Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Waging Another Unconstitutional War
The meticulous Harvard Law Review editors should be rolling over in their footnotes. The recidivist violations of constitutional and statutory requirements by their celebrated predecessor at that journal – Barack Obama has reached Orwellian dimensions in the war against Libya.
You see, the widespread daily bombing of Libya, the strict naval blockade of Muammar Gadhafi-controlled Libya, the destruction of Gadhafi's family compound and tent encampment in the desert--killing his son and three grandchildren--and the deployment of special forces inside Libya is not a "War." It is in the Obama White House's evasive nomenclature just a "time-limited, scope-limited military action" Can you find that phrase in the Constitution?
If Obama used the word "War," he would have a more difficult time explaining to Congress and the American people (three out of four oppose this war) why he did not (1) seek a declaration of war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, or (2) seek Congressional authorization for appropriated funds to further the war with our NATO co-warriors, or (3) comply with the deadlines of the War Powers Resolution. He threw all three lawful restraints on his Presidential unilateralism overboard.
So, in the invidious tradition of George W. Bush and his indentured confessor, Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, now comfortably ensconced on the law faculty of the University of California Berkeley, Mr. Obama is blithely claiming as authority for taking our country into another war "the inherent powers of the President under Article II of the Constitution." This wouldn't pass the laugh test by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin Mason or even Hamilton. James Madison believed placing the war-declaring power in the exclusive hands of Congress was the most significant achievement during the convention in Philadelphia that summer of 1787. No more King George substitutes for America's future, they demanded.
Note that Libya did not attack the U.S. or its appendages, and did not attack a member of NATO. Obama admits these points. Libya's trusting government sovereign fund even left $37 billion in the U.S. which Obama promptly froze. Lacking even the prevaricatory pretenses for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, Obama and Hillary Clinton now say the U.S. is militarily involved "to protect our interests and advance our values" in the region and, of course, to protect the "universal rights" of the Libyan people. (Opportunities abound for this Obama doctrine around the world from the Congo to Syria, to Burma, to occupied Palestine and many other areas.)
Desperately seeking legitimacy, Mr. Obama cites the UN resolution, NATO, and the Arab League instead of seeking it from Congress. For all treaties with foreign countries, including the UN Charter, are trumped by the U.S. Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)). As a former teacher of constitutional law, the President knows this basic principle but then, as Lord Acton declared: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Congress, rendered a rubber stamp by President George W. Bush, is bestirring itself. On June 3, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. Res 292 declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. On this matter, Obama pleads state secrets.
On June 16, 2011, ten members of the House – five conservative Republicans (including Walter B. Jones (Rep. N.C.) and Ron Paul (Rep. Texas) and five Democrats (including Dennis Kucinich (Dem. Ohio) and John Conyers (Dem. Mich.) filed suit against President Obama in federal district court for an order declaring the U.S. war in Libya "without a declaration of Congress with the use of funds never approved for such a war" to be unconstitutional. Given past judicial decisions declaring members of Congress to have "no standing to sue" on what they call "political matters," this suit is facing an uphill barrier.
Congress has appropriated no money for this war, already costing nearly a billion dollars, nor has the lawless Obama asked for it because he knows there will be strong bi-partisan resistance.
So where is the Congress to go but to the courts to decide this internal, domestic issue affecting the separation of powers provoked by a clearly lawless President? The degraded, politicized, formerly professional, Office of Legal Counsel is a sleazy apologist for presidential overreaching for over two decades.
The expanding immunities of the Executive branch, now increasingly embracing the military contractors of the corporate state, is destroying the remaining pretensions that we are a nation under law. When he was inaugurated as President in January 2009, President Obama said he wanted his Administration to be known as one of "transparency and the rule of law." You'll recall during his 2008 campaign he trumpeted that he would obey the Constitution, inferring the the Republican regime was trampling the Rule of Law.
