A New Normal: The President Can Bomb Anyone Anywhere for as Long as He Wants

[KoKo]

A New Normal: The President Can Bomb Anyone Anywhere for as Long as He Wants
By: Jon Walker Saturday May 21, 2011 6:00 am

War Powers Act expired, and there was no action to approve military use by Congress, yet we continue to be involved in direct military action in Libya. With this, a new precedent has been firmly established. The President of the United States can now unilaterally and freely wage war on any country or attempt to kill anyone anywhere on earth, for as long as the President wants. It is truly frightening god-like power solely vested in a single individual.

This moment with Libya alone didn’t create this new normal. It is an issue that has been slowly building with the president using drone strikes to target individuals in countries we’re not at war with, such as Pakistan and Yemen. But this now illegal involvement in full-scale war with no congressional approval makes the clear creation of this new precedent unavoidable.

Congress has totally failed to fulfill its legal obligations, President Obama worked to make it as easy as possible for Congress to quietly abdicate its Constitutional responsibility, and the media outcry over this serious legal violation has been muted at best.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/05/21/a-new-normal-the-president-can-bomb-anyone-anywhere-for-as-long-as-he-wants/


--------------------------
FROM REUTERS:

Obama Suggests U.S. Involvement In Libya Limited, Support From Congress Welcome But Authority Not Needed

May 21, 2011 1:09:58 AM

By Alister Bull

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, facing criticism from some lawmakers that U.S. military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is about to become illegal, said Friday the mission would benefit from congressional support.

Obama did not explicitly ask Congress to authorize the action he ordered in March to protect Libyan civilians, as his critics say is demanded by the 1973 U.S. War Powers Act.

Instead, he suggested U.S. involvement in Libya was now so limited that Congress's authority was not needed.

"I wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution ... which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment," the president said in a letter to top lawmakers.

More at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/obama-libya-involvement-limited-congress_n_865035.html

[Enrique]

1. that FDL post needs to account for that letter from Obama

which was sent within the 60-day deadline.

[jenmito]

2. Maybe these stories shouldn't have been written before the 60 days was up:

Obama asks Congress for a resolution of support on Libya

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/162489-obama-asks-congress-for-a-resolution-of-support-on-libya

Obama asks Congress for resolution on Libya

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-war-powers-libya-20110520,0,3758635.story?track=rss

Credit to ProSense for the links.

[Igel]

10. In other words, Obama's secured Congressional approval within 60 days?

If so, we've redefined 'secured'. Since it's not secured under the usual meaning of the word, under the WPA there's no authorization for any additional US action in Libya, whether through NATO or flying solo.

He's expressed approval of what others, on their own initiative, did to cover his ass. He's asked that steps already begun to cover his ass be passed. He didn't ask for the bill to be introduced. Given that he had 60 days for an operation that was to take days, not weeks, you'd think after 5 weeks a letter wouldn't have been too much to ask. Instead he waited almost 9 weeks, and made his sort-of-request at the last minute only *after* it had already become a political issue. The thing is, I'm not sure that if he *had* asked it would have failed.

It won't matter even if the legislation dies or fails to pass. If it were a (R) that was doing this, there'd be hell to pay. It's a president (D), so justification must be found in an act of circling the wagons and rallying the troops, and therefore justification will be found.

It was the same with "his" health care legislation. He let others propose it, others work out the language, others take the heat for it, others lobby and agitate for it, and others debate. Only at key points did he support others' work, and only at the end did he place his imprimatur upon it and say it's his own.

There is the argument that the WPA is unconstitutional. If so, then it should be subject to judicial review *or* it shouldn't have been signed into law. It's the ultimate signing statement--dclaring that a decades-old law that you said you were abiding by is unconstitutional and therefore subject to being disregarded.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. That's a damningly thorough assessment

I go back to the character issue once again, since this is what was used to elect him; there were precious few specifics of policy, and we were reassured that the pristine morality of the man would see his way through troubled waters.

Instead, what we have is not a leader, but a constant campaigner. He left Pelosi out in the wind and sent Rahm to twist left arms, ducking and weaving and never advocating any real specifics, let the health care bill get watered down to a pharma giveaway and a sloppy boondoggle with few true--although some, to be sure--progress. Then, of course, he took credit.

