EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congress Must Debate the Libya War
The U.S. is now at war in a third Muslim country, according to the "official tally" (that is, counting Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya but not Pakistan or Yemen, for example.) But Congress has never authorized or debated the U.S. military intervention in Libya. (A sharply disputed claim holds that the Pakistan and Yemen actions are covered by the 2001 authorization of military force, but no-one has dared to argue that the 2001 AUMF covers Libya.)
Some will no doubt claim that the President is acting in Libya within his authority as Commander-in-Chief. But this is an extremely dangerous claim.
To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral Presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime.
Some Members of Congress have strongly objected to President Obama's bombing of Libya without Congressional approval.
On the Democratic side, John Larson, chair of the Democratic Caucus in the House, called for President Obama to seek congressional approval. Reps. Jerrold Nadler, Donna Edwards, Mike Capuano, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Rob Andrews, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee and Eleanor Holmes Norton "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during a Saturday call organized by Larson, the Politico reports.
"They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress," one Democrat[ic] lawmaker said of the White House. "They're creating wreckage, and they can't obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. ... There aren't boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air."
"Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called," added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.
"Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members."
On the Republican side, Senator Richard Lugar, ranking Member on Senate Foreign Relations, told CBS' Face the Nation yesterday that if we're going to war with Libya, we ought to have a declaration of war by the Congress:
A memo distributed to Republican aides in the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee made the case that Congressional authorization is necessary and used Barack Obama's own words to make the case, ABC reported.
The memo quotes Obama when he was in the Senate and there were concerns that then-President George W. Bush would take strike Iran.
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," the memo quotes then-Senator Obama saying on Dec. 20, 2007.
In times like this, you can be sure some journalist will marvel at the "strange bedfellows" coalition of Democrats and Republicans standing up to the President. But there's nothing strange about this bed. Everyone who wants to live in a constitutional republic belongs in this bed. Everyone who wants to hold the Administration to its promise of a "limited intervention" aimed at "protecting civilians," rather than overthrowing the Libyan government, and to avoid "mission creep" from the former to the latter, belongs in this bed.
Congressional debate is a key means of compelling the Administration to clearly state its case and its objectives, to be honest and transparent about the potential cost of its proposed policies, and to limit its actions to its stated objectives; and to force Members of Congress to go on the record, in opposition or in support, and to state clearly, if they support, what it is that they support. On cost, for example: each Tomahawk missile is reported to cost on the order of a million dollars. So, firing 110 of them over the weekend cost about $100 million, far more than House Republicans cut from National Public Radio with great fanfare. Shouldn't Congress consider this expenditure?
Two days into the military intervention, there was already sharp dispute over whether the military intervention that has unfolded has already gone beyond what the UN Security Council authorized and what the Arab League endorsed.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported:
A day after a summit meeting in Paris set the military operation in motion, some Arab participants in the agreement expressed unhappiness with the way the strikes were unfolding. The former chairman of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, told Egyptian state media that he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya.
"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said, referring to Libyan government claims that allied bombardment had killed dozens of civilians in and near Tripoli.
Today, Moussa appeared to walk back these remarks.
But with Benghazi apparently no longer under Libyan government threat, and with Western bombs falling in Tripoli, this dispute over the scope of Western bombing is virtually certain to intensify.
You can debate the constitutional issue of war powers until the cows come home; but as a practical matter, if Congress doesn't formally address the issue, such debate isn't very relevant. If a majority of the House and the Senate support the present US military intervention in Libya, let them say so on the record, at least, by voting for a resolution to authorize military force. If the majority of the House or Senate are opposed, let them say so on the record. A minimum standard for transparency in government is that the House and the Senate go on the record for or against a new war.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
68 Comments so far
Show AllCongress will decide what corporations want. What good can come of that?
Time for a referendum on each war.