Indeed in 2007, then Senator Barack Obama stated that "the president does not have any 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." Vice President Biden was even more vehement on this issue. And Secretary of Defense Robert Gates originally opposed the attack on Libya before falling in line.
Gadhafi's dictatorship is a brutal one. Civil wars are brutal. People are dying and suffering. The country is being torn apart. Obama and NATO are not adequately testing offers for a truce and supervised elections. Top level officials are defecting from Gadhafi and hoping to help lead any successor government.
Regimes brutalize their people whether as dictatorships, authoritarian rulers, connected with dominant oligarchies, or through racial, religious or other sectarian repressions. Is the U.S., mired in deep recession, debt and its own kleptocracy, going to continue to police the world with bases, interventions, subversions or occupation?
The cause of human rights everywhere, needs a permanent, well-quipped professional United Nations peace-keeping force and effective international courts to prevent mass massacres and mass brutalities. That time is not near but it should be at the top of the agenda of civilized nations.
The U.S., as the number one military superpower, provoking antagonisms by its penchant for control throughout the world, should not imperially advance our empire. It is that belief which is bringing Right and Left together, not just in Congress, but around the country.
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...
161 Comments so far
Show Allneoseity,
You never ever saw where I wrote any such thing,,,on the contrary,,, read my first post here.
Ralph Nadar had done many good things. But when Nader ran for the office of presidency against Gore and Bush, he was satisfying his over inflated ego to "send a message"... That was not one of Nader's better acts.
In an event, an accident, an election, etc, if only one single event is eleminated, the results can be totally altered.
I already answered that scribe and fully agree Libya is on topic.. How you worded your reply to me was off topic... I didn't want to continue our arguments about you supporting Gadaffi and I don't.
The hanging chads in Florida were directly related to Ralph Nader being on the ballot in Florida. I made one comment here and have had a dozen reply to me so I answer their comments to me, no intent to be deruptive.You are allowed to scroll on past my comments, no requirement to reply.
"I guess all these people are just Gaddafi supporters, huh Wayne?"
no, no.
it should be obvious that they are all Nader supporters.
WayneWR,
You are still stuck on Democratic talking points: blame the independent voters and candidates for Democratic Party losses as though the Democrat Party doesn't have to earn the votes (Gore folded is less than 24 hours without a fight and independents had reason not to vote for Gore/Liebermann as the latter is more a war hawk than Bush ever was), stating that Nader is in this for his ego (no facts to support, just a much repeated talking point), and blaming the Bush policies on independents who voted for Nader even though the Democrats supported and voted for Bush's worst policies throughout his term and have extended those policies under Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Agreed.
Progressive101,
Stuck on democrats? It just so happens I'm an Independent and did not vote for the modern day Pied Piper or a republican. I wrote in Michael Moore on my ballot.
Gore folded? Funny, I so believe the Supreme Court elected Bush Jr because of the Florrida mess of hanging chads. Without Nader that would have never happened and any who deny that are lying to themselves.
Gore has (no chance) whatsoever of taking legal actrion agains the Supreme Court's ruling and prevailing; not a prayer and he didn't attempt to fight it. It was a precident, the court would not have heard his case.
"Without Nader that would have never happened and any who deny that are lying to themselves."
- And without the Reform Party's 17,484 votes it would have never happened.
And without the Libertarian Party's 16,415 votes it would never have happened.
And without the Natural Law party's 2281 votes it would never have happened.
And without the Workers World Party's 1,804 votes it would've never happened.
And without the Constitution Party's 1,371 votes it never would have happened.
And without the Socialist Party's 622 votes it never would have happened.
And without the Socialist Workers Party's 562 votes it never would've happened.
And without the over 200,000 registered Democrats voting for a Republican it never would have happened.
Again, you are disingenuous.
Nope, Nader took many more votes than any other independents in Florida and if he had not been on the Florida ballot Gore would have won, period. Your arguments are not valid, period. There were many resons combined why Gore lost, he lost his own state for example. However; if Nader had not been on the balot in Florida Gore would have been our president, not Bush.