You'll note how many times the concept of taking Qaddafi's money from our banks and giving it to the rebels has been hinted at, too: obviously, the trial balloons aren't really flying here, and that would be a step too far.

Still, for me the flagrant overstepping of the UN Participation Act is a more nasty bit of illegal high-handedness, but it's all one big mess anyway. The very arrogance of it all would be bad enough even if it was sincerely to help innocent civilians, when it's unmistakably about money and oil.

Meanwhile, it's a middle-of-the-road non-war with vague plans and disregard for the very civilians its supposed to be protecting: we're happy to have some sloppy game of attrition and starve people out.

The whole appeal of this man was supposed to be his otherworldly honesty and integrity. He wasn't Bill Clinton, who we knew was a bit shady but presumed had his heart in the right place, he was new politics, a vision of hope and all that rot. It really rings so deeply, deeply false, and the pragmatism reeks more and more of mere opportunism.

[KoKo]

19. Maybe a "PreEmptive Strike: was something to consider? What you say is Interesting!

That we all could READ. :-(

[jenmito]

23. You posted two inaccurate statements:

"War Powers Act expired, and there was no action to approve military use by Congress, yet we continue to be involved in direct military action in Libya."

"Obama did not explicitly ask Congress to authorize the action he ordered in March to protect Libyan civilians, as his critics say is demanded by the 1973 U.S. War Powers Act."

[KoKo]

25. No...You are wrong..I did not post two statements that were false...

why would you say this? :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Anything Obama does is good and correct; why is this surprising?

If it happened, and he did it, it must be legal and pure genius; it's the code of the true believer.

It doesn't matter that the War Powers Resolution only lets the President introduce forces after a Declaration of War, an Authorization by Congress or in response to a literal attack. He sent forces, thus he must have had the right to do so and it is a good thing.

It doesn't matter that, unless there's a Declaration of War, the Congress MUST authorize forces to be in action after 60 days. He's doing it. He sent a memo on the very last day requesting such a thing, but only after there was too much dispute afoot on the subject, and it STILL doesn't get the necessary vote of both Houses of Congress in time. He's doing this; it must be right.

It's quite simple, really...

[jenmito]

37. Yes, you did...

those quotes said Obama did nothing, when he DID ask Congress for a resolution, as I showed in post #2.

[dionysus]

28. yes, he's just so evil and rotten.

:eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Sending a memo is not the same as securing a vote of both houses

Besides the fact that it was illegal for him to launch the campaign in the first place, both per the War Powers Resolution and the UN Participation Act.

It's a bit high-handed to simply say it's something they should do, instead of abiding by the timetable set forth in the law.

Still, it's better than nothing, even if it is haughty and reckless to an extreme.

The War Powers Resolution is really clear on all of this, too.

[Exilednight]

17. Asking is not the same as receiving. My nieces ask for candy all day long, but as

the adult in the room, I have to measure whether or not they warrant such a treat.

In other words, Obama can ask for permission all he wants, but until he receives permission, once the 60 days are up he is in violation of the constitution.

Now that the 60 days has expired, by law he has 30 days to withdraw all troops from combat missions in Libya.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. Exactly right.

What's even more strange is that Obama didn't send the letter until the 60th day. Why is that?

Let's just make it easy on ourselves and withdraw all assets in the region currently being used to attack Libya. The pro-war faction on DU is a hoot. Twisting and turning every which way trying to justify foreign wars that do nothing to improve the security of the United States.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

5. FDL is not the only place addressing this issue

now, why don't you actually address the issue? You know, express an opinion, pro or con, on this?

Do you think this action, or none action as the case may be, sets a dangerous precedent? Are there extenuating circumstances? Is the article (and the other editorials on this extant on the net, missing something or are their facts wrong?

Attacking the messenger is a cop out - this is a discussion board, not a fan site - discuss this.

