• 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!

Obama overrode top lawyers on Libya policy

G

Gargantuan

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp

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.
Click to expand...

That's going to be good fodder for the GOP when they attempt to go after him for violating the WPA.
 
Come Monday if he doesn't change his mind, I won't be surprised if impeachment talks grow.
 
Yup... the article says he only had the support of the White House Counsel (that's the same office that said torture was OK) and the State Department Counsel, which is probably considered not related to this incident.
 
Gargantuan said:
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.

That's going to be good fodder for the GOP when they attempt to go after him for violating the WPA.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't see this report. There is going to be a court case and this doesn't look good for Obama
 
I read the article in the OP yesterday and my initial reactions was, "WTF?". Then I thought about it and can understand where the President is coming from although I believe his interpretation is wrong. But for the sake of argument, the following analysis of the President's decision may shed some light on his point of view, specifically:

The Administration argues that once it starts firing missiles from drones it is no longer in “hostilities” because U.S. troops suffer no danger of return fire and no danger of casualties, and (in contrast to ground troops) drones can easily be removed from the fight if Congress so decides. (Note that this argument implies that the President can wage aggressive war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolution’s time limits. So the implications here, in a world of increasingly remote weapons, are large.)
Click to expand...

Of course, the counter-argument to the above is what immediately follows the above statement:

One difficulty in assessing the argument is that the WPR does not define “hostilities.” But common sense suggests that firing missiles from drones that kill people over an extended period of time pursuant to a U.N.-authorized use of force constitutes “hostilities.” So too do standard definitions of the term “hostilities,” which refer to acts or states of warfare or violence or unfriendliness without reference to the vulnerability of the aggressor or the reciprocity of the fighting (though of course “hostilities” can refer to reciprocated fighting).
Click to expand...

So, those who consider "hostilities" to include any aggressive or violent action or activities where gunfire or any military armorment is exchanged between two warring factions would be correct. I support this view. However, what I found interesting from the House Resolution (H. Res. 292) that Speaker Boehnor supports was the wording from section 1, paragraph (3):

(3) The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
Click to expand...

The position the Congressional Resolution outlines here concerning the non-use of combat forces on the ground in Libya is exactly the sitution the President not only supports but has maintained since NATO took the lead in this military campaign. Therefore, I really don't see where the problem is here since both sides agree to the non-use of ground troops in this case.

My contention is very simple: If Congress truly believes the President is in violation of the WPA or the Constitution, all they have to do is say so and demand that the President withdraw from Libya from the air, sea and land. The mere fact that the resolution only restricts the use of ground forces and doesn't rescind the use of our Navy or Air Force tells me that Congress supports what the President is doing.
 
Last edited:
when mr boehner demanded the president explain his libya policy per the war powers act the chain smoking speaker also insisted the white house make public the position of the doj's office of legal counsel, caroline d krass

in the 32 page response which asserted wpa does not apply because, essentially, the united states military is not engaged in "hostilities" in north africa, the president omitted ms krass' conclusions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1

now we know why

obama is way out on a lonely limb in libya, increasingly isolated

days not weeks, anyone?

"limited war, sans "hostilities?"

nato, not us?

nation building?

party on, peaceniks
 
Gotta love Leno.

Well, several congressmen have filed a lawsuit against President Obama for getting us involved in Libya. They claim Obama got the U.S. in a Middle East war without authorization from Congress. To which Dick Cheney and Bush said, “You can get sued for that?”
Click to expand...
 
reid came out for obama---the president does not need congressional authorization for whatever the heck he's trying to accomplish in the air above tripoli

but the WHIP, senate #2, disagrees

ms pelosi is on record with reid and the prez

fyi

When it comes to the conflict in Libya, President Barack Obama has an ally in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Nevada Democrat on Friday broke with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat and backed the White House's position that Obama does not need congressional approval to continue U.S. military operations in the north African nation.

"The War Powers Act has no application to what's going on in Libya," Reid said Friday night during an appearance on PBS's "The NewsHour." "We did an authorization for Afghanistan; we did one for Iraq. But we have no troops on the ground there [in Libya], and this thing is going to be over before you know it anyway."
Click to expand...

in days, mr leader, or weeks?

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid's right-hand man, told reporters in Chicago: "Congress alone has the constitutional authority and responsibility to declare war."

But Reid said "what we're doing there is the right thing to do" and that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply to the U.S. military's supportive role in the NATO operation against Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, an argument the White House outlined in a 32-page report to Congress this week.

The majority leader has held discussions with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about a possible Senate resolution regarding Libya. But he didn't know if or when the legislation would be brought to the floor.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0611/Reid_backs_Obama_on_Libya_War_Powers_Act.html

maverick mccain might be the administration's most ardent advocate in this action, he's hardly met a war he didn't like

but the president's imperious dismissiveness has engendered what his hawkish homey calls a "wholesale congressional revolt"

do YOU see congress differently?

john f kerry can't, else he'd WRITE UP that resolution

bottom line---the white house is pretty much all alone in libya

but, hey, he's got the un

he's got nato, he's got reid and pelosi

party on, peaceniks

and pray for good results in obama's other war
 
Last edited:
BDBoop said:
Gotta love Leno.
Click to expand...


Joke doesn't really make any sense. But I don't doubt Leno got a good laugh from his audience from it.....:)




.
 
What's pathetic is that if Obama went to Congress with even half an explanation, he'd get approval. Yet, after his initial proclamation of "a matter of days, not weeks" it is apparent that Obama doesn't know WTF the mission is, or how we get it done.

Which would be his 2012 campaign acronym anyway. "WTF you can believe in".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom