EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Libya and the Law: Media Show Slight Interest in War Powers, Geneva
Media debates over the U.S./NATO war in Libya have often amounted to proponents arguing for "humanitarian" intervention while conservative critics worry about Barack Obama's management of the war. But the question of the war's legality should be a front and center concern.
Obama's decided to wage war on Libya without seeking congressional approval. Under some interpretations of the War Powers Act, a president can do this for 60 days, a deadline that passed on Friday, May 20. After this, according to the law, military action without Congress's authorization is illegal.
The approaching deadline attracted little media coverage. The most prominent was a Washington Post op-ed by Yale professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway (5/17/11), who argued that if the White House does not get congressional approval, "history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking."
Beyond that op-ed, coverage was minimal. There was a substantive report by Dana Bash on CNN's Situation Room (5/19/11), where she noted that "the president may be on the brink of breaking the law if he continues the mission without Congressional approval." The War Powers Act was also briefly mentioned on Fox News Channel's Special Report (5/13/11).
The Beltway newspaper the Hill had a May 20 headline, "Lawmakers Largely Silent on War Powers Authority in Libya." The same could be said for the media.
The passing of that deadline saw a slight increase in coverage, in part due to the White House's efforts to explain its position. The New York Times (5/21/11) and the Washington Post both reported on the matter (5/21/11), as did NPR's All Things Considered (5/20/11). CNN host Anderson Cooper (5/20/11) read from a statement from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, and responded: "I mean, saying he's acting consistent with it and yet not actually following it, I don't quite understand what that means."
There are legal questions surrounding the Libya War relating to international as well as domestic law. The London Sunday Telegraph (5/14/11) published an interview with NATO commander David Richards, who stressed his desire to expand the war. As the Telegraph put it: "Richards said he wanted the rules of engagement changed so that direct attacks can be launched against the infrastructure propping up Gadhafi's regime. Otherwise he fears the Libyan dictator will survive in power." Richards spoke of the need to "tighten the vice" on Moammar Gadhafi, adding:
And the following day, a Times report (5/17/11) included a Libyan official's account of the damage to civilian infrastructure:
Mr. Ayad said the network, one of the most advanced in the Arab world, had already suffered more than $1 billion in damage from NATO raids. In a PowerPoint display, he pinpointed areas that had taken the heaviest hits, including several in and near Surt, Colonel Gadhafi's hometown, on the Mediterranean coast.
The Times (4/27/11) had previously reported on this "more energetic bombing campaign" that included an attack "that temporarily knocked Libyan state television off the air." Such actions could be violations of the Geneva Conventions and the limits on targeting a country's civilian infrastructure (FAIR Blog, 4/27/11).
The Times article dwelt on the lessons from NATO's bombing of Serbia, and the understanding that attacking civilian targets--described as "high-profile institutional targets in Belgrade"--were a key part of the strategy. One retired general put it this way: "It was when we went in and began to disturb important and symbolic sites in Belgrade, and began to bring to a halt the middle-class life in Belgrade, that Milosevic's own people began to turn on him." The implication was that NATO should likewise try to "bring to a halt the middle-class life" in Libya--a strategy that would be a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.
A real discussion of the legality of the Libya War needs to include a serious discussion of these legal matters--regardless of whether Congress, the White House or NATO decides to follow the law.
- Posted in
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...
9 Comments so far
Show AllWe live in participatory fascism. We get to buy the shovels we use to dig our own graves.
I believe that Amerikans have generally come to the unconscious realization and acceptance that all of the grand rhetorical obeisance to the Constitution and the "rule of law" promulgated from primary school civics class to law school lectures, and earnestly bloviated by politicians, the legal profession, and pundits is mostly for show.
Lip-service to such pieties must be paid as an act of faith by those who worship-- or pretend to worship-- traditional Enlightenment values and standards of civilized society and government. It remains the case that everyday business and institutional government runs as if the law is very much alive and universally respected and enforced.
But somewhere between cops writing tickets and small claims court and the Halls of Power, we've gone Through the Looking Glass and "The Law" is nothing but a pack of cards dealt by Jokers.
