Obama admin lets deadline for congressional approval to continue libyan action to pass unnoted...

and the war goes on.


The Obama administration has allowed a 60-day legal deadline for obtaining congressional approval for the US war against Libya to expire without taking any action. The deadline passed on Friday, May 20, with barely any notice taken in the American media or in official political circles.
The War Powers Act was passed by Congress in 1973, amidst the debacle of the Vietnam War, overriding the veto of Richard Nixon. Its purpose was to prevent future presidents from waging open-ended undeclared wars with little or no accountability to the legislature, which under the US Constitution has the exclusive power to declare war.

It gives the president the right to use military force at his discretion for up to 60 days—itself a huge extension of presidential power—but requires withdrawal after a total of 90 days if Congress does not vote to approve the military action.

Six Republican senators sent a letter May 18 to Obama, citing the upcoming 60-day deadline: “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. As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.”

Obama responded with a letter to the top Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, inviting them to support a congressional resolution to authorize the ongoing war against Libya, but not acknowledging that the War Powers Act was relevant to the conflict. In fact, the letter makes no mention of the 1973 law.

Instead, Obama constructs an argument that downplays the US role: “By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role...” These are blatant sophistries, especially given the fact that a US officer, Admiral James Stavridis, serves as the NATO commander... Moreover, on March 21, after ordering the first attacks on Libya, Obama sent a letter to Congress notifying it officially of the military engagement, “as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution...”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m24.shtml

Just like the others.

Action is dying down in Iraq, so apparently the MIC wants another war ready to crank up on a moment's notice. And this administration willingly complies.

K&R

Especially since a Democrat started sitting in the Oval Office.

Last Friday, the 60th day, and explained that there is NO WAR dammit.



Why is it so hard to understand non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/africa/21libya-text.html

People are being shot down by those Washington bullets again. . .
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNdy2z23kIw>

You can call it "non-kinetic support" you can call it whatever you want, the fact of the matter is that American soldiers are firing American weapons at foreign citizens inside their own borders. That is, by any definition, a war.

another country. You've got 'search and rescue', what is that?? If we have no one on the ground there who do we need to be searching for and rescuing?

If someone was sending drones into this country and had the equivalent of the CIA and most likely mercenaries, Blackwater eg, operating here, we would consider those actions to be acts of war against this country.

We have Blackwater in Pakistan, the UAE helping with the Drone killings of innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why is this not out in the open? The US taxpayer is paying for these murderous thugs, led by Christian Crusader Erik Prince. When did this country decide that we would have a private army of mercenaries?

when one's house is being bombed to shit.

snip:Members of Congress have just failed to meet their constitutional obligations," says former Oklahoma Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards, now with The Constitution Project, a legal advocacy group. For Edwards, there's no question the ongoing Libya intervention requires congressional approval.

"This is something that requires the American people through their Congress to say we believe our national security interests require we do this and we approve," he argues. "If the Congress does not approve, it is an unconstitutional reach of power by the president."

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/20/136507004/despite-war-powers-deadline-congress-fails-to-act?ft=3&f=1003,1004,1007,1013,1014,1017,1019,1128

The President does NOT have carte blanche to gallivant around an wage war for a free-trial period of 60 days. The President's Constitutional Powers are specifically limited in this Resolution to only be able to introduce forces after 1) A Declaration of War, 2) Congressional Authorization via a vote of both Houses or 3) if we're ATTACKED.

The abuses of the various Presidents--although many were respectful of the law--has instilled in our minds an ever looser Congressional dominance of the decision to take action. Bullshit statements of something being smaller that that which would require Congressional authorization and misinformation about "imminent" danger, coupled with the often flagrant disregard by our various executives has resulted in a creeping erosion of the understanding of the law.

The President may not do a fucking thing to introduce armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent unless Congress says so or we're attacked. Period, full fucking stop, the end.

Here's the law, which is as beautifully crafted and honorable a law as their ever was, relying on the necessary and proper clause to allow it to be enacted.

War Powers Resolution

It's horrendous how many grotesque errors are printed by venerable establishments.

Here's the crux of the problem: if one allows the encroachment of illegal acts to be accepted, they will be used as precedent; it's much like the pernicious undermining used by religion, whereby "little" things like saying "In God We Trust" are used to then justify creeping theocracy.

Here's the text of the law. It's quite obvious: the 60 days are a strict timetable enforced on the President by Congress AFTER actions have been initiated legally. Unless Congress Declares War or Authorizes some action, the President may NOT DO A DAMNED THING UNTIL WE ARE ATTACKED.

requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

..Yesterday, former Congressmen Mickey Edwards and David Skaggs, supported by a number of constitutional scholars, wrote to President Obama arguing that “he Constitution requires the President to obtain the authorization of Congress prior to initiating the use of force abroad except for a limited range of defensive purposes. None of these purposes was present in the reasons you gave for your unilateral determination to use force in Libya.” They encouraged Obama to seek explicit congressional authority for his operations in Libya.



snip* In Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote that each branch “should have a will of its own,” each must possess “the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” That means that the responsibility rests with Congress to assert its war-making prerogatives. Failing to do so, it effectively solidifies the unilateral war-making power of the Executive. Mark this date: on May 19, 2011, Congress blinked.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/05/hbc-90008099