[jenmito]

7. Why are you ignoring post #2? n/t

[Fuddnik]

8. Maybe you asked a self-answering question?

[Exilednight]

18. Post #2 is irrelevant. See post #17. n/t

[woolldog]

4. Has Congress brought this on themselves though?

Congress has become such a politicized, hyperpartisan, and ineffectual body, they've rendered themselves irrelevant. They now need 60 votes to do anything. there's a good chance if this were brought to a vote it wouldn't get approved, solely for partisan reasons, which would be disastrous and embarassing. So I don't blame the president for ignoring them.

[Igel]

11. No.

Congress hasn't been given the chance to make itself irrelevant--as though the cloture requirements by themselves would make it irrelevant.

The WPA places a legal obligation on the president. He has to secure authorization. If he doesn't secure it--there's no language exempting presidents during the session of a Congress that's rendered itself irrelevant by means of partisan infighting--it places other legal obligations on the president.

The day before the 60-day period was up he was challenged on the point: Are you going to even *seek*, much less *secure*, authorization? His response managed to say nothing about the WPA. It expressed support for a resolution that would show that we're behind him, that showed solidarity for the idea of spreading freedom and democracy. If he wanted to, on Monday, he could claim that he sent a request for authorization, because the letter is worded so vaguely; he could just as well claim that he considered the WPA unconstitutional and would find it an insult to presidential powers to request authorization, and so the letter he sent in no way makes any such request.

In a way, he's already made his point: He failed to secure authorization. He hasn't asked Congress for authorization. Instead, on day 60 he sent a letter of a support for a resolution in effect telling him what a heck of a job he's doing and that we're all behind him. He's as good as said that he doesn't believe he needs authorization. By continuing the US' cooperation with NATO in Libya on day 61 instead of ramping things down he's acting on that belief.

*Now* Congress will make itself irrelevant by allowing another president to ignore a law that he doesn't find expedient in order to avoid a Constitutional crisis. One party will be too weak to do anything about it; the other openly supports being irrelevant if it gives their leader more power. Laws are there to support the president, not place limits on him--as long as he's one of us. (As a principle, it really sounds sucky.)

[KoKo]

14. good points..

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Like everything else in this deplorable episode, it is very complex, deceptive and collusive

Let's take a look at Congress' inaction: there are many things at play here, and it's greasy and cowardly to an extreme. I would also characterize our President's actions as such: sneaky, misleading, weak and power-grabbing.

The sad truth is that many in our government want to ratfuck Qaddafi and get a better deal on the oil. The endlessly repeated rejoinder to accusations that this is about oil has been that he was a reliable provider, so there was no motive. This is patently false: he rewrote contracts for many of the foreign companies (most notably France's "Total") in 2009, reducing the amount they could take by some 46%, and threatened nationalization if they didn't agree. His fate was sealed at that point. The neocons are all for this, the Europeans are seriously in the driver's seat, and we're the Drum Major out in front leading the parade.

The conservatives hate the War Powers Resolution even more than others ostensibly on our own side do, so they're not raising any outcry: they love another cinder-block of precedent being thrown into the balance of a President ignoring the thing, and are giddy that Clinton helped out so much to render the law moot. They also like the idea of Obama having performed an impeachable act, which they can hold over his head should things go wrong and/or it become convenient. Here's where the cowardice part comes in: they love not having to side with or against this. If he fails, they can blame him endlessly, and if he succeeds, they can take some credit. More than anything, the imperial power is buttressed, which is something they love.

Obama looks at this as something to give him more cred with the reactionaries, solidify his support from corporatists who hate loose cannons like Qaddafi and also show what a big tough and hairy non-wimpy non-liberal he is, just as he strutted his Afghanistan plans during the primary season and election.

Sadly, true progressives are fed the raw meat of some kind of moral intervention under the guise of the United Nations, which makes them feel upright and triumphal as they enable imperial resource-grabbing, and Obama gets to play war hero.

The whole thing is filthy, and the cowardly dynamic is reinforced by the sheer cheapness of the warmaking. One has an obligation when resorting to war to do it as painlessly as possible; it's an ugly thing, and one should not do a penny-pinching non-war that puts many civilians at risk due to a protracted starvation/attrition campaign: a proper war is expensive. The rebels are extremely guilty of this, too: if you're going to mount a revolution, it behooves you to actually have the means to win before risking everybody else's lives. They clearly didn't. They simply don't. Their threats to remember those who didn't stand with them induced the French to recognize them, and once Qaddafi struck back, they had to scamper needily to us and the UN to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

Nobody wants to talk about or deal with this entire mess because they're all so chickenshit, cowardly and duplicitous. Still, it won't go away.