Everybody knows by now that our government operates literally like a glorified crime syndicate animated by power and greed, and adhering only to primitive laws of gang loyalty ("omerta") and the Prime Directive that Might Makes Right.
It's hard to drum up interest in "real discussion" of the Libya intervention, the Bin Laden Caper, or any of the Amerikan Imperium's misadventures when it's obvious-- even if studiously avoided, denied, and hidden in plain sight-- that Amerika's political and military leaders do as they please and see fit, and don't need no stinkin' badges.
Obedient servant, my head tells me your blanket condemnation of our goverment operating like a "glorified criminal syndicate" which don't need no stinkin' badges to do what they do is all too correct. When decisions are made to appoint Supreme Court justices who are "pragmatic" rather than principled, you know the jig is practically up for any principled regard for the law. But my heart? That's another story and here Camus and the "Myth of Sisyphus" tend to take over. Intellectually, things seem as hopeless as for the mythological person condemned for eternity to roll the same stone to the top of the same hill, only to see the stone roll down the hill again. But there's the existentialist's response to the impossible: that we have the human imperative to continue the struggle, because we are "condemned to freedom" and denied the comfort of our excuses for non-action. The MSM is indeed the handmaiden of the criminal syndicate, but we have Common Dreams writers (like you) who will set straight the mendacity of their rationalizing covers. And we have agencies like F.A.I.R. who do the same. So welcome those who will come to the perpetual world of stone rolling on behalf of the truth.
This article discusses reports in the MSM. I believe non-MSM reports and commentary focused on the legal issues from the outset. Surely Greenwald and others often featured in CD analyzed the legalities immediately. At least I hope so. Does anyone have evidence of that? I didn't and don't have the time to research it on my own.
If only one thing about our media has become clear, it's that the MSM fails to report on issues that might be embarrassing to the MIC and those like the president who speak for it. Rampant law-breaking is one of the biggest such issues.
The war against Libya is illegal. There's really no doubt about that, which may be why the corporate media and most Congress members don't talk about the issue.It's unlikely this will change, unless...
Unless one or more of the airmen or other service personnel ordered to wage war against Libya refuse to do so, following the example of the Libyan crews who flew to Italy rather than bomb their own people, and the example of the small but honourable and courageous group of Iraq War resisters who went to Canada rather than follow their obey to attack the Iraqi people.
In my view the eternal consitutional preoccupations of many Americans need to be restrained, and instead progressive, peace loving Americans should work to undermine the war machine at its weakest point, which is the men and women who run that machine. As with labour struggles, appeals to legality rarely work; strikes and other direct actions by the workers do.
The constitutional restraints on American warmaking are a dead letter. When was the last time Congress refused to declare war, or refused to fund a war initiated without its constitutionally required declaration? I'm pretty sure there has been no such action since the aggressive Mexican War of the 1840's. I wish I were mistaken on this -- make my day and correct me if I am.
So it's up to the soldiers, seamen, airmen, and Marines to refuse to obey illegal orders, and for the other peace loving Americans to support them when they do so. Yes, it has come to this. Sorry, lawyers and constitutional scholars -- but it's clear your legal activities are rather irrelevant when it comes to war.
Obama and Bush, two sides of the same Neocon coin.
US media is mostly controlled by the same CorporaZionists who have an interest in eternal plunderwars.
*Anderson Cooper (5/20/11) read from a statement from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, and responded: "I mean, saying he's acting consistent with it and yet not actually following it, I don't quite understand what that means."*
Which, of course, means Anderson Cooper is full well aware what that means, but doesn't have the temerity to come out and say it.
*One retired general put it this way: "It was when we went in and began to disturb important and symbolic sites in Belgrade, and began to bring to a halt the middle-class life in Belgrade, that Milosevic's own people began to turn on him." The implication was that NATO should likewise try to "bring to a halt the middle-class life" in Libya--a strategy that would be a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.*
Which can then be used to ask, are middle class Libyans now supporting Qaddafi in such large numbers that they could then be turned against him by such action? Just askin' the question...