There is no doubt a lot of hypocrisy and political grandstanding going on with Speaker Boehner’s demands that the administration explain how its mission in Libya doesn’t violate the War Powers Resolution. But I think this is all a good thing. I even agree with this sentiment:
Boehner wrote: “Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution.
“The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”
He’s given the administration until Friday to provide their legal reasoning, or the House may determine that the administration has violated the law.
This is a case of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t care too much about why the House has suddenly decided to exert its prerogatives; I’m just happy they’ve finally decided to do it.
The point here is not whether the mission in Libya is morally justifiable. It’s not about the wisdom of the mission. It’s not about how well the mission is going. The point is that there is a law on the books that defines how the executive branch will behave towards and report to Congress when it decides to use military force abroad. The administration has not followed that law, and they have been unwilling to clearly articulate why they haven’t followed it.
It’s never good for any group or institution to flout the law with impunity. If the military action in Libya is too limited to qualify as military action under the War Powers Resoultion then the administration needs to explain how they came to that conclusion. And if they don’t believe the Resolution is constitutional, then they need to argue that point in court. If the administration thinks that they’ve complied with the law, they may need to argue that in court, too.
It is not too much to ask for any administration to justify the use of our military in a foreign theater for more than 90 days. If Congress can’t be convinced, then that should be the end of the story.
I said the same thing about Kosovo and I’d say the same thing about any Republican president who behaved similarly. Congress is supposed to authorize military action. For too long, they’ve abandoned their duties. They may have cynical motives for standing up to the president, but they have the right to do so.
Well said, Booman.
What he should have asked is what exactly is the current role the US is playing in the NATO operations in Libya.
Britain and France right now have the same capabilities we have to do what’s being done. The last news about US involvement is the provision of non-weapon-related military supplies to the Transitional National Council.
Nonetheless, the Administration should have pre-emptively done this and should insist on proper decorum from GOP House members. Their treatment of Elizabeth Warren gives some insight into why the White House is minimizing the folks that it sends to testify in Congress.
And the best route would be to have secret briefings of the Armed Services committees and Intelligence committees.
The legal basis is the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. The War Powers Act sidestepped limiting the President’s authority under that Act. And this Congress is precisely not the time to reopen that can of worms because there are enough Republicans who want to destroy the United Nations to make legislative reconsideration in this political environment harmful to US national security.
You’re simply wrong about the 1945 UN Act.
I went over this here.
It’s based on a misreading of the statute.
Here’s the relevant part (emphasis mine):
In other words, there is no blanket authority to follow any UN Security Council authorization that relies on the originating treaty, absent specific statutory authorization. The word “specific” is key here.
As for relying on the AUMF-Afghanistan, well, that is a mighty stretch.
Now go look at the United Nations in light of item 2. The intent of Congress in 1945 was to precisely provide the specific statutory authorization to the President to participate in UN “police actions”, as they shortly began to be called. The intent of the 1945 Congress was to avoid a repeat of the hamstringing of the League of Nations by delay in critical situations.
I said nothing at all about the AUMF-Afghanistan. I agree that it doesn’t apply to Libya and to think that it does is a stretch.
Item 2 is exactly what I meant when I said it sidestepped the impact on the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. And looking at the the 1973 testimony and debate in Congress shows that Congress had a long wrangle about this very issue.
There’s also the bit about treaties being upheld. Laws don’t get rid of treaties. I think Obama has informed some members of Congress about Libya. This is prolly a grandstanding time for the Repubs.
This treaty argument is getting tiresome.
At the most basic, for a treaty to be relevant to domestic law, it must place our government in a position of having to keep our promise to do something. We never promised to enforce UNSC resolutions. The UN cannot accuse us violating a treaty if we refuse to fight in Libya anymore than they can accuse Chad or Mongolia of breaking the treaty by not participating.
The UN treaty of 1945 doesn’t require us to be involved in Libya and therefore it cannot be against the law for us to be involved.
As for authorizing the president to take action on behalf of the UNSC at his discretion and without congressional approval, the War Powers Resolution specifically rules that possibility out. At least, it rules it out after the first 90 days.
Time’s up.
The POTUS is well within the statutory authority given to him in the AUMF. As tenuous and twisted as that path may be, it has provided the Executive Branch with a blank check, and virtually no restrictions as long as they can prove a connection to “terrorists”. A trivial task in Libya or Yemen.
I think this is a stretch. Gaddafi’s Libya has since ending its nuclear program also has been seen to be involved less in terrorist actions — and there are some doubts about how deeply it ever was involved. Despite the doubts, I still think that Gaddafi did use terrorism in specific cases as asymmetric warfare against the West.
And I think that President Obama would be foolish to try to argue a connection to terrorists either in Libya or Yemen without having some clear information to make that argument to the public.
It is also likely that if political push comes to shove, it will be easy for the US to disengage from direct military operation and provide support to NATO, effectively bringing down the rate of spending.
It is interesting watching the Republicans trying to flank Obama on his left flank.
I beg to differ: . . . or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
He’s already classified an ex-American in Yemen as a “known terrorist”; and Libya by it’s own admission “harbored” (trained and supplied) terrorists. Not really much of a stretch in either case, and fits within the four corners of his policy shift from “hot wars” to “pursuit and kill or capture”.
The complete (short) resolution is here.
The UN Security Council resolution does not deal with terrorism but with the protection of civilians. The US participation in NATO is under this resolution. To assert the terrorism card would be going beyond the originally stated mission. And there is no evidence of any current terrorist operations by Libya.
While he can use al Awlawki as the camel’s nose under the tent in Yemen, US intervention there right now will work counter to US interests. Unfortunately our national security institutions have not seen it that way. And the attacks on the al Quaeda-held areas of Yemen continue unabated and might have even increased lately.
In the case of Libya, it’s a stretch. In the case of Yemen, it’s not quite as much a stretch but imprudent. The AUMF for Afghanistan was written too broadly to allow for Bush to do a lot of imprudent things. Obama does not need to copy Bush.
Booman just broke the internet:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/81032638390996992
Lets try that again –
Booman just broke the internet:
“Booman is right: yes, Repubs are total hypocrites for suddenly asserting war powers, but it’s still a good thing”
Does it surprise you that Glenn and I agree on something like this?
Glenn and I agree on about 98% of everything. The two percent is about intent and capabilities. Mostly.
I know. I was trying for lame snark and besides, he didn’t include your handle in the Tweet so I didn’t know if you see it.