Now perhaps you could answer this fair question... What was Nader attempting to accomplish by being on the ballot and what good did he accomplish?
Bet you and many others here will ignore that fair question..
It is rather needless to bring up Nadar's mistake now but I did because for him to be criticizing presidents now is hypocrisy on his part and we should all remember what did occur and try to prevent another such error and have another Bush.
WayneWR again inquires, "What was Nader attempting to accomplish by being on the ballot..." As I have attempted to explain, Nader was attempting to offer a choice to Floridians and other Americans that the pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans did not offer and that was a candidate who was not going to suck up to the major corporations. As I have tried to point out to our friend here, Nader should, in theory, have the right to run against both major parties. But as I explained in my other comment, the last thing that the Democrats and the Republicans and the corporate media ever desired was for the American people to think that they actually had a chance to vote for [as well as seeing Nader at a live debate in Boston in 2000] a candidate who was not a threat to either the Democrats and the Republicans. And the Democrats and the Republicans and the mainstream media, who barely focused any attention upon Nader, were certainly not going to allow that to happen.
As Phil Donahue says in the documentary An Unreasonable Man, perhaps independent candidates such as Nader should always inquire of the Democrats if this year [pick any presidential year] is the time when they can finally be allowed to run in a presidential race. Or will they always have to seek permission of the Democrats to do that which is already granted to them by the United States Constitution?
Now that I have answered your "fair question" can you tell us how much cash you will send me given the fact that you just lost your bet?
You only answered (half) of the question.. You didn't say what good did he accomplish. You wrote in part...> ("Nader was attempting to offer a choice to Floridians and other Americans that the pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans did not offer.")..
I do hope that you are just tickeled pink that Ralph Nader did that and sent his "message" and we got Bush Jr instead of Al Gore... We really don't know all that Gore would have done as president, we can only guess... We certainly do know for certain what Bush/Cheney did and they ruined this nation and Iraq... Does that make you happy? Smile for everyone.
Now I have attacked no one here. I have called no one a fool, an idiot, insane, delusional, or beyond dangerous or any other derogatory terms. .
I have said ("Gore wins in (*Florida*) he would have been elected president and that Nader prevented him from winning in (*Florida*")... There is nothng foolish, or delusional, insane, idiotic or "dangerous" about that belief... besides that, it's a fact... You can deny the facts and I don't care if you do.
Remember who Gore's running mate was??
If Gore had become President, Mossad could have taken him out, putting the Israeli puppet Lieberman in the Oval Office to bomb Iran for them.
I was going to say, "Thank G`d, for small favors" but instead I'll have to modify to "Thank Satan's little helpers( hanging chads and shill campaigners) for small favors, and G~d for a big one."
OldUncleDave,
("If") you say... (If) the dog hadn't stopped to shit it would have caught the rabbit.
Btw, I'd prefer "Lie berman" over Bush or Cheney any day while holding my nose of course, (if) you (assumptions) had ever taken place.
Really? You would put Israel first?
"...Obama would not have inherited the incredible mess he obviously doesn't know how to handle."
This is B.S.
The Blue Party had the Majority in BOTH houses for the 111th Congress at the same time they had Obama's first two years and a HUGE mandate for change.
They could have chucked their Bush/Red Party "inheritance" right out the window.
Nope matti,
What I wrote is not BS... Obama would (not have inherited) the mess Bush left for all of us because Bush wouldn't have been the president for eight years if Nader had stayed out of it.
I also have not said Obama is a good president, he should have pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghan the day he was sworn in. He had and has that authoity. He also should have provided the millions of good jobs he continually promised with developing truly clean energy, not promoting clean coal and nuclear. There are many things Obama should have done but he's following the Bush program.
