Obama claims he doesn't need the approval of Congress to continue the war in Libya. Congress sues.

Obama Says War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply to Libya Mission
White House maintains that the president doesn't need lawmakers' permission for U.S. role in NATO-led effort.
By Josh Voorhees
June 15, 2011

The White House on Wednesday told skeptical lawmakers that President Obama doesn’t need their permission to continue the nation’s involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya because U.S. forces are playing only a supporting role there.

Administration lawyers made their case as part of a larger report sent to Congress responding to complaints that the president had yet to provide a sufficient rationale for continuing the Libya campaign, the New York Times reports.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” State Department lawyer Harold Koh told the paper. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

The administration contends that U.S. forces have not been directly involved in “hostilities” since April 7, when NATO took over the effort to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya and to protect civilians there from Muammar Qaddafi’s government. At that time, the White House says, the United States moved to mainly a supporting role.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/15/war_powers_act_obama_tells_congress_he_doesn_t_need_its_permissi.html


------------------------------------------

Obama: Libya War Too Small to Count
— By Kevin Drum
June 15, 2011

Guess what? Unlike every other president since Richard Nixon, Barack Obama apparently thinks the War Powers Act is perfectly reasonable. He just doesn't think it happens to apply to Libya:

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer....“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

I guess this is progress of a sort. But it's always something, isn't it? We can fight a war in Libya because we're just a junior partner. We can fight a war in Yemen because it's sort of vaguely related to 9/11 if you squint hard enough. We can fight a war in Pakistan because it's right across the border from Afghanistan.

But to paraphrase a misquote of Everett Dirksen, a little fighting here and a little fighting there, and pretty soon you're talking about real war. Somehow, one way or another, American presidents just keep finding ways to get us into wars without bothering to get congressional approval. And Congress does nothing about it. It's almost as if they'd just as soon not have any responsibility for this stuff.


-------------------------------------------


Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:28 p.m.
Professor sues Obama administration over Libya involvement
by Cory Weinberg

Professor Jonathan Turley filed a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s involvement in Libya on behalf of 10 members of Congress Wednesday.

The lawsuits alleges President Barack Obama violated the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 by neglecting to seek congressional approval for the government’s involvement in the Libyan war mission.

Turley said Kucinich and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., approached him two months ago about taking legal action to rebuke the war mission.

“We have some of the most senior members from across the political spectrum who are united in the belief that the Constitution is being abrogated,” Turley said. “We’re not just challenging Libya. We’re challenging the underlying policies.”

http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/2011/06/15/professor-sues-obama-administration-over-libya-involvement/?hp


-------------------------------------------

NEWS RELEASE

10 Members of Congress Sue President Obama over Illegal Libya War
Bipartisan Group Challenges Policy That any President Can Take the U.S. to War Unilaterally
Washington, June 15, 2011

Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Walter Jones (R-NC) today led a bipartisan group of 10 Members of Congress to file a suit in federal court against President Barack Obama to challenge the commitment of the United States to war in Libya absent the required constitutional legal authority.

The lawsuit is signed by Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI) Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL) and Dan Burton (R-IN).

The questions raised in the lawsuit will be critical to challenge the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Kucinich.

The lawsuit calls for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from the (1) policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution; (2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress; (3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress; (4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries; and (5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=246711


-------------------------------------------

Read a copy of the lawsuit at:

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Libya_Complaint_Master.pdf

before (and abetting him), precedent was set that this type of behavior is acceptable. It is disgusting and I'm glad they filed the lawsuit.

we were against wars when republicans were in the oval office, but now we are gung ho.

:toast:


"we were against wars when republicans were in the oval office, but now we are gung ho."



Actually, there is no popular support for this war, despite all the propaganda.

Too bad so few public figures speak out against it.



US-NATO out of Libya, now! "Humanitarian intervention" :nuke: is the most ludicrous pretext (for purely imperialist aggression against a sovereign country); it is simply stunning that many liberals are duped by it.