We own this now; everything that goes badly there is our own personal fault, and more than anything else, that's why the Republicans are leaving Obama plenty of rope to hang himself.

Perhaps we can control the story, and make this look "good", but regardless, we are nothing short of an Imperial Bully now, and it shouldn't have come from our side.

[Fuddnik]

6. There's the joke.

It's not the President. It's not Congress. It's the whole Military-Industrial Complex, and The Council of Foreign Relations, where every single one of our policymakers, on both sides, slither out from under.

Obama is just a figurehead. Congress a bunch of scapegoats and lackeys.

They'll do what they want, when they want, and to who they want. Who's stopping them?

Only when the Empire collapses and we're sitting around in the rubble, will it change.

[former9thward]

9. Every President since the WPA was enacted has said it is unconstitutional.

I agree with them. If Congress opposes military actions somewhere they can deny the funds for it. And they should in Libya as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Yet they mostly abided by its restrictions, and it's never been challenged

It's the law. If it was so out-of-bounds, it would have been challenged 37 years ago, but they know full well that it would stand up and then there would be no sniveling, underhanded, arrogant bellyaching about having their imperial hands tied by mere mortals.

By the necessary and proper clause, Congress has the right to enumerate powers in specific law, and this piece of legislation is brilliantly written. It also gives the President a bit more leeway than a strict reading of the Constitution would necessarily allow: he can counterattack if we're hit without prior approval, and that's not something that's a "given" in the Constitution, but a sensible allowance for the nimbleness of command, and an honorable thing for Congress to have done.

The law is the law; those who don't get this have grave moral failings, and it's disgusting to see the double standard here: many, many more people would have shrieked had a Republican launched a mendacious intervention and violation of national sovereignty in a Civil War like this.

[KoKo]

20. As much as many of us Love Obama...we still need to needle him on this issue

U.S. House Representative

Saying No to Permanent Global War
Posted: 05/20/11 03:05 PM ET


The House is expected to vote soon on a bill that hands over to the president Congress' constitutional authority to declare and authorize war, substantially altering the delicate balance of powers that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

The annual reauthorization of the Department of Defense contains unprecedented and dangerous language that gives the president virtually unchecked power to take the country to war and keep us there. This bill significantly undermines the Constitution, the institution of Congress and sets the United States on a path of permanent war.

The Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) declares that the United States is in an armed conflict with not only al Qaeda and the Taliban, but "associated forces" and individuals, organizations and nations that support such forces. The president could then have the full legal authority to send American troops to engage in acts of war anywhere--Yemen, Somalia, Iran, even the United States--without constitutionally required Congressional authorization and, consequently, without any restrictions or oversight from the American people or Congress.

More about what this bill would do at........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/saying-no-to-permanent-gl_b_864863.html

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


Afghanistan and the Economy:
Congressman Dennis Kucinich Interviewed
on MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell Show

Watch Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBmaLrzjao&feature=player_embedded

[hulka38]

21. That whole Libya thing is merely kinetic activity.

Seriously, too late to rec this but thanks for posting.

[KoKo]

22. I am constantly surprised by DU'ers I lived with for years...allowing Obam to Bomb

anyone, everywhere and not once have some "twinge of guilt" that a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT Could do what BUSH II and I did and NOW...it's ALL GOOD?

Cand someone help me with this shift of Opinion?

:eyes: :crazy:

[Vattel]

24. It's amazing that many DUers now buy the John Yoo line

that the WPA is unconstitutional because the Constitution, as originally understood, granted the President, as CIC, the right to involve the nation in war. The historical record is crystal clear on this issue: Yoo is wrong. Obviously I can't prove that here, but some of you may find the following small sample of the historical record interesting:

Even Alexander Hamilton, who was very pro executive power, described Congress’s power to create war as “the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war.”