My comment he inherited Bush's mess is correct and if Gore had won in Florida he would have been the president and the Bush/Cheney cartel, Iraq and Afghan Wars would never have happened. Florida was the the only element left that meant the difference and Nader was the key to that element.
Denruter,
Have you read what I have posted here, all of them replying to many others? It does not matter if Gore lost Arkansas and Tennesse, Arizona or many other states. Al Gore had won enough electoral college votes to be elected president (had he ALSO WON IN FLORIDA.) And actually he did win there, but the Supreme Court did not allow a fair recount and elected Bush. I hope you aren't happy with that disaster.
Had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot in (Florida) to send his "message" about there are only two parties, which I also deplore, Al Gore would have been our president. That is a fact and is not "hogwash".
I would love to see Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann run for the presidency and with the current crop of presidential candidates it would not matter who they may spoil. It mattered a great deal when Gore lost.
Denruter
Extremely well said. WayneWR's less than cogent points are reminiscent of what juror #9, played by Ed Begley, said in the classic film 12 Angry Men when he told juror #8, played by Joseph Sweeney:
"I don't care about facts".
It seems that whatever facts and logic and reason one tells someone like Wayne, that it will will not matter because, as Henry Fonda said in that same referenced film from above:
"He can't hear you. He never will."
As I attempted to explain to Wayne in another comment, Ralph Nader has a right, just like any other citizen does, to run for president of the United States even if that means not belonging to either the Democratic or the Republican party. And no matter how Wayne attempts to slice it, that is simply the bottom line.
Erroll, you wrote, ("I don't care about facts".")... Actually what I have written here in regards to the votes in the (Florida) presidential race between Gore, Bush and Nader are facts,,,, It is you who is denying the facts.
What have I posted about that issue that is incorrect?
You have not addressed a single factual (fact) that I have written on the subject with any sensible replies on the many comments you have posted about me.
This will probably be like shouting into the wind but I will try this one last time. You claim that I and others here have supposedly not addressed your belief that Nader supposedly "stole" the election from Al Gore. Any reasonable, intelligent person would immediately recognize how bogus that belief is given the fact, as I have attempted to state numerous times, apparently to no avail, that Nader could not have possibly stolen the election from Gore given the fact that he had just as much of a right to run for president as Gore and Bush did in 2000. Since, whether you choose to believe it or not, this is true we then must ask ourselves if Floridians as well as citizens in other states actually have the right to vote for Nader if he or she chooses to do so. Since this is also true it must then be acknowledged by any reasonable and intelligent person that Nader could not have possibly stolen that election away from Gore since Nader had just as much of a right to run for president as the other candidates. What you are refusing to acknowledge is that if Gore had actually run a better campaign then he would have easily won the state of Florida. But as was pointed out in another comment not only did Gore fail to win Florida he also failed to win Clinton's home state of Arkansas as well as his own state of Tennessee!
In short, the only person that you should be blaming is Al Gore himself. But of course you will not do that as it is always easier to look for another scapegoat on which to pin that loss such as Ralph Nader. I think not.
That once again is a Strawman argument Erroll.
I never once said Nader "stole the election" from Al Gore. He didn't steal anything, he just helped Bush win..
I never once have said anyone who is elegible cannot run for the presidency. It is my perfect right to run if I desire... So? That is beyond the point I am saying. It is an illogical argument for what occurred in Gore's presidential race.
I have said, because Ralph Nader was on the ballot in Florida, most of the the votes he took would have gone to Al Gore, thousands of votes and Bush would have lost Florida and the election. That is an unarguable fact by any intelligent reasonable person.
Several credible polls after the election verified that is so. They were all about the same poll results. Most by far who did vote for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader was not on the ballot.
I have stated that Nader's ONLY purpose to get in the race, was to (send a message) and he sent it... He knew he had zero chance of ever winning the elction, it was a bullheaded ego trip, he had the right to run and by God he was going to do it regardless of the consequences... By doing that, we ended up with the Bush/Cheney Cartel... Does that suit you,,, make you happy?