I'm glad you aren't making any decisions for me or this Country.

in that you prefer US bombs to kill them...

I guess.

Don't drag the rest of us into your fantasy life, please.

NBC/WSJ had 56% of Americans for continuation until Gadhafi is gone.

:)

but I get hammered with then why does your boy continue and escalate these wars is he also war profiteering?

and a multilateral effort to rid a people of a murderous tyrant?

Because there is a big difference.

This was a real coalition. Completely unlike anything Bush ever considered.
That is why the GOP opposes what is usually their favorite pastime.
They want to be in complete control so they can plunder the occupied country.
If that is not a possibility, they see no point.

I say Obama had a broad coalition and they say Bush did too..

I say but France and Germany are onboard with Obama and I get slapped with the Oil For Food contracts that France had with Saddam got spoiled by Bush so that is why Chirac never supported him but France is losing money because of the Libyan Oil that is why they want Obama to help them.

I say Obama is not plundering and they say then why are we still there with Haliburton as lead contractor in charge? Is Obama bedded down with Cheney now? or was this never an issue?

I say its humanitarian and they say Bush said the same thing about Iraq and those poor women in Afghanistan being mutilated by the Taliban, is it really humanitarian?

War is war and is never Humanitarian, we cannot involve ourselves in the civil wars of other countries this is exactly the argument that we made against Bush regarding the Shia - Sunni civil war that erupted after we took out Saddam that was our theme stay out of other countries civil wars, remember we called it a Quagmire..... and here goes Obama jumping square into a Libyan Civil war and without even getting Congress to approve it...

At least he would have standing now I don't even know how to defend him.

Obama has not disengaged us from Afghanistan (escalated) nor Iraq (potentially there forever) what exactly did we make all that noise in 2005, 2006, 2007 for?

n/t

It is always murder, no matter how you want to frame it.

Maybe I'll believe we're bombing Libya to "get rid of a tyrant" when (1) Libya has no oil, (2) the rebels aren't infested with al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists, and (3) the rebels aren't planning on turning the clock back on women's rights.

That's the simple and shameful truth.

reserves.

Syria would not be for profit -- no oil or major mineral deposits. And that's why the West won't go there.

WAR FOR OIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can anyone defend it?

about the mass rape claim:

Posted by Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy.com at 10:30 am
June 14, 2011

Did Qaddafi Really Order Mass Rapes? Or is the West Falling Victim to a Viagra-strength Scam?

Is massive rape a tool of Qaddafi—or of war propagandists?

ARTICLE SUMMARY:

After all the other fake stories used to whip up public support for wars, you’d think we had learned something. Apparently not, judging from the media’s unquestioning spreading of claims that Qaddafi ordered Viagra-fueled rapes—claims that look dubious under even a little scrutiny.

Is Muammar Qaddafi trying to save his government—and his life—by encouraging mass rape? Does that make sense? Personally speaking, if I had the world already against me, and was hoping to retain whatever support I could among my own people, that would not be my preferred course of action.

It seems too crazy. Nevertheless, that’s the infamy of the day against Qaddafi.

As we reported in a lengthy analysis of the true purposes behind the NATO bombing campaign, efforts to rally world opinion behind removing Qaddafi from power have already included promotion of claims that Qaddafi personally ordered the Pan Am 103 bombing (no evidence has been made public), and that a woman was raped by militia backing Qaddafi (no evidence was made public—nor was there any claim that Qaddafi had been connected to it, yet the story was big news around the world.) Now, things are being ratcheted up, with the following claim that it’s not just one woman but hundreds –and that Qaddafi is personally behind this.

If true, this would of course make Qaddafi out to be even more of a monster than he is already perceived to be. It would likely play a tremendous role in persuading otherwise opposed members of the international public to support the NATO bombing campaign. And maybe even an overt expansion into what it actually is—a thinly disguised invasion/coup.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/06/14/did-qaddafi-really-order-mass-rapes-or-is-the-west-falling-victim-to-a-viagra-strength-scam/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

Now that I read Baker's analysis, it seems pretty obvious.

