Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Glenn Greenwald: Could Obama Be Impeached for Waging War in Libya Without Approval of Congress?
The New York Times recently broke the story that President Obama rejected the views of top administration lawyers when he decided he had the legal authority to continue U.S. military participation in the war in Libya without congressional authorization. Obama continues to face congressional opposition to the ongoing Libya attack. Republican House Speaker John Boehner has called on the White House to further clarify the legal basis for the war in Libya or face a cutoff of war funds. Last week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers filed a lawsuit accusing President Obama of violating the War Powers Act of 1973. To examine the legal dimensions of U.S. military intervention, we speak with Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. “The idea that presidents can start wars on their own, without any congressional authorization, violates not just the law but the Constitution,” Greenwald said. “In theory, when the president violates the law and the Constitution, that’s an impeachable offense. At the same time, we’ve set a very low standard for our tolerance of rampant presidential law breaking.”
18 Comments so far
Show AllThanks Glenn for not using the expression "War Powers Act". I urge all commentators to follow his example because that Act is blatantly unconstitutional hence has no place in this discussion. Our constitution, which is frequently muddled, is unequivocal on this point. Unless the country is attacked (or threatened by attack), a President cannot order hostilities by the U.S. armed forces against an "enemy" until the Congress has given the President a green light. Nowhere in our Constitution is there an article that allows a President to wage war for a few weeks without a Congressional order (please stop writing "approval" because the Constitution demands an order), unless the country is attacked.
It should also be clear that a President is impeachable when Congress orders the President to begin hostilities against a defined enemy but refuses to do so!
"Could Obama Be Impeached for Waging War in Libya Without Approval of Congress?"
________________
Where there's a will, there's a way!
So-- sidestepping the sticky semantic question "it depends on what the meaning of 'could' is"-- the answer is a solid "no".
By law he could be impeached. If anything fits the definition of high crime, this does. But we will not see such a thing from the Congress. Now if he were to twitter his ... oh never mind.
I voted for the guy but I would happily support a movement ot impeach him. You had me at
Assassinator and Chief.
Wow! Wee WoW!!!
Maybe we should elect a clown as President and then we could all be watching a real circus.
No matter what our President does he will be blasted. He got rid of Bin Laden and a guy called the Brain and all you can do is blast the President.
I cannot wait until 2012 arrives.
You should consider voting for a 3rd party ... President Oblahblah's got 2012 locked up anyway. I find it unlikely that his bosses on wall st, or big oil, the "health" insurance racket, or the industrial military complex at large are going to want to ruin such a good thing. You know, changing horses in mid stream and all.
.
Oblahblah won't lose. He's too useful a servant. Romney will just have to wait till 2016.
Can you remember Bill Clinton? Of course O"Bama can be impeached - just
consider who the impeachers are. Only when DEMs are in charge is impeachment
off the table.
Richard Nixon was impeachable because Republicans like Howard Baker were willing to vote for his impeachment. Nixon chose wisely to resign.
BHO and Bill Clinton cannot be impeached, because Democrat leaders will not allow a Democrat to be impeached. They will not serioiusly consider any such charges against a fellow Democrat. Right and wrong are relative terms to progressives. Absolute truth does not exist for the liberal political class. Bill Clinton obviously gave false testimony to a US House investigation, and he made a mockery of the Oval Orifice. He was actually safer than OJ Simpson, who could not be convicted because of the implications of another black on white murder. BHO enjoys the benefits of his brotherhood. He knows how far he can go, and he plans to go much further.
United Nations approval trumps the approval of the US Congress in his opinion. He has no respect for a document composed by white slave owners over 200 years ago. He does not like the USA, and loves his position as King of the World. BHO is a domestic enemy of the United States as we have known it.
As for Bin Laden, please look again. The US military got those guys in spite of the best efforts of BHO and his political appointees. BHO is more than willing to absorb whatever credit he can get to weather this dry season. 2012 is his year, and those stimulus check are being printed. Get your grant request in early and often, cause there aren't going to be any more.
He *can* be impeached for it, but he *won't* be. Few in Congress are really opposed to the Libya War: some Democrats, and Ron Paul. The rest of those voicing opposition just want to see Obomber and his party fail, and are using "opposition" to the war as a cudgel.
I see all the right wingers (or is it just one using several names?) are putting in their blind two cents worth. The impeachment process was hijacked when the Congress, mostly republicans, allowed Chicken George Bush & his sidekick, Dead Eye Dick to commit war crimes and go unpunished. Obama is continuing the Cheney/Bush agenda and for that he should have to answer to We The People. I don't think impeachment is possible unless they backtrack and go after the real war criminals.