What have I written there in this reply to your reply to me that is incorrect? Just stick to thos points and explain where they are not factual... If you can.
(1)... In the first vote count, Al Gore lost Florida by less than 550 votes. That meant an automatic recount and the Supreme Court stepped in and declared Bush the winner of Florida, which made him the president.
(2)... Ralph Nader took several thousand votes. If he had not been on the ballot most of those votes would have gone to Al Gore and he would have been our president instead of Bush. That is what I wrote... Where is that incorrect?
Tell us Wayne, are you being intentionally obtuse here or are you suffering from ADD? No, despite what you think, I am not trying to pick on you by supposedly hurling insults at you. After reading your comments one can only draw the logical conclusion that you must be suffering from attention deficit disorder as you seem to have read only certain parts of what I had written.
In your second paragraph you claim that you "never once have said anyone who is eligible cannot run for the presidency." You practically contradict that statement by later stating that, "It is an illogical argument for what occurred in GORE'S [my emphasis] presidential race." By stating that that was Gore's race you are strongly inferring that Al Gore and only Al Gore was either entitled to run in 2000 against Bush or that Al Gore was somehow preordained to win that race.
You claim in your usual omniscient way that "Nader's ONLY purpose to get in the race, was to [send a message] and he sent it..." You again ignore the fact that if Nader had a right to run for president then the voters of Florida certainly had a right to vote for whomever they chose and that could even include, shockingly, Ralph Nader.
You also chose to ignore what I had written earlier and that is that if Gore had run a better and more competent campaign he should have easily beaten Bush. But yet, not only did your hero fail to win Florida he failed to carry Clinton's home state of Arkansas. To take this a step further, the inept Gore was unable to even win his home state of Tennessee! Please explain to us, O wise one, how that was possible. I submit that a candidate who could not even convince enough voters of his home state to vote for him does not deserve to be president. Or is your next trick to attempt to convince us that not carrying Tennessee was also Nader's fault?
You keep attempting to ignore the crux of the main point and that is, again, since, as you readily admit, that Nader had just as much of a right to run as Gore it then follows that he ran in that race because he felt that he offered the voters of Florida an alternative to both Gore and Bush. You also keep complaining that Nader "helped Bush win" while never realizing that both Gore and Bush voters helped Nader lose.
As Phil Donahue said in the film An Unreasonable Man, perhaps independent candidates like Nader should go on their knees and inquire not only of the democrats but also of people like you when exactly it would be permissible for them to run for president. In all likelihood the answer from you would be never. Perhaps you would like to punish people if they dared to vote for a third party candidate. Here is a news flash for you, pal. In a country that is supposed to be a democracy people are allowed to vote for whomever they wish. And no matter how much that may displease you that is what voting in a democracy should be all about.
You remind me of an interview I saw with Eric Alterman several years ago ... unleashing all his sanctimonious scornful disdain on Ralph Nader for supposedly losing the election for Al Gore. Boo-hoo "it was Big Bad Ralph that cost us the election ... not our crappy republican-lite politicians and policies...."
.
Did Ralph Nader make Gore pick rightwing Lieberman as his VP too? Did Ralph Nader tell Gore to push for a recount of only a few selective Florida counties, which he would have lost, instead of demanding a full statewide recount - which he would have won? Did Ralph Nader make Al Gore roll over and play dead while the state and federal republican establishments, along with the supreme court threw the election to Bush?
.
The fact is that when it matter the most ... Al Gore laid down and died. But I suppose that's Ralph Nader's fault too.
.