I'm humbled by my own gullibility. I really thought I was savvy enough to know better.

We can add this myth to a growing list that includes

The Maine
The Reichstag fire
The Gulf of Tonkin incident
Iraq babies being ripped from incubators
Jessica Lynch

.. and so many more.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

if you think this is humanitarian. In fact, your posts are Orwellian, which may be a sign that you have been brainwashed, willfully.

its all about Oil and Minerals and money
using our children for the military and our money to let a few men steal billions

the Greek people have the right idea

and all the other weapons used in this war am sorry I meant to say kinetic action cost the same amount regardless if its used for humanitarian purposes or imperialistic ones. Nice try buddy

seriously, could you imagine this much support on here for bush had he launched this war?

If Bush did this, this site would be unanimous, but like someone said people treat this like a sport. All I care about is if our team wins.

of totally screwing over your entire country in the process.

We open ourselves up to major criticism like I get daily from the Teahadists I work with...

Here's a SAMPLE -

Where are the war protestors at?

Are the Democrats really anti-war or were they just anti-Bush?

At least Bush got Democrats in congress to overwhelmingly support him in Iraq and Afghanistan what is this clowns problem?

Obama has zero leadership ability or he would have gotten Congress approval?

Three wars now... Oh wait four wars if you count Yemen, how many more wars can this failed one term President start?

What is it with the liberals do they only drop humanitarian bombs?

Obama is killing Africans, is this some kind of new liberal affirmative action plan?

Peace prize, what a joke !

War Criminal !


The real dillema is, I have no response. Maybe I get it worse because I was very vocally critical of Bush's ill conceived wars.

Then you would understand why the Repukes can't stand his action in Libya. It doesn't fit into their profiteering schemes.

That should be a giant clue to you that he is doing the right thing.

Though War should never be our goal,
if we have to use force to help others abroad, this is the way to do it. As a Group. Not all alone.

"if we have to use force to help others abroad, this is the way to do it. As a Group. Not all alone."

Even when it is done in violation of the Constitution of the United States and War Powers Act?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

plus it cancels a big fat Goldman Sachs debt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/31/goldman-sachs-libya-investment

ETA link

Force against another sovereign country, means this is a war. And if it's a war, certain procedures must be followed. President Obama can take unilateral action but only for a specified period of time and that time is going to be up in days.

That makes sense. If you don't like the War Powers Act.....ignore it. Maybe it can't be defined as "hostilities", if only people on the other side are dying. Nice.

are running out of munitions and are going to be pulling out soon.

It's essentially an American/British operation with some token support.

Not all that different than the invasion of Iraq.

If you don't think our action in Libya isn't profiteering and geopolitical strategy, you don't know much about American foreign policy. How convenient that it is smack in between two countries who just had revolutions, with one country having a quickly coalescing leftist movement. :eyes:

Was to be against attacking Libya in the first place... not here, though, I mainly lurk here. On HP (I know, I know...) I found myself arguing with a lot of "liberals" who were all for invading/attacking/not-at-warring in Libya for humanitarian reasons. Basically, it's been all of the reasons that we had to go after Saddam all over again. I asked why won't he go to congress if it's so important to get involved. Why? Because NATO and the UN said it was okay! All right, I countered, why do decisions by those bodies override the Constitution and the will of the people? If the nation was founded on a (somewhat loose) notion of self-governance as a moral obligation, then isn't a unilateral decision like this from one branch of government just reinforcing the Unitary Executive principle that we all just really, really hated a few years ago? The rebuttal is always something about how I want civilians to die (though in our other invasions, we've done a pretty bang-up job of killing civilians ourselves) or something.

The whole thing is morally dicey at best and it was the wrong decision then, it remains the wrong decision now, and at the very least I'd like some congressional approval of it. I know they'd probably thumb up the thing, but I'd at least like to see them pretend to give a crap about what we think.

I mean its not like I want him to be corrupted by the Neo-Cons but reality is reality...

