President Obama’s Letter About Efforts in Libya

As is required by the Constitution?

...as stated by the 1973 war powers act.

So far, bupkes.

You mean to tell me that Obama had 60 days to seek congressional approval for the Libyan war and all Congress got was a letter on the 60th day? And still no Congressional approval?

...10 days after that to vote. They sat on their hands. Obama gave them the initial reporting. The entire congress that delayed this should be arrested.

The War Powers Resolution is very clear on this. The President even has to ask for approval for a 30 day withdrawal period.

Did he provide the specifics of the forces needed, the overall plans and all that as required by the War Powers Resolution? I don't know, but I don't think so.

The clock ticked on Friday. To this, he sent a memo; that's not taking the responsibility of getting authorization.

Everything skews to the undeniable fact that he's perfect. He's good and right and if he does something, it must be legal because he couldn't do something illegal.

Cult. Crap.

Tiresome.

Can you name one regiment that is inside of Libya?

Are we not flying drones there? Are we not stationing naval units in the Mediterranean? Do we not have advisers in Benghazi?

Butter would melt in your mouth. Games like this are played by people who expect privilege, and our President's posturing of being a peacekeeper has long since shown its true side.

Continually, you make up measuring sticks of ridiculousness to "prove" your point.

Are we not at war? Are we not entering into hostilities to bring our weight to bear? The War Powers Resolution clearly states that the subject is introducing armed forces into hostilities or areas where they're imminent. Yes, we're doing that.

Intelligence and logistics are not the same as "armed forces" and "hostilities." There hasn't been a drone strike in Libya for a month.

How do you think we have bombed the many targets? We are using armed planes and ships, and the personnel operating them.

And, no one can deny hostilities in Libya. We are on one side of the civil war.

Section 2 (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

He broke the law then, and now he breaks the law by not withdrawing.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

He also broke the law by not abiding by the UN Participation Act of 1945: all special agreements by which forces are made available MUST be authorized by a vote of both houses of Congress.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

so much for "character"

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

that members of Congress are giving tacit approval in light of fact that they passed this March 1 resolution:

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES(PDF)

That was a non-binding Senate Resolution rammed through after hours and with different language than what was expected. It does NOT pertain to US involvement, merely a UN no-fly zone. The UN resolution that came after was MUCH more restrictive.

The House NEVER voted on anything.

It's ugly, autocratic rule by edict, and in clear violation of both the UN Participation Act of 1945 and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The sheer high-handedness of it is breathtaking.

take it up with Congress.

they don't care? Why would they not take action if they disapproved? Maybe they're undecided?

The "tacit approval" claim was not based on inaction, but on the resolution passed by the Senate. Sure, it was non-binding, but it still called on the administration to takes steps, including a possible no-fly zone.

And some people eat it up like candy.

inaction on the part of Congress makes the constitutionality questionable after this point.

Sad that we are so flippant about it now.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...for the Congress being assholes.

Oh wait, yes they can and do regularly.

If there's an authorization or if we're attacked, the President may introduce armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent. Once he does so, he has 48 hours to report to Congress, in detail, the action taken, further actions planned, the forces and pretty much everything. From the point when he reports (or when he should have, if he's unable or if they're not in session) he has 60 days to finish it off or get further authorization. The clock runs from the reporting, not the initial action. He may get 30 days to withdraw without ever getting an authorization if we're attacked, but he has to formally request even that.

How is Congress being assholes? He's being a high-handed Emperor, waging war as he pleases and only seeking approval after not being able to get away without taking any flak for it.

He's flouted the word and spirit of the Constitution, and even though Congress has played games, too, they're not the ones who started this, nor are they the ones who sidestepped and ducked the law.

The first letter he sent initiated the War Powers Act, and congress sat on their hands, ignoring all of the timeline requirements in said act. His latest letter merely is asking them to actually do their job. Not his fault.

But I do agree that congress should've followed the War Powers Act, and investigations need to be done. We are are not invading Libya so we'll see how the GOP congress handles it. They'll likely take the cue of some leftists and try to still claim it's illegal, etc. They might claim they're not doing anything because within a month of operations the United States pulled back so much as to merely provide logistics under NATO agreements, but that'd be far too truthful for GOPers.

We've been through this so very, very many times, and all you can do is heckle about my not understanding the Act. We went through this on the UN Participation Act, and you bent double fought endlessly even after being shown how the law specifically puts him at odds with it.