The whole premise that a democrat in office would have somehow been substantively better than Bush is completely disingenous hypothetical anyway. Where were the democratic party on all the major issues of the last decade - the patriot act, all the wars, tax cuts for the rich, Gitmo, torture, the bailouts, the economy, privitization and de-regulation, retroactive immunity for telecoms, the annihilation of the 4th amendment specifically and the Bill of Rights in general, and on and on and on? Whenever the dems weren't going along with the pubs in lockstep they were offering a token smoke 'n mirrors resistance, at best.
You really think Gore and attack dog Lieberman would have been that much different than Bush and Cheney? The record of the D party over the last decade is at odds with your delusional hypothetical.
Franciszek2
Extremely well said. I agree about Alterman. I saw his rant in the film an Unreasonable Man where he, along with Todd Gitlin, came across as being extremely puerile and whiny.
It's kind of funny ... I read Eric Alterman's book about the non existent liberal media in which he mostly treated the conservatives and the corporate media with kid gloves. But apparently the gloves are off when it comes to his views on Ralph Nader.
Yeah ok, its Ralph Nader's fault corporate subsidiaries in the Red and Blue parties are in the process of demolishing this country....
.
Eric Alterman and our friend Wayne here are afflicted by a type of bewildering cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. They are deflecting blame from the blue party onto Ralph Nader ... its ridiculous.
Exactly right. Old
Rumpled Ralph did not do this country any favor by getting W appointed. Too bad RR's ego needed a boost. We are living with the consequences, now. There is such a thing as political reality. But Nader would rather be right and skip the hard work of making a difference in effecting change in our system of goverance. His claim to fame is based on his ability to pontificate. Have the Obama Bashers ever considered where the real opposition to progress in this country is centered in the political spectrum? What a shame RR lacks any appeal as a candidate. Obama Bashers would like to chase that rainbow, cause it's easier than reality
Preaching to the choir is so boring.
Things got worse with 8 years of Bush. The next nut from way over on the other side will be worse than Obama. Nader nuts won't buy it, but continued Obama Bashing will contribute to his defeat. Another 5 steps backward curtisey of a smart person without a clue.
Obama in essence is posing the same question that GW Bush did regarding Saddam Hussein and that is: Would the world be better off without M. Gadhafi. That, of course, is a dishonest question. The more valid question should be: Does the United States have the right to interfere militarily in the internal affairs of other countries? Since the U.S. has never been appointed the policeman of the world then the answer to that last question would have to be a resounding NO.
In a just world a United Nations would band together to make sure that a country like the United States does not run roughshod over smaller countries in the world. Unfortunately that is not happening as the UN apparently realizes that Noam Chomsky was right when he pointed out in one of his books that:
What We Say Goes
Well said.
Errol, you should read up on the history of the UN. Who it was that decided it should be built here in the US. I wish I had the link to help you out, but I think it was Rockefeller or Chase or some other elite that set up this ponzi organization.
The UN doesn't have the power we think it does. Remember, it said NO to the invasion of Iraq. But had no power to back it up.
You touch upon an important piece of history. There was, after FDR's death, a sort of "civil war" in the broad intelligence community. The FDR/people faction (under "Wild Bill" Donovan & the OSS) that was in charge, LOST OUT, to the wallstreet/ivy league faction (which would be rocky/chase & co.). All intended post-war operations to end empire were reversed, by the american faction of global imperialists. The UN was undermined in its' mission as intended by FDR and his allies Russia and China for bringing nations together (despite differences) to work on common CCC/WPA/TVA/Peace Corp/Marshall Plan-type policies for the betterment of the whole world.
In a very real sense, although fascism/naziism/colonial imperialism was defeated on the battlefield, the MONEY POWER that FUNDED those operations were left untouched (as they were too close to home ie. wallstreet & cityoflondon; the banksters). Truman sided with the wallstreet/cityoflondon faction, so post-war history shows all the guerilla wars-to-recapture-colonial-glory, instead of global peace-thru-UN, as was planned (and phony "cold war" to MAKE SURE US/USSR/China NEVER got together to trump EMPIRE, which it could, and still can, do).