A referendum would be a good idea; that's why it will never come to pass. Wars require a declaration of war by congress; that's what the Constitution says, But ever since the Soviet Union made the bonehead move of stomping indignantly out of the Security Council, enabling the U.S. get the votes for our troops to go in to Korea as a U.N. sanctioned "police action," the old "declaration of war" provision has been superseded by the Executive Branch and its "Commander in Chief," the president. Now there has been so much precedent established that it would be almost old fashioned and quaint to have congress make a declaration of war. What would be the reason to declare war on Libya -- some of its people are revolting against a crackpot dictator and we can't let that happen (there; it happens other places and the U.S. doesn't feel a need to get in on it)?
All those right wingers who say that the Constitution is unviolatable never seem to weigh in on presidential warmaking.
If the Congress appropriates money for a military action (as it did in Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Iraq and Afganistan), that will very likely as a legal matter be viewed as constitutionally sufficient even in the absence of a formal declaration of war.
By you and those like you.
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
And to you: Paedicabo ego vos et irrumabo, pathice.
Who are you calling a "pathicus"?
For those of you who don't know Latin, our dear Horace has stooped to calling his discussion partner here a sodomite ("passive" partner, of course).
Horrible Horace must now be crowned the champion ad hominemer at CD.
Amazing that a man with such a patch of brown sticky stuff around his nose would denigrate anything related to assholes.
Hoist Horace! (on his own you know what).
And to you: Paedicabo ego vos et irrumabo, pathice.
Shame on you Horace. You have forgotten your namesake's motto;
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem - Remember when life's path is steep to keep your mind even. (Horace)
A very classy (and classical) reply. My compliments!
Than you, sir.
What a site this sometimes is. I've posted criticizing the insult back-and-forth posting sprees that sometimes happen, but this is the first batch I've seen of posters dissing each other in Latin (I think that's Latin; I took it in High School but don't remember much; that was half a century ago).
Much classier than the "you're an ignorant asshole" reply posts we sometimes get.
Exactly. Robert Naiman is basically suggesting that we let Congress "debate" it before they give Obama everything that he wants. They'll probably add a few countries to our target list while they're at it, and slip in a few tax breaks to Raytheon while also defunding public schools.
Nothing good can come from asking Congress to debate anything. We'd be better off without the institution, IMO.
Constitution be damned seems to be the new mantra for US Presidents. They now have taken on the mantle of Commander in Chief and are no longer even behaving as civilian leaders. It's all about War and power. Remember it's just a g-d-damn pieced of paper.....
peggyforpeace,
I agree. Ever since the PR boys at Rand Corporation decided you could get around any rule of law or moral compunction in the populate by redefining or thoroughly confusing word meanings, it's been a free-for-all for the goons.
Just a few examples:
1) They stopped having wars declared (Korea was a "police action") to get around the15% profit limitation that Truman's war profiteering law (it's still on the books) put on the greedsters.
2) They managed to make destruction (a negative term) appear positive (creative destruction).
3) They made circular legal arguments like presidential signing statements that outlawed congressional legislation that outlaws presidential signing statements official and quite acceptable because the president and mother-may-I said so. I think they called it Executive Bulllshit (I mean Authority, of course.). This is, by the way, indistinguishable from rule by decree in monarchies.
4) They now are saying a war isn't really a war because they say so.
It's cognitive dissonance all the way, baby.
And the people who valiantly defend their corporate sponsors in congress are okay with that. We don't have a representative Congress. Welch from Vermont is currently worked up because maple syrup jars of foreign (evil out of state flatlanders) are on the same shelves as pure Vermont maple syrup. This outrage must be addressed immediately and all Vermont maple syrup must have their own shelf! We certainly don't want Vermonters getting confused at the store by similar containers. They may be forced to read labels. Not a word about defunding war though.
Sigh.
If Obama had called for a no fly zone over Gaza, Congress would be outraged.
Will those in Congress, who are so concerned about how Libya will play out move to cut off funding as easily as they did for NPR? Oops - not likely, as Libya doesn't compete against for-profit radio networks...
Well maybe we'll be awake at the wheel come next election.....and maybe it is to late since it money talks and it looks like all the money belongs to corporations and now that they are "people" will it be possible to compete with them...