As usual Glenn Greenwald is right on the mark. Now why can't we with some degree of certainty see the advantage of a parliamentary system to this monstrosity we now have referred to whether accurately or not as a separation of powers system. In a parliamentary system, all that's need to remove a prime minister or equivalent official, in Germany and Austria a chancellor, is to defeat that head of govenment in a confidence vote or that prime mininster or chancellor must then call an election and pronto to allow the people to make the decision-- no constitutional crisis just action to change what needs changing and quickly. Even just the threat of a loss of a confidence vote can cause a prime minister to resign as happened with Neville Chamberlain in 1940 with Winston Churchill coming in to replace him. This worked well and it could be the same here in the USA. Tricky Dick could easliy have been removed in 1974 with a confidence vote or threat of same and saved this country a lot of BS. Likely he would have been replaced as is the normal case in a parliamentary system by someone opposed to his views and his party. That's typically the way it goes. It can go as it did with Chamberlain as Churchill of the same party was ready to step in and was already in the cabinet. But Churchill surely was no carbon copy of Chamberlain or he would have feared a loss in a confidence vote.
As far as war crimes, yes it should be war crime to give orders to have a US citizen a president deems a threat bumped off in Don Corleone style.
USE YOUR ENERGY...
The role of Congress has never been followed. (See: William Earl Weeks'
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS...) the genocide of Native Americans,
(Richard Drinnon's FACING WEST....), the invasion of Florida and many others.
How many of us so jublilant in expending our energies on impeachment
will simultaneously act to condemn Israel for its actions (vetoed by
the US at the Security Council), continued military and domestic aid
to Israel (and nothing to any nation that "democratically": chooses a
party or coalition of parties of which we and Israel disapprove (Palestine,
Lebanon.) [ to the House Floor in Defense Appropriations HR 2012
next week, have you contacted your Representative to vote no??)]
It is vital that we all support complete Palestinian membedrship in the
international community, support a nation's rights to order its own
internal affairs (Lebanon).
We must recognize that there are also Muslims in the Middle East.Instead, we
all try to pretend that they are all like "us". That makes as much sense
as promising aid to Latin American nations but assuring that no Catholics
receive any. So much for "democracy".
email:peterloeb@yahoo.com
Surely will be in Libya long enough that Sasha and Malia will be old enough to enlist to fight there.
One of the first things Obama did when he took office was to declare investigations into the crimes of the Bush/Cheney gang off the table. He knew he would carry out the exact same policies that made that rogue administration the worst in the history of this country, and he didn't want to set some precedent that would cut him off at the knees before he had a chance to start his own crime spree.
Lindsay Graham and Harry Reid are united in their dismissal of the War Powers Act as anything but a useless piece of paper. As GG says, the leadership of both wings of the lawless Business Party are fully behind Obama's lawbreaking and don't care who knows it. Only the peanut gallery of Kucinich and assorted powerless Dems and Repugs are calling for getting the hell out of Libya. This is the usual pattern.
It's the Unitary Executive in motion, and no puny anti-war voices are going to stop the surging course of a failed empire. The wars must go on! For profits sake! They probably need to avoid killing Gadaffi for a couple years. Don't want to declare Mission Accomplished too soon. There's still many lies to choose from to keep this thing going as long as the war profiteers think necessary.
Impeach the bastard!
He is as deserving of impeachment as Baby Bush.
Could we be that lucky?? What a Christmas present that would be...
"Could Obama Be Impeached for Waging War in Libya Without Approval of Congress?". Simply put? No, not unless more powerful people want him gone for other reasons. I thought the government had made it sufficiently clear that it gives fuck-all about what normal humans want. Does anyone still believe you can reason with a psychopath? These are the same people who granted legal immunity to blackwater fucks for doing all the great things they did in Iraq. Was Bush impeached for, among about 350 other things, wiping his ass with the Geneva Convention? Not only did he wipe his ass with it, he came out and spoke openly about it, got away with it, and then had some fava beans and a nice chiante. Impeached.... I wish.
No one has distinguished filing articles of impeachment from impeachment itself, and then from conviction and removal. Although I haven't made an in-depth study, I believe the history of impeachment includes many articles being filed that didn't lead to impeachment, conviction, or removal. Wikipedia tells us,
"Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson (trial) and Bill Clinton (trial). Both were acquitted at trial. Richard Nixon resigned in the face of the near certainty of his impeachment, which had already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee."
Of course, we all know that articles of impeachment may include various allegations. The Libyan escapade is only one, and I would argue, not the most important, ground for Obama's impeachment.
What I recall most about impeachment is the valiant effort in 1991 of San Antonio representative Henry B. Gonzalez to impeach Bush I for his invasion of Kuwait/Iraq -- what today looks like child's play in comparison to Bush II's "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RfIoPGB.html (check it out). He also attempted to impeach Reagan. This was all before the Internet, which allows in my opinion much more effective work than Gonzalez could muster in his day.
It's hard to say what effect Gonzalez's impeachment articles had. To me they were stirring pronouncements of principle when few people had the guts to say the emperor had no clothes. Gonzalez risked his political career at a time when even the staunchest critics of the invasion into Kuwait failed to perceive the legal and moral bankruptcy of Bush I. South Texans (I being one of them) continue to hold Gonzalez in high esteem. I believe this shows that ordinary Americans wouldn't immediately turn out someone for filing articles against Obama.