Hamilton also wrote: “While, therefore, the legislature can alone declare war, can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility, it belongs to the “executive power” to do whatever else the law of nations, cooperating with the treaties of the country, enjoin in the intercourse of the United States with foreign powers. In this distribution of authority, the wisdom of our Constitution is manifested. It is the province and duty of the executive to preserve to the nation the blessings of peace. The legislature alone can interrupt them by placing the nation in a state of war.”

In President Jefferson’s first annual message to Congress (December 8. 1801), he recognized that Tripoli had declared war, but denied that he had the constitutional right to authorize anything more than self-defense. Explaining the release of an enemy ship and its crew, he stated: “Unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress to go out beyond the line of defence, the vessel being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offence, also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries.”

And in a special message to Congress on Foreign Policy (Dec. 6, 1805), President Jefferson remarked, “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war . . .”

Jefferson again: “The idea seems to gain credit that the naval powers combined against France will prohibit supplies even of provisions to that country. Should this be formally notified I should suppose congress would be called, because it is a justifiable cause of war, and as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side,”

In a letter to General William Moultrie (Aug. 28, 1793), President Washington wrote: “The constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

Madison wrote: “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”

Madison also wrote: “‘The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into the actual service of the United States.’ There can be no relation worth examining between this power and the general power of making treaties. And instead of being analogous to the power of declaring war, it affords a striking illustration of the incompatibility of the two powers in the same hands. Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.”

And in a message to Congress urging war against Great Britain (June 14, 1812), President Madison wrote: “Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events . . . is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government.”

In the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued (Dec. 7, 1787): “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.”

A delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, John Marshall, later served as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and in an 1801 opinion wrote, “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry.”

[KoKo]

26. As a DU'er whose been here since 2001...I'm VERY SHOCKED and not

SHY about Expressing My Outrage! That anyone could subscribe to what John Yoo says in his "Apologia" is beyond anything any true Democrat or person who believes in "Rule of Law" and Constitution/Bill of Rights" of the USA Government could stomach what he's asking us to cough down and GAG OVER!

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

[Vattel]

29. "Apologia" is a good word for it.

I really don't think people realize just how stupid Yoo's war powers book is. The level of argumentation is so low, it is laughable. One can only assume that he started with his conclusions and then combed the historical record to find anything that could fit his narrative.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. This is something the courts really need to clarify

Because executives (no matter what they say before they are in office) are pretty usually not inclined to relinquish any powers voluntarily. Mikhail Gorbechav and FW de Klerk are notable exceptions.

[Vattel]

33. unfortunately, the court's "political question doctrine"

menas that they won't rule on it. The issue arose during the Vietnam War and the Supreme Court refused to rule on it because it was a "political question."

[Hippo_Tron]

34. That seems like a cop out by the courts to me

Again, I'm no lawyer or constitutional scholar but I just don't see how the President and Congress are supposed to settle these disputes with any sort of formality when they fundamentally disagree over who has the power to do what and the courts won't decide which one is right. The power to use force essentially exists in a state of ambiguity because of that. And while I think ambiguity and legal gray area are good in some cases, I don't see any pluses to it in this area.

[Vattel]

39. I agree, but

imagine the crisis if the Supreme Court had ruled that the Vietnam War was illegal because not declared. That was the issue before the Supreme Court in the Mora case (if I am remembering the name of the case correctly) during the Vietnam War because Mora contested the legality of his punishment for failing to serve.

[boppers]

35. It's not just DU'ers, Americans have bought this line for over 60 years.

If you can tell me when the US has disbanded standing armies since the 40's, I will donate $1,000 to the charity of your choosing.

Sure, you can hang this on Yoo, Obama, FDR, whoever, but training people for war has become honored, not abhorrent, and thus, we have been at non-stop war since then. We just keep changing where.

[golfguru]

30. Which is more humane?

Quick Killing by bombs or commando raids or torture by water boarding?

[Scottybeamer70]

36. and someone.............I forgot whom

is getting ready to introduce HR 1540 that will give the president and all future presidents,
the authority to start a war anywhere in the world, including this country, if he/she deems
it necessary. Didn't people come to this land to get away from authoritian kings???????

[ZombieHorde]

38. President Obama also wants indefinite detention for things you might do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x585675

[FrenchieCat]

40. Impeach his ass!