????

because it was gods plan for them, and suffering brought them closer to christ?

It was LBJ's downfall, and I really did love LBJ for his domestic policies.

How sad this all is.:-( What a waste.

To Dennis Kucinich. DK has been one of the only principled Democrats in Congress willing to stand up and fight for what he believes talk about non-partisan and a true leader.... Is it too late to run a primary challenge?

I'm thinking it'll be bounced from the courts for lack of standing or jurisdiction.

Courts really, *really* don't like meddling with separation of powers crap unless it's their powers they're keeping separate from others' meddling.

...statute.

The cost of the U.S. campaign in Libya is set to exceed the $750 million Pentagon estimate set out in March, according to a leaked Department of Defence Memo.
The 'eyes-only' DoD dossier said the U.S. had already spent $664 million in Libya by mid-May - a running cost of $60 million a month since the bombing began in March

At the current rate of spending, the U.S. will have to shell out at least an extra $274 million till the end of the current 90 day no fly zone extension period - brining total expenditure to a minimum of $938 million.

The news came as donors pledged more than $1.3 billion dollars to help support Libya's main opposition group, after countries backing NATO's military mission there met to prepare for the post-Moammar Gadhafi era.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001778/Libya-war-costs-US-taxpayers-2m-day-Gaddafi.html#ixzz1PQHHiExm






Costs of Libyan war now 50 percent higher than projected




As the US economic recovery remains fragile and with reports emerging of US air strikes increasing in Yemen, a Pentagon memo revealed that the costs of the war in Libya have skyrocketed.
In a Pentagon memo obtained by the Financial Times, US military operations in the Libyan civil war are said to cost hundreds of millions more than was originally stated publicly in March.
The March figures on the Libyan war investment released by the Department of Defense put the costs at roughly $40 million a month, but the new figures that have been circulating through both congressional chambers put the war's cost at $60 million a month, according to the Financial Times report issued on Thursday.
The revelation of a 50 percent increase in the US military's Libyan operations presents another challenge for the Obama


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307805#ixzz1PQHxHXPW

...AMERICAN president that is telling us.

In case there was any doubt, I am speaking sarcastically.

three traitorous DINOs joined 7 repukes in suing the President in a publicity stunt that will only waste tax payer's money

I understand that DK is being a principled peace activist but here's my question: WHERE THE FUCK WAS THIS CAT WHEN BUSH STARTED HIS WARS?!! I know Kuicinch voted against both wars and was a vocal critic, but he didn't file a law suit against the sitting President!!! And the Republican co-sponsoring an antiwar action?! This is the same Tea Party led GOP that wants to make Islam a crime and favor giant walls on our southern border. Something seems a little fishy.

Personally I think that the Tea Party are using this to throw some dirt on Obama are see Dennis Kuicinich and other anti-war Lefties as a willing patsies to attack their own President and party. Yes, the peace movement should stand against these wars, but don't get played for chumps. Understand the smoke and mirrors of politics so you're not screwing yourself in the end.

You the Tea Party or John Boehner of all people give a shit about piece in the Middle East? Yes, there a few Ron Paul types in Congress, but they're not the bulk of the GOP. This isn't about the War Resolution, this is about a bunch of GOP hacks using real concerns about war to weaken Obama in the 2012 election - who at this point will probably mop the floor with whatever fool the nominate.

Clearly you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and are indeed Very Confused. Stick around a learn a thing or two. :eyes:

:eyes:

War is defined in the dictionary. Has nothing to do with whether boots are on the ground or not. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was act of war, no Japanese boots were on the ground.

The excuse that this is expected to be short term humanitarian effort is shameful. Look at Iraq! They were to greet us as liberators, the war was to last several days, several weeks, definitely not more than several months.

have done exactly what President Obama has done, including the Korean war?

when it comes to military actions. O is no differant :shrug:

2011: everyone else does it!

My cynicism with this President just continues to grow. We really would appreciate his help here in Wisconsin in a fight against a home grown tin horn dictator.