Great analysis. It's not widely known but many OSS-assigned officers, scientists, engineers etc that were part of international fraternal organizations including Masons, were immediately purged from OSS when Truman was installed. This is why people like Werner Van Braun were allowed free sway instead of being prosecuted for war crimes under Operation Paperclip. Anyone that would have been opposed to it was already weeded out.
Joe...
I think that you may have misread or misinterpreted or misunderstood what I had written such as the first sentence of the last paragraph of my comment when I said that, "In a just world a United Nations would band together..." Perhaps what I had written was not that clear but what I was attempting to get across was that in a just and ideal world an organization called the United Nations would make sure that a country like the United States would not unjustifiably assert its military might upon those under developed countries which do not deserve to be invaded and occupied by a country like the United States.
I am fully cognizant that the UN does not, as you correctly note, have the power to back up and enforce its laws and moral authority against bully nations such as the United States. The point that I was attempting to make is that I simply wish that it did have the power to keep the United States in line and I was lamenting the fact that the UN is unable to do that.
You are right.
But we also need a world in which the tiny minority IN the U.S. that desires, drives, and profits by far the most, from Empire are unable to so dominate the majority and violate the social compact called the Constitution.
sovereignty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o
"Obama and Hillary Clinton now say the U.S. is militarily involved "to protect our interests and advance our values" in the region and, of course, to protect the "universal rights" of the Libyan people."
What guarrantees are these rebels giving the rest of the Libyan people that they have any intention of protecting their "universal rights"? Our interests and our values what about the interests and values of the Libyan people? I am not so sure they needed our intervention.
"Gaddafi's Unreported Agenda
As despots go, he's not all bad. Under his 1999 Decision No. 111, all Libyans get free healthcare, education, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, subsidies to study abroad and for couples when they marry, and practically free gasoline. Moreover, Libya's hospitals and private clinics are some of the region's best.
Overall, though affected by poverty and unemployment like elsewhere, Libyans achieved the highest African standard of living because Gaddafi used oil revenues for economic development. According to "Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution:"
"The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated....Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car, and most have televisions" and other conveniences. "Compared with most citizens of Third World countries, and with many (others), Libyans have it very good indeed," including decent housing or a rent-free apartment.
Gaddafi's Green Book, in fact, states, "The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others." It also covers other socially beneficial policies and says:
-- "Women, like men, are human beings.
-- ....(A)ll individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means....;
-- In a socialist society no person may own a private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents controlling the needs of others.
-- The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid above the other (through People's Conferences and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.
-- No representation of the people - representation is a falsehood. The existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people."
Green Book ideology rejects Western democracy and capitalism, especially neoliberal exploitation, another reason for wanting Gaddafi ousted.
Under him, Libyans get impressive social benefits. Also free use of land for agriculture to foster self-sufficiency in food production. Moreover, all basic food items are subsidized and sold through a network of "people's shops."
In addition, since the 1960s, women had the right to vote and participate politically. They can also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the December 1969 Constitutional Proclamation Clause 5, they have equal status with men, including for education and employment, even though men have a leading role in society.
The UN Human Rights Council Libyan Report
On January 4, 2011, its "Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya" said Gaddafi's government protected "not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights." It also praised his treatment of religious minorities, and "human rights training" of its security forces."
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/04/19/what-next-in-libya
Rebel's dimiss offer of election:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110616
"the leader of the revolution was not concerned by "any referendum."
Who elected them? Not concerned by "any referendum"?
"A U.S. State Department official also dismissed the election idea, saying it was "a little late for that."
How very democratic.
But you see, war is peace. These actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya are all peace missions. A peace of this oil reserve and a peace of that gas reserve, A peace of pipeline here and there.
France is led by a dedicated zionist, England has been reduced to being a servant of the United States and these two countries get a majority of their oil from Libya. Gaddafi was insisting on a better deal from the oil companies and so they followed the advice of Hillary Clinton to use the humanitarian scam to get rid of him. It really is quite simple.
