...the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.Now, the New York Times reports that this legal opinion was reached by rejecting the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department. It is instructive to compare President Obama's actions with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The overwhelming majority of strike sorties are now beingposted by ennui.bz at 8:46 AM on June 20, 2011 [6 favorites]
flown by our European allies while American strikes are
limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and
occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a
specific set of targets, all within the UN authorization,
in order to minimize collateral damage in urban areas.
That George Bush would knowingly order an eavesdropping program to continue which his own top lawyers were telling him was illegal was, of course, a major controversy, at least in many progressive circles. Now we have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping in a way that his own top lawyers are telling him is illegal, but waging war in that manner...posted by Trurl at 8:53 AM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
There's another significant and telling parallel between Obama's illegal war and the Bush eavesdropping scandal. One of the questions frequently asked about the NSA scandal was why Bush and Cheney decided to eavesdrop in violation of the law rather than having Congress approve their program; in the wake of 9/11, both parties in Congress were as subservient as could be, and would have offered zero resistance to requests by the administration for increased eavesdropping powers (the same question was asked of Bush's refusal to seek Congressional approval for the detention and military commissions regime at Guantanamo). The answer to that question ultimately became clear: they did not want to seek Congressional approval, even though they easily could have obtained it, because they wanted to establish the "principle" that the President is omnipotent in these areas and needs nobody's permission (neither from Congress nor the courts) to do what the President wants.
When Qaddafi aides demanded payment for the Lockerbie settlement from oil companies operating in Libya, a State Department cable in February 2009 reported, industry executives had indicated ''that smaller operators and service companies might relent and pay.''posted by saulgoodman at 9:44 AM on June 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
Let’s be crystal clear as to what happened here: The Attorney General, Head of the Office of Legal Counsel and the General Counsel for the Pentagon/DOD all listened to Obama’s plan to flat out ignore the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), and the Article I power it represents, and they unanimously said it was untenable and illegal in the face of the War Powers Resolution.posted by Trurl at 1:01 PM on June 20, 2011
... the conduct we are discussing here is precisely the nature and type of which the Founders contemplated when adopting the separation of powers and impeachment provisions. Not to mention placing war making authority within the Article I scope of Congress.
By bypassing a careful set of procedures designed to produce careful legal opinions, George W. Bush was able to say that he was following the OLC, or at least a rump of the OLC. But he was effectively undermining the OLC's function as an honest broker of executive branch opinions. Obama also bypassed this same careful set of procedures by canvassing various lawyers until he found opinions he liked better than the OLC's. If one is disturbed by Bush's misuse of the process for vetting legal questions, one should be equally disturbed by Obama's irregular procedures.It's a recipe for presidential lawlessness on national security issues. We already saw with Bush how that works out...
Lest I be misunderstood, let me make clear that there is no single way that the Executive Branch has to be organized. The Constitution does not speak to it. George Washington consulted various cabinet members about the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States, finally settling on the views of his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton. But this was early in the nation's history, and long before the creation of the Justice Department following the Civil War and the creation of the OLC itself in the twentieth century.
Moreover, the practice of having the OLC serve as the canvasser of legal opinions from various parts of the executive branch, and the custom of treating the OLC's opinions-- reached after ample deliberation--as binding on the executive branch is not constitutionally required. The President may disregard the OLC without violating the Constitution.
However, there are good reasons why these practices and customs were implemented. They were designed to prevent Presidents from treating their lawyers like so many guests at a cocktail party that they can causally survey in order to pick out their friends. These procedures exist because there is almost always a prominent and skillful lawyer in the Administration who will tell the President pretty much what he wants to hear.
The OLC's procedures are designed to prevent precisely this sort of cherry picking. If the President can simply canvas the opinions of enough such lawyers he is not restrained very much by the law. Indeed, it is particularly relevant here that one of the lawyers who supported the President's position on Libya is the White House Counsel. The White House Counsel's office, as it has developed over time, is much closer to the political arm of the President's operations, and much much less likely ever to cross the President. White House Counsels who do not facilitate the President's political goals do not remain long as White House Counsels. Not surprisingly, the White House Counsel's office does not have the same academic or judicious traditions of the OLC. Whether or not one thinks that the OLC is likely to say yes to the President simply because it sits in the Justice Department, the White House Counsel's office is likely to be ten times more flexible.
Today, The New York Times describes the "growth market" for drones: ... "the Pentagon has asked Congress for nearly $5 billion for drones next year" -- that includes dramatic increases in the number, types and uses of those weapons. The NYT says this "explosion" is "transforming the way America fights and thinks about its wars": note how the notion that the U.S. fights multiple "wars" at all times is just a given. In particular, the NYT correctly notes that the proliferation of drones will also certainly make wars more likely, given the perception that they are cost-free (at least to Americans, but not, of course, to the increasing number of countries bombed by sky robots). That is another reason to care about the debate over Libya: if Obama succeeds in entrenching the notion that drone attacks are not "wars" or even "hostilities," he and future presidents will be able to bomb other countries with even fewer constraints than they have now.I remind the supporters of the President's decision that a Congressional rubber-stamp for his war always was - and remains - his for the asking at any time. For him to accomplish whatever fine things you think he's accomplishing in Libya, he didn't need to get sued by members of his own party. All he had to do was go through the motion of asking for a force authorization.
Oh, you mean the libertarian-style-wing of the Tea Party? LOL... Sure, all 3 of them who might consistently be considered anti-war.64% of Tea Party supporters think we should either reduce troop levels (37%) or leave Afghanistan (27%) while 28% support maintaining current troop levels.
Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. [...] I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.posted by Rhaomi at 7:14 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Since the United States handed control of the air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times, according to military officials.posted by empath at 7:35 AM on June 21, 2011
Related
The most recent strike from a piloted United States aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said.
Steeper pullout is raised as option for Afghanistan.posted by saulgoodman at 7:52 AM on June 21, 2011
President Obama’s national security team is contemplating troop reductions in Afghanistan that would be steeper than those discussed even a few weeks ago, with some officials arguing that such a change is justified by the rising cost of the war and the death of Osama bin Laden, which they called new “strategic considerations.”
« Older 'Jackass' star Ryan Dunn has died at age 34 from ... | Although much has been said ab... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by empath at 8:29 AM on June 20, 2011 [2 favorites]