US examines legality of Libya war

[EnglishLady]

BBC News

The US administration is examining the legality of continuing in the Nato-led Libya campaign beyond Friday.

The War Powers Resolution, passed after US withdrawal from the Vietnam War, rules that involvement in combat operations unauthorised by Congress must be terminated after 60 days.

That deadline is on Friday and deputy secretary of state James Steinberg has said the government is aware of it.

"President Obama has been mindful of the War Powers Resolution," he said.

In reference to the deadline, he said the administration was "actively reviewing" its role.

The president formally informed Congress of US involvement in Libya on 21 March.

White House lawyers are reportedly looking at ways US action in Libya can continue without contravening the resolution.

But Bruce Ackerman, a law professor at Yale University, says continuing without Congressional consent sets a dangerous precedent.

"A future president not as reasonable as President Obama is going to use this case to engage in something much more ambitious.

"From the point of view of long-term constitutional development, this is an important decision which will have precedental force in a very different context."

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution at the end of the Vietnam War, overriding President Nixon's veto.

It built on efforts by the founding fathers to repudiate the model of executive war-making, said Professor Ackerman

 

[chefdennis]

barry and his minions are "examining the LEGALITY of how the war powers act works!?!? LOL, they don't care if their actions are legal, they are simply looking for a way to get around the "act" and do what they d*mn well please..legal or not...hope and change...yeap...how is that workin for all you barry supporters!?!?

 

[EnglishLady]

barry and his minions are "examining the LEGALITY of how the war powers act works!?!? LOL, they don't care if their actions are legal, they are simply looking for a way to get around the "act" and do what they d*mn well please..legal or not...hope and change...yeap...how is that workin for all you barry supporters!?!?

Hmmm I really didn't glean that at all from the above report

 

[witness23]

Hmmm I really didn't glean that at all from the above report

That's because you don't hate our President. You might not like some things he does or says, as I, but you don't have that pure, unadulterated hatred in your heart that allows you to see things that no other rational person can see.

 

[chefdennis]

opps...

worldwidenewscast.com » Newspaper Editorials Say Obama Administration in Violation of War Powers Resolution in Libya

from the link above

Attorney General Eric Holder is arguing that the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply because the Libyan intervention is too "small" to constitute a "war" under the Constitution..

The Cable | FOREIGN POLICY

from the link above

We're told by two congressional sources that the White House is considering declaring that U.S. military involvement in Libya has paused, only for it to resume in a few days, thereby resetting the 60-day clock. But that questionable legal tactic, for now, is not being confirmed by anybody in the administration.

Levin predicted that if the issue came to a head, the White House would declare the law invalid.
"If we operated under the War Powers Act, [the White House is] going to say the War Powers Act is not constitutional and the whole thing ends in court," Levin said.

Death of the War Powers Act?

By Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway

Published: May 17
Death of the War Powers Act? - The Washington Post

from the link above

OPINION PIECE....

By Friday, the administration’s legal team is likely to announce that the clock stopped ticking on April 1 — the date when NATO “took the lead” in the bombing campaign. Since NATO is running the show, the argument will go, the War Powers Act no longer applies, and the president doesn’t have to go back to Congress after all.

Is President Obama About to Break the Law?

May 19, 2011 7:12 PM
Is President Obama About to Break the Law? - Political Punch

On Wednesday six Republican senators -- John Cornyn of Texas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Rand Paul of Kentucky – wrote to the president, saying the military intervention "was taken without regard to or compliance with the requirement of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution that the United States Armed Forces only be introduced into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances ‘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.’

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” the GOP senators wrote. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told CNN the operation was “bring(ing) democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States….He cannot continue what he’s doing in Libya without congressional authorization. And when a president defiantly violates the law that really undercuts our effort to urge other countries to have the rule of law.”

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't HATE Obama, I don't know him. I DO hate EVERYTHING that he believes in. I HATE his POLICIES and ideas.

I also see NO legitimate reason for the U.S. to be protecting Italy's oil supply.

This is a civil war in Libya. There is NO need for the U.S. to be involved.

We have FAR more important things to be risking American lives and money on.

 

[Turtle]

"A future president not as reasonable as President Obama...."

I spit Coke I drank yesterday on the monitor when I read that one.

 

[EnglishLady]

That's because you don't hate our President. You might not like some things he does or says, as I, but you don't have that pure, unadulterated hatred in your heart that allows you to see things that no other rational person can see.

Now I do not want to anger anyone but ........

I have, in the past, disliked many of the Prime Ministers that were elected in the UK (funny enough they were usual Labour (Democrat) Prime Ministers )

But I did try very hard to see my way through that dislike to what was actually being said and, very rarely, they sometimes had a point.

I just feel that as soon as Obama's name is mentioned in anything the blinkers go up and the insults start flying

As always IMO

 

[Dreamer]

Because if you agree with him, people say you're an idiot.

If you disagree, you're racist.


There's not much middle ground on him.


Dale

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[dieseldiva]

Because if you agree with him, people say you're an idiot.

If you disagree, you're racist.


There's not much middle ground on him.


Dale

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

I think we've only scratched the surface of the playing of the race card. They've never really stopped using it and they seem to be ramping it up more lately......and the election is still 18 months away!

 

[EnglishLady]

Because if you agree with him, people say you're an idiot.

If you disagree, you're racist.


There's not much middle ground on him.


Dale

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

I take it that you are not supposed to say ....

"I may not like the guy but he has a point there y'know"

 

[layoutshooter]

I think we've only scratched the surface of the playing of the race card. They've never really stopped using it and they seem to be ramping it up more lately......and the election is still 18 months away!

When your ideas, positions and record are childish you really have nothing left than to blame the "scapegoats", just as some other extremists have done in history.