I am 71 yrs old and live in one of the bluest states in the nation...I applied for public housing and was told that although I was eligible the wait list is 10 yrs or longer....millions for bombs and nothing for the elderly or the needy...shame on us
Whether they speak on the record is irrelevant at this point. The Ticks of War are already embedded and have blood running out of their mouths. The spineless, barbaric bastards (and bastardettes) in congress don't give a rats ass. They will do whatever they want. The press doesn't care either. It provides them with 'content' that drives advertising, e.g. paychecks.
--END RANT--
Didn't we have another President not so long ago who seemed to be able to get away with bombing and/or invading anyone he pleased? Where was the great public hue and cry back then? Anyways, is it just me or does it seem like we have all the money in the world for bombs and wars and none for needed social programs back home? How does that work? Can someone tell me?
http://thelimingview.blogspot.com/
- but no-one has dared to argue that the 2001 AUMF covers Libya. -
Okay, I'll dare.
On Friday a guy said this:
American Official Warns That Qaddafi May Lash Out With New Terrorist Attacks.
And on Saturday, the next day, the West began attacking Libya.
Attacks against civilians are terrorism.
So, by preventing Qaddafi from attacking his own civilians, the US military is preventing future terrorism..
And that's what the 2001 AUMF (aka Public Law 107-40) allows the President to do.
I suggest yet again that we stop ignoring this law. I am happy to see that someone mentioned it, even in passing.
So you are arguing that that AUMF allows the President to bomb any nation anywhere anytime as long as he says the country somehow supports terrorism? Wow. Amazing. You must have taken law courses from John Yoo.
Vote in Congress??? The cows are already outta the Barn. Too little, too late.
Congressional debate on Libya:
Most Republicans: We must lower taxes on the rich and cut entitlements. (that is what they say no matter what the issue)
Leading (sic) Democrats: We have carefully examined all alternatives, and find that nothing will work except military intervention.
I simply cannot believe what I am reading here. You speak as if you actually don't want Gaddaffi to get killed, can this be so? Don't you get it? Gadaffi is EVIL.I have to actually read some your stuff two or three times because I cannot comrehend that sane senitient human beings appear to be defending the rights of Gadaffi. I am glad that the people in charge are not as twisted as some of you, and are doing the right thing. I can only delight in the idea that action must be making you mad as hell, because few people are stupid enough to take a blind bit of notice of you. I would like to put a gun in Gadaffi's mouth and blow his brain out.
Mr. coolsimon
Suppose someone decided in a foreign country that Obama was evil and attempted to kill him. I suspect that you would not be too thrilled if that were to happen. But yet you in your omniscience believe that the United States [and/or the C.I.A.] has the right to murder any leader of a foreign country that it wishes.
Here is a little news flash for you. The United States, to the best of my knowledge, has never been granted the power to become the policeman of the world. The U.S. has no right to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. If you believe that it does then you must also believe that a foreign power would have been justified in sending in its soldiers during the 18th and 19th centuries into the United States because it did not approve of the United States engaging in the barbaric act of slavery.
I suggest that you try to educate yourself by reading a very relevant book regarding this issue and that book would be Killing Hope: U.S. Military And C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II by William Blum which goes into much depth concerning the malign intentions of the United States. Those bellicose policies, both officially and unofficially, have not abated since the U.S. has engaged in carrying out those policies with much vigor since 1947.
Why are you not in Libya fighting against Qaddaffi? Why are you not putting your body where your mouth is? Perhaps you have a son or daughter there. If not, why not?
dkshaw
Well said as the motto of the chickenhawks appears to be:
Do as I say, not as I do.
Cold blooded murder perpetrated against a muderer doesn't make you a good guy. It makes you the same as the person you murdered.
I don't agree with your statement. If a murderer broke into your house, knife in hand, would you make every effort to subdue him or make every effort to protect your family and not worry about whether or not your intruder might get killed in the process?
Naiman's admirable but naive view of Congress may have once been an institutionalised reality.............