President Obama has taken the same actions that Presidents before him have done over 100 times, including the Korean war

War has never solved a problem just created more and just because other crazies have engaged in it is absolutely no justification for this President to do the same!

Or did you mean the Constitution has been violated by other Presidents so that makes any violation by President Obama OK?

No, the proper question is when is O going to stop acting like a "unilateral executive" when it comes to military actions. The proper follow-up question is when are Democrats going to say enough is enough -- the "D" after your name does NOT give you a free pass to wage war(s) any way you see fit.

Apparently, Nixon was simply ahead of his time...

You must be "very confused" about how a democracy is supposed to work.

:crazy: Now THAT is one very confused individual.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 15, 2011

War Powers Experts Say Lawsuit Filed Against the Obama Administration is Right on the Merits

WASHINGTON - June 15 - Today, former Members of Congress and Co-Chairs of The Constitution Project (TCP) War Powers Committee David Skaggs (D-CO) and Mickey Edwards (R-OK), as well as TCP War Powers Committee member and renowned war powers scholar Louis Fisher, released a statement in response to the news that a bipartisan group of lawmakers had filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration for violating the War Powers Resolution by undertaking military action in Libya without congressional approval.

Their statement follows:

"The complaint filed against the president today by several members of the House is exactly right on the merits. The ongoing U. S. military action in Libya is unconstitutional as a violation of the authority granted to Congress in Article I section 8 to decide when this country can initiate the use of force abroad. The lawsuit is also correct in claiming the President has violated the War Powers Resolution - the statute that requires a President who has already acted unilaterally to get approval from Congress for a military action to last longer than 60 days. The complaint is also right to point out that neither the U. N. nor NATO can provide a substitute for congressional authorization for war. Unfortunately, the lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed on procedural grounds. In the past, courts have decided that they will not hear claims like this from aggrieved Members of Congress."

In its 2005 report entitled Deciding to Use Force Abroad: War Powers in a System of Checks and Balances, The Constitution Project's War Powers Committee recommended improvements to war powers decision-making designed to restore the proper roles of all three branches of government.

###
The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established in 1997 to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at http://constitutionproject.org/.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/15-11

The President is destroying his legacy, it seems, to cover-up for Hillary's bad judgment on the course of the Libyan intervention.

If this was not a strategic cover-up of the inability to truthfully justify the action, then they would have just had the required consultations with congress and avoided the impression that they are skirting the law.

Apparently that is what we have here.

Junior Bush.

anything else you are wrong.

in Libya and not about the protection of the protestors?? You're so cynical!!!

Edited to say that of course my post is sarcastic. Unfortunately, I just finished reading a thread on GD that is full of people who would probably cosign that ridiculous statement above.

can defund any war any time it chooses.

... it makes more sense now

about some core issues!

east.

so we can be in a 'supporting role'? Like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? Or the South Vietnamese government in Vietnam?

Man, fuck this bullshit.

Obama or Bush, the President's prerogative to wage war needs to be checked.

Obama just wanted access to the same executive powers we all opposed when Bush usurped them.

Meet the new boss...

this is not a unilateral action, and has UN backing. The purpose of this mission is much more clear than Iraq, says this veteran.

So lets withdraw from NATO, and take our billions in aid with us. Isnt that what we all stand for? Lets not be members of the global community. Lets not help the populations have a fair fight against their dictators. Sure.

I would much rather be pulled from home and sent on this mission, than spend another minute in Iraq, or be sent to afghanistan.

The president can also deploy our military for some time, and maybe that has expired, without Congressional approval.

We've also fought a few "wars" that were "police actions", and never had war declared.

Odds are, only 1% of you are as strongly antiwar than am I. Because I lived it. Having lived it, I also know that reality isnt as nice and clean as 99% of you think. I would actually like to see more of these actions, and less full on invasions.

SGT PASTO

Read this. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17486

And while it is absolutely true that Presidents have violated the Constitution by not obtaining a declaration of war by Congress, I don't think President Obama should join that group.

Don't you agree?

