the armed forces in cases of national emergency, which a re-tweaked WPA should still do.

International law does not matter in the current discussion, it is U.S. law. The WPA gives the president the authority to use military forces for a short period of time and a longer period of time is Congress approves. Congress approved in both cases with Iraq and with Afghanistan. Congress has NOT given approval for Libya. That is the legal difference from the purpose of U.S. law.

All four conflicts are legal from an international perspective, but as of Sunday, the Libya one will become ILLEGAL from a U.S. perspective.
 
the president's legal reasoning, per bauer and koh:

1. whatever it is we're doing over in libya "does not amount to full blown 'hostilities' at the level necessary to involve the section of the wpa that imposes the deadline"

2. whatever it is we're doing over there, white house counsel explains, we're NOT doing, nato is: "american forces have not been in 'hostilities' at least since april 7"

3. "united states forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no american troops on the ground and libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with america forces"

4. "there was little risk of the military mission escalating because it is constrained by the un resolution"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=1

look, it's obama's war, he's president, he can do what he wants

but are you sure he's NOT an idiot?

party on, peaceniks
 
Last edited:
Or at least change the WPA. I believe it is ok for the President to have some leeway on the use of the armed forces in cases of national emergency, which a re-tweaked WPA should still do.

International law does not matter in the current discussion, it is U.S. law. The WPA gives the president the authority to use military forces for a short period of time and a longer period of time is Congress approves. Congress approved in both cases with Iraq and with Afghanistan. Congress has NOT given approval for Libya. That is the legal difference from the purpose of U.S. law.

All four conflicts are legal from an international perspective, but as of Sunday, the Libya one will become ILLEGAL from a U.S. perspective.

I don't think we disagree much, but if you bring in Bush as a comparison, you have to mention international law. And, no, Iraq was not legal from an international sand point.

However, I don't think congress has beening doing it's job, especially with Bush. Simply allowing the president to decide is shirking responsibility, making them little more than an after thought. They have been charged with responsibility and should step up. If this congress thinks the WPA means anything, they shold treat it like it does.
 
I don't think we disagree much, but if you bring in Bush as a comparison, you have to mention international law. And, no, Iraq was not legal from an international sand point.

However, I don't think congress has beening doing it's job, especially with Bush. Simply allowing the president to decide is shirking responsibility, making them little more than an after thought. They have been charged with responsibility and should step up. If this congress thinks the WPA means anything, they shold treat it like it does.

Iraq was legal according to the letter of international law, even is many beg to differ. And it was also legal according to US law as it was authorized by Congress.

According to international law, the current mission skirts on legality, but it seems to certainly be legal. However, as of Sunday, it will NOT be legal according to U.S. law.

Yeah, I think we agree about 90% on this, however...
 
3. "united states forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no american troops on the ground and libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with america forces"
Yep, don't sound like a war to me, or even a conflict, or a squabble.

look, it's obama's war, he's president, he can do what he wants

but are you sure he's NOT an idiot?

party on, peaceniks

Obviously it is not a war by definition, right? So how can it be Obama's "War?" IF it is not a "War," Then you are an idiot? Yes? :)
 
Iraq was legal according to the letter of international law, even is many beg to differ. And it was also legal according to US law as it was authorized by Congress.

LETS see the proof of your assertions. Like they say in Cal, white breasts have never seen the sun.

According to international law, the current mission skirts on legality, but it seems to certainly be legal. However, as of Sunday, it will NOT be legal according to U.S. law.

Yeah, I think we agree about 90% on this, however...

Once again, you got the tan, show it dude. Where is your law and proof of your assertions??
 
As the WPA supercedes and required the president to gain approval, the President is indeed in violation of the law (or at least will be on Sunday)

He is not in violation of law until Monday, right? If Gaddafi is removed or Obama transfers/withdraws before Monday, he's good. I don't see why he's getting his homework in at the last minute, this late in his academic career. Then again, I procrastinate/screw-around plenty. He's really creating a stir though... 3 days until possible impeachment hearings that will stick.

I wonder which of the three options he's going to go with. If he targets and pops Gaddafi, I'll crap.
 
Last edited:
Once again, you got the tan, show it dude. Where is your law and proof of your assertions??

Read the relevant UNSC resolutions... this has been debated ad infintum in this forum... the UNSC resolutions going back nearly two decades clearly give the authority to use force...
 
He is not in violation of law until Monday, right? If Gaddafi is removed or Obama transfers/withdraws before Monday, he's good. I don't see why he's getting his homework in at the last minute, this late in his academic career. Then again, I procrastinate/screw-around plenty. He's really creating a stir though... 3 days until possible impeachment hearings that will stick.

I wonder which of the three options he's going to go with. If he targets and pops Gaddafi, I'll crap.

Well, I would love it if he lifted Carter's executive order to target foreign leaders. I would dance if Khaddafy were to assume room temperature...
 
So, within the one term president Obama's thinking is his splendid little war a war of choice or a war of necessity?



 
...the WPA came afterward and if there are any contradictory provisions, the more recent law supercedes it. As the WPA supercedes and required the president to gain approval, the President is indeed in violation of the law (or at least will be on Sunday)

Weaker on international law. However, still short of a declartion of war. Time to end the useless WPA and move to having congress declare war.

The matter of declaring war -vs- armed conflict isn't so cut-N-dry as many people may think. Read the two linked articles below then consider how the Libya conflict squares with both Congress' war power and international law(s) because both are relevent.

Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

[URL="http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war.html]Declaration of war[/URL]
 
The matter of declaring war -vs- armed conflict isn't so cut-N-dry as many people may think. Read the two linked articles below then consider how the Libya conflict squares with both Congress' war power and international law(s) because both are relevent.

Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

[URL="http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war.html]Declaration of war[/URL]

Both links are, in reality, pretty simplistic. However, it doesn't change the fact that President Obama's powers as commander in chief of the United States armed forces is governed by the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed by Congress, and not by international law.
 
Both links are, in reality, pretty simplistic. However, it doesn't change the fact that President Obama's powers as commander in chief of the United States armed forces is governed by the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed by Congress, and not by international law.

But we're not exempt from international law, or more specifically from the agreements we made and signed and ratified through congress.
 
Iraq was legal according to the letter of international law, even is many beg to differ. And it was also legal according to US law as it was authorized by Congress.

According to international law, the current mission skirts on legality, but it seems to certainly be legal. However, as of Sunday, it will NOT be legal according to U.S. law.

Yeah, I think we agree about 90% on this, however...

No it really was not according to international law. By our agreements would could only invade with the consent of the security council or if faced with an imminent threat. Neither condition existed. We broke our agreement.
 
Back
Top Bottom