Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Overrides Lawyers Who Warned War on Libya Amounted to "Hostilities"
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama overruled two senior government lawyers in deciding that he had the authority to continue US military operations in Libya without Congressional approval, The New York Times reported.
Jeh Johnson, general counsel for the Defense Department, is seen in 2010. President Barack Obama overruled Johnson and another senior government lawyer in deciding that he had the authority to continue US military operations in Libya without Congressional approval, The New York Times has reported. (AFP/Brendan Smialowski) In reaching his conclusion Obama rejected the opinions of Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, The Times reported, citing unnamed officials familiar with the deliberations.
Johnson and Krass both told the White House they believed that US military activity in the NATO-led air war over Libya amounted to "hostilities."
Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), a president has 60 days to get authorization from Congress -- which under the US constitution has the authority to declare war -- for a military deployment. Failing that, the Resolution sets a further 30 days to withdraw US forces from harm's way.
Obama however agreed with two other top government lawyers -- White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold Koh -- who said the US military action in Libya did not amount to "hostilities" because it was in a support role.
The White House said it would not comment on the Times report, but spokesman Eric Schultz described the deliberations as "a robust process."
The WPR "has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973, and even critics of the administration's position concede the legitimacy of different points of view," said Schultz, adding that "there was a full airing of views within the administration."
He said the White House would not discuss the internal process in which Obama receives legal advice, but said: "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."
The White House on Wednesday made their case for participating in the NATO-led assault on Moamer Kadhafi's forces in a 30-page report to lawmakers.
The document was compiled after Republican House Speaker John Boehner sent a scathing letter to the president warning that US operations would be illegal come Sunday because they lacked formal congressional approval.
"US forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition," the White House report said, noting that the use of force was being used solely to protect civilians, enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
A senior administration official added: "we are not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis has been considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute."

19 Comments so far
Show All"some disagreements...regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old..."
and how old is the Constitution?
To bomb the hell out of a country does not amount to hostilities!!!
Oilbomber should have been awarded the Nobel Sophistry Prize, instead of the Nobel Peace Prize.
This man is even worse than Bush in the department of cynical speech.
It all depends on one's definition of "hostilities". In the Orwellian dictionary it can mean any number of opposites. Take your pick, but in this case, it means "humanitarian intervention".
But this is progress!
Progress, that is, from inarticulate lies to articulate lies.
The Amerikan Imperium: from "Lex Rex" to "Rex Lex" in three centuries.
I suggest today's Greenwald column at salon for more on this.
Obama "It depends upon what your definition of is is" or was that Clinton or Bush gosh I guess I'm getting my presidential lies all mixed up.
Don't need a lawyer to know that the President isn't supposed to just start a war without even getting the rubber stamp of Congress.
This Republic is dead, folks.
Now the choice is between starting a new one, capitulating to Empire, or making something else entirely new.
AT LEAST a Constitutional Convention is in order and the AP wants us to talk about "stances" of "the President" as related by his "aides" to "the liberal faction" of the Prez's supposed "base"!
And who do you think will control the new constitutional convention? The same people who controlled the first one. The rich white male landowners. All others will be told to shut up and sit down.
Its known as: Don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness.
But we won't get that either, as Bama rides roughshod with the military, funded by taxpayers, and our young dying for their greed.
If it's not war, it's murder.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
war IS murder.
In our Orwellian world killing people with our drones and bombs is PEACE???
The mantra for the American executive branch of government. Lie Lie Lie Kill Kill Kill
"A senior administration official added: "we are not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis has been considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute."
Translation: We consider the current bombing unlikely.
Clearly this is all merely correctional kinetic protection to advance uniquely American values.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
This is all so weird, it's dialectical, Boehner is making so much sense ..
Maybe we can get the Republicans to introduce H.R. 676 ..
maybe they just inevitably will ..