"good Democrats" should be selectively blind and turn off their brains when it comes to considering the motivations for war.

Obama Asserts Sweeping Executive Powers in Libya War Powers Justification
By: David Dayen
June 16, 2011

The timeline goes like this. The House passed a resolution forcing the President to write a term paper justifying the military operation in Libya. The Administration didn’t seem too keen about actually getting that done. John Boehner said, weeks after asserting that the Administration had passed the war powers test, that they would be in violation of the War Powers Act by the weekend, at the 90-day mark of the operation (the War Powers Act has a 60-day deadline for Congressional authorization, so why 90 days has anything to do with it is unclear). At the same time, 10 members of Congress sued the Administration for breaching the Constitution by going to war unilaterally without the consent of Congress.

Then, all of a sudden, the President sent a letter to Congress, as well as a 30-page report and a legal analysis, justifying the US role in the conflict. In essence, the White House’s argument is that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply.

This is an asinine argument. NATO is fighting a war with close air support over Libya. The US is involved, in part by dominating NATO, and in part by actually using US assets in the fight. They’ve spent $715 million so far and expect to spend $1.1 billion by the end of September. This must be expressly authorized by Congress. The idea that the war is safe, or doesn’t threaten casualties, has no bearing on what branch of the government can intervene in a military operation. The President’s own letter says that “U.S. support for the NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians and civilian populated areas from the actions of the Qadhafi regime, and to address the threat to international peace and security posed by the crisis in Libya.” You cannot say that and then also say that the US has no military role.

It remains to be seen if the House GOP leadership will actually do anything about this; the Administration’s arguments aside, the only way anything changes is through some actual enforcement. My tendency is to think that Congress will shrink from this Constitutional crisis, because they don’t want to have any role in matters of war. The court case from Kucinich and his colleagues is a long shot, but probably the only hope.

Read the full article at:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/06/16/obama-asserts-sweeping-executive-powers-in-libya-war-powers-justification/

:kick:

... It's a straight shot through the Straits of Gibraltar to the East Coast refineries... Ah, Libyan sweet crude. None better.

claims that since its a limited supporting role that the war powers act doesnt apply.

republicans and dems when in office fear doing anything that might be used against them later on as being unpatriotic towards the troops by not supporting them.

Though Congress, I feel, doesn't have the stomach for either.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/obama-is-wrong-about-congress-and-libya/240590

Let's move past the technicalities: that this is not "really" a war, since we have not sent troops into battle and are supporting the air campaign via NATO; that the War Powers act might not exactly fit these circumstances; that many of the Republicans now saying the War Powers act must be observed link:blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/in-war-powers-act-debate-obama-and-boehner-throw-past-quotes-at-one-another-revealing-inconsistencie.html|were against it] in other times; and so on. For purposes of argument, let's grant every one of those points. Let's assume that you could make a courtroom case that Obama has violated neither the Constitution nor the War Powers act in what is now a three-month-old military campaign in a foreign country. (For a strong and detailed contrary argument, see this.)

None of those remove the problem, which is not about technicalities. The central concern, and the major threat to our politics, is that once again we are going to war essentially on one person's say-so. Yes, that person is the Commander in Chief; yes, he is committing force for what he considers to be good and prudent reasons; and yes, there are modern circumstances in which a President must be free to act first and consult later.

But after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him. If the Libyan campaign ultimately "goes well," he will not in any way lessen his own political and historic credit by having involved the Congress. If it goes poorly, he will be politically safer if this is not just his own judgment-call war. More important, in either case he will have helped the country if his conduct restores rather than further weakens the concept that a multi-branch Constitutional republic must share the responsibility to commit force. We can only imagine the eloquence with which a Candidate Obama would be making this exact case were he not in the White House now.

Obama and his lawyers can persist with their sophistic conceit that they don't "need" to involve the Congress. That may be smart, but it is not wise. Obama the historian and leader must understand that in the broadest political and moral sense he and the country need fuller involvement in decisions on war and peace.

with Fallows opinion.