PDA

View Full Version : 2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate



txradioguy
06-18-2011, 02:50 AM
WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1

Apache
06-18-2011, 10:53 AM
He WANTS it, DAMMIT!




Screw the law or what people want....:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
06-20-2011, 03:33 PM
This is against the law. I've been totally against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but at the very least President Bush got congressional authorization for those. I am also totally against Obama continuing and even escalating the imperialistic government overreach and assault on civil liberties that Bush ushered in.

This, however, is more than just an issue of morality, this is also a legal issue and Obama clearly appears to be violating the War Powers Act. THey are trying to say that US forces are not engaged in "hostilities"? That is total bullshit. NATO forces, including US forces, are bombing Libya on a near-daily basis, including residential areas, not to mention they have been deliberately attempting to target and kill Ghaddafi, a leader of a foreign country. There is no way this does no fall under the category of "hostilities".

Impeachment should be on the table for this blatant violation of the War Powers act and the Constitution which grants Congress the ability to start wars.

Apache
06-20-2011, 04:40 PM
BDS...


This, however, is more than just an issue of morality, this is also a legal issue and Obama clearly appears to be violating the War Powers Act. THey are trying to say that US forces are not engaged in "hostilities"? That is total bullshit. NATO forces, including US forces, are bombing Libya on a near-daily basis, including residential areas, not to mention they have been deliberately attempting to target and kill Ghaddafi, a leader of a foreign country. There is no way this does no fall under the category of "hostilities".

Impeachment should be on the table for this blatant violation of the War Powers act and the Constitution which grants Congress the ability to start wars.

Well well well....

CueSi
06-20-2011, 06:13 PM
Does anyone, left or right now what the official mission IS in Libya? That's what has my rear chapped. Why are we there, if we're not really getting rid of Quadaffi or substantially helping anyone. . .

~QC

Apache
06-20-2011, 07:54 PM
Does anyone, left or right now what the official mission IS in Libya? That's what has my rear chapped. Why are we there, if we're not really getting rid of Quadaffi or substantially helping anyone. . .

~QC

Our mission there is to aid in the upheaval that has coursed through the Middle East. To destablize the region and create a power vaccuum that only radical islame can cure...


Why do you ask?

Odysseus
06-20-2011, 09:40 PM
This is against the law. I've been totally against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but at the very least President Bush got congressional authorization for those. I am also totally against Obama continuing and even escalating the imperialistic government overreach and assault on civil liberties that Bush ushered in.

This, however, is more than just an issue of morality, this is also a legal issue and Obama clearly appears to be violating the War Powers Act. THey are trying to say that US forces are not engaged in "hostilities"? That is total bullshit. NATO forces, including US forces, are bombing Libya on a near-daily basis, including residential areas, not to mention they have been deliberately attempting to target and kill Ghaddafi, a leader of a foreign country. There is no way this does no fall under the category of "hostilities".

Impeachment should be on the table for this blatant violation of the War Powers act and the Constitution which grants Congress the ability to start wars.

You know, even when you are right, you couch your statements in such infantile rhetoric about imperialism and the like that you come off as a total tool.

fettpett
06-20-2011, 10:21 PM
This is against the law. I've been totally against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but at the very least President Bush got congressional authorization for those. I am also totally against Obama continuing and even escalating the imperialistic government overreach and assault on civil liberties that Bush ushered in.

This, however, is more than just an issue of morality, this is also a legal issue and Obama clearly appears to be violating the War Powers Act. THey are trying to say that US forces are not engaged in "hostilities"? That is total bullshit. NATO forces, including US forces, are bombing Libya on a near-daily basis, including residential areas, not to mention they have been deliberately attempting to target and kill Ghaddafi, a leader of a foreign country. There is no way this does no fall under the category of "hostilities".

Impeachment should be on the table for this blatant violation of the War Powers act and the Constitution which grants Congress the ability to start wars.

:eek::eek:

wtf happened to the crazy Winnei boy that we all came to loath? ;)

SaintLouieWoman
06-20-2011, 11:43 PM
You know, even when you are right, you couch your statements in such infantile rhetoric about imperialism and the like that you come off as a total tool.
We need to give him credit when he's right, and he is right about this.

Odysseus
06-20-2011, 11:51 PM
We need to give him credit when he's right, and he is right about this.

I didn't say that he wasn't right. I said that even when he's right, he comes off like a tool by spouting Marxist cliches. US imperialism? Really? Seriously, what would the point of colonizing Libya be, besides alleviating our desperate shortages of sand, third-world quality cabbies and surplus WWII souvenirs from Rommel's campaign? Of all of the North African states, Libya offers the least to a colonial power. It's worthless.

Elspeth
06-21-2011, 12:03 AM
Our mission there is to aid in the upheaval that has coursed through the Middle East. To destablize the region and create a power vaccuum that only radical islame can cure...


Why do you ask?

I'd be laughing if I didn't think you were right.

:(

txradioguy
06-21-2011, 03:40 AM
Does anyone, left or right now what the official mission IS in Libya? That's what has my rear chapped. Why are we there, if we're not really getting rid of Quadaffi or substantially helping anyone. . .

~QC

We're not even sure who the "rebels" are we are allegedly supporting with this adventure.

CueSi
06-21-2011, 12:26 PM
Our mission there is to aid in the upheaval that has coursed through the Middle East. To destablize the region and create a power vaccuum that only radical islame can cure...

Why do you ask?

Is that the official mission? To obliquely help what may or may not be a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/Al Quaida influenced uprising? If it is - - GREAT, Mr. President.


We're not even sure who the "rebels" are we are allegedly supporting with this adventure.

Apache gave his take. . .you tell me.

~QC

Odysseus
06-21-2011, 03:18 PM
We're not even sure who the "rebels" are we are allegedly supporting with this adventure.

As near as we can tell, they are a combination of the local al Qaeda franchise, members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a few middle-aged male college students from the east coast US who are blogging as Libyan lipstick lesbians.