"to protect our interests and advance our values."
See that's the problem with using transcriptions for the verbal delivery of policy statements. Should "our" be capitalized or not? Um, since she's known for speaking in the interests of Empire, I think it is clear.
Note Clintonista's usual of the Royal 1 person plural for the objective case in the above quote.
I share fully in the arguments made by Mr. Nader. However, it is not necessary to argue that what is happening in Libya is a "war", engagement in which without a congressional declaration of war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution would clearly be grounds for impeachment. Nor is it necessary that what is occurring in Libya be deemed a "war" to require "Congressional authorization for appropriated funds to further the war with our NATO co-warriors".
Subsection (a) of 50 USC §1541 (the "War Powers Resolution") makes clear that the limitations imposed on the president are not confined to "war". Rather, "It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations". Were there any doubt, Subsection (c) recites that the limitations placed upon "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances". The issue is "hostilities", not "war". But assume that one worries that an argument could be made that what is occurring in Libya (or an increasing number of other places" is not 'hostilities". It remains the case that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.". So whether it's war nor not, hostilities or not, it's costing money. So let the Congress close the Treasury. If Obama and Geithner spend the money anyway, the House impeach and the Senate convict. Let's see what who is made of.
Excellent post. Thanks, Hector
Don't know if the Harvard Law Review is a big fan of the Federalist Society.
As a Senator, Obama voted against Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., left, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. who are members of the Federalist Society.
As POTUS, Obama nominated Kagan who is a Federalist Society member.
http://www.accuracy.org/release/2218-supreme-court-pick-kagan-loves-the-federalist-society/
I thought Manchurian candidate Obama's treachery was clear at that point.
http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Another decimation of a country's standard of living. Libya has had one of the highest standards of living on the continent of Africa.
High standard of living achieved
After government revenue, supported by rising oil prices, richly flowed once more, living conditions have clearly improved. The country now ranks 53rd on the HDI index, better than all other African countries and also better than the richer and Western-backed Saudi Arabia. Using "Government subsidies in health, agriculture and food imports," along with "a simultaneous increase in household income," could "extreme poverty" be virtually eliminated, stated the UNDP in its monitor of the millennium development goals of the UN.
See:
http://www.uruknet.info/?new=77210
Continuing these undeclared wars at the whim of the president without challenge gives the 'unitary executive' premiss the weight of precedent. The 'unitary executive' concept is from Karl Rove's "Mein Kampf" play book. It is called Germanic Democracy in MK. The leader/decider makes all decisions from his thrown. The legislature is only window dressing and for affirmation of the leader's decisions. Caesar, Emperor of Rome, had the same executive powers. Hitler got the idea from the Roman model. The Reich was to be a thousand-year reign, right out of the Bible. Hitler was going to bring peace to the world.
You have a mistaken understanding of the sources of Hitler's views on the Leader's power, etc. He saw himself as the embodiment of the sovereign will of the German people, as they struggled to accomplish their historic mission. Most Germans supported him throughout his time in power, as shown by their willingness to follow his orders, and take initiatives in line with his policies.
The real question with Hitler is: why were the Germans willing to follow him? That is the real question about Americans too. Why don't they resist the destruction of their democracy, the seizure of power by the rich and their flunkeys?
Pardon the redundancy, but this article inspired, or provoked, me to offer a reworked and expanded comment to a similar Glenn Greenwald article earlier this week:
While reading this article, I thought of "The Emperor's New Clothes"-- again. Nader astutely and trenchantly points out that our Unitary Executive, de facto Emperor Obama, is parading around still again without so much as a scrap of Constitutional loincloth, fig leaf, or G-string.
And that, in turn, made me realize that I really couldn't remember how that famous and celebrated tale ENDS. So I looked it up:
_______________
“... 'But he has nothing on at all,' said a