He may only send forces in one of three cases: a declaration of war, an authorization for action or after we've been attacked. None of these things happened or even close. In the case of a Declaration of War, there is no timetable, but in either of the other two cases, he has to inform Congress of all the details and plans, including forces, within 48 hours. From the point of that letter being sent, he has 60 days to finish.

Where do you get 46 days? Where do you get the idea that it's Congress that has to force him to remove forces? HE HAS TO GET PERMISSION FOR THEM TO STAY. Congress may extend the permission, and it's THE PRESIDENT'S duty to get them to do so if that's what he wants. Are we not flying drones? Are they not "armed forces"? Are we not flying reconnaissance missions? We say that we are. In a war zone, while materially helping other entities attack, we're engaging in war.

The War Powers Resolution is clear: it's about the introduction of "armed forces" into "hostilities" or where they'e to be imminent. The UN Participation Act is similarly clear: it's about making forces available. The deceptive bullshit of this not rising to the occasion simply doesn't hold water: both laws are clear that it's ANY armed forces, PERIOD.

That's the letter of the law. How about the spirit of the law, something that should be fairly addressed due to this man's continual hearkening to his moral fiber? It's just continual prevarication and slimy attempts to get away with things. It's not just a "no-fly zone"; it's active attacking of military assets and taking sides in a Civil War. It's regime change and it's deliberate attempts to kill Qaddafi. It's the unsuccessful floating of trial balloons to see if we can get away with stealing the Libyan Government's money. It's the defying of the UN Resolution and working around the arms embargo. It's just plain ugly, greedy maneuvering, and what's worse is that it's done on the cheap so we have plausible deniability, don't have to spend much money and simply let the people of the country get squeezed harder and harder.

Everything you say bends reality to the preconceived concept that he's good, perfect and honorable. With such a given, all else has to conform, and is thus everybody else's fault.

The ludicrousness of you lecturing anyone on the War Powers Resolution when you've repeatedly said that he can do as he pleases and that the 60 days limitation somehow proves this is nauseating. He may not; he may only initiate action due to one of the three specific cases, none of which was met.

Do you still think that the UN Participation Act allows him to answer an Article 42 call-up without Congressional Approval? You fought that reality endlessly, thinking that if you could just have the last word it would somehow prove something. You claimed that the "special agreements" were between the UN and the President, then later claimed that there were no such agreements. You fought the wording of "pursuant", even when shown dictionary definitions and the flat-out delineation of the powers expressed by Dean Acheson. Twisting and dodging even when faced with quotations from both laws and scholarly criticism, every rebuttal stemmed from the blinkered assumption that this man could simply not do such a bad thing. He did. He continues.

Congress is being cowardly here, too, and the ugly truth is that they like this little war of resource theft and imperial ugliness. Nothing would make the Republicans happier than to have even more precedent from Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to nullify the War Powers Resolution.

Congress should've initiated if they believed he was invoking said act. Where is your outrage at congress for failing to do so? Oh, that's right, it's Obama's fault that he followed the act to the letter and has since removed United States hostilities.

He has not followed the act to the letter; he may ONLY introduce troops if there's a Declaration of War, an Authorization or if we're ATTACKED. Right there, he's in violation.

The language is very clear: if it's either an authorization or a response to an attack, he may respond immediately or wait for an unspecified time, but once he introduces forces, he has 48 hours to notify and give very detailed specifics about the plans, forces and everything. From that point, he has 60 days to finish up and get out, unless Congress AUTHORIZES more time. He may request 30 additional days for WITHDRAWAL, but he needs to formally do so.

He does NOT get a FREE TEST DRIVE OF WAR or anything of the sort; he violated the law by attacking, and he violated the UN Participation Act because it REQUIRES Congressional Authorization (via a vote of both houses) to respond to a call-up under UN Article 42.

You've been shown this repeatedly, yet still spew the same insults and disinformation.

This is deplorable.

"It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation, and support."

They control the right to initiate involvement in hostilities. They have this right very obviously in the Constitution itself, but quite specifically through the UN Participation Act and the War Powers Resolution: the concept is simple, and it literally deals with "armed forces" in "hostilities", so even if it's some kid on a tricycle with a slingshot, it falls under the aegis of Congress to make the call of whether it's allowed UNLESS we're attacked.

It is good to hear that Congress should have a voice in things, but the very statement still rings with the sound of Kingly largesse: he does not have power to magnanimously invite them to the table on the subject of INITIATING WAR; in that situation, THEY have the sole voice in the matter, and he has to sit on his hands and wait until they bid him to act. AFTER that point, he has great power as the C-in-C, but until they say "go", it's not his place at all, PERIOD.