Until President Truman "explained " to us (the U.S) how the United Nations 1950 Police Action. legally explained the start of the Korean War. How often Has Settled Constitutional Law about Congress' sole Right to Declare War been honored since?!
Get out your credit card, America! Let's spend billions more on more war! More bombing! More destruction and instability!!!
Strange, we can't afford to fund our schools,our health care, our roads and bridges. But we can come up with billions for bombs, weapons, jet fighters,etc., just like that! What a joke. And what a war-monger joke Obama has become. Hope and change? Now I feel no hope for any change unless we get him out of there...but then, why will the next one be any different?
What is so great and wonderful about Qadafi that you prefer him to democratically elected representatives? That's what is happening in North Africa. Dictators are being replaced by democracy as demanded by brave demonstrators in the streets. But apparently, even if the U.N. coalition was not formed and Obama simply watched Qadafi carry out his threats to show no mercy in crushing the uprising, you would condemn Obama for that, or whatever he did. So, is it Obama himself you detest, or do you see the USA as the bad guy in all circumstances, or both?
"Dictators are being replaced by democracy as demanded by brave demonstrators in the streets."
Imagine for a moment, a near future in the US where " 'corporate oppresssors' are being replaced by democracy as demanded by brave demonstrators in the streets." Which side would you then be on? Whom would you support? It's not as far-fetched as you might think. I'm guessing you'd be on the side of POWER.
.
If the U.N-backed intervention in Libya is debated in Congress, no one there would oppose it because they know Ghadaffi's Libya was a client state of the former Soviet Union, which is why all their military hardware is Soviet made, so his overthrow is opposed only by those who remain loyal to Soviet propaganda. To them, the USA is always the bad guy, even with a liberal Democrat and first African-American President in the White House.
See my rant about this subject at the John Nichols version of this article-- not to be confused with the Matthew Rothschild version.
Or not.
This is an area where the left should form alliances with Tea Party types.
Many- of course, not all- Tea Partiers consider this sort of abuse of executive power to be a real breach of constitutionality.
Google the following words:
tea party libya declare war
I'm just an ordinary person, but shouldn't you have the debate BEFORE going to war? What is there to debate now? Whether congress should get a pay raise while the rest of us are poverty stricken? Shut down the government WITH PAY for themselves, nobody else?
I'm so mad I could quote Sarah Palin: "How's that hopey changy thing working out for us"? Who do you congresspeople think you are? You were elected remember? You took an oath remember? Remember that part about the constitution?
You hit the nail right on the head, Nietzsche! Well stated and great questions for those who have ostensibly sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Holy bait and switch O-man! We voted for fewer wars, not more. Can we at least sue for false advertising?
I'm surprised to see such a frenzy of strict Constructionist behaviour here. Don't you know, the American Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be reinterpreted to fit the changing, growing world?
What in god's name are you talking about? Living and breathing does not mean you can completely ignore it.
Interpretation of the Constitution requires adaptation of its broad principles to the conditions and challenges faced by successive generation. The Founders could forsee today's world and it's issues no more than they could forsee high capacity magazines that let guns shoot dozens of bullets without reloading or guns that could shoot someone from half a mile away. Things are more complex now, and Constitutional interpretation has to take that into account. This just isn't the same world the document was written in.
Obama did not consult congress because congress has shown that congress is irrelevant.
"Congress Must Debate the Libya War"
Absolutely!
But first Congress has a backlog to clear out. It must also debate the war against Viet Nam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several others.
After the debate, they might even approve them. If not, then they can tell the millions of dead people "my bad". :)
What ever happened to the War Powers Act? It was enacted in the aftermath of the Viet Nam Conflict to prevent the President from committing our armed forces to endless conflicts without presenting a finding to the Congress to justify the use of the armed forces. I understand that since it's passage the executive branch has been opposed to the War Powers Act. This has included both republican and democratic administrations. Since it's inception, has the War Powers Act ever been invoked?
As long as America keeps electing war criminals to office and subsequently failing to hold them accountable, there will continue to be no need for justification.
''
Who is picking up the tab $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for this Scouting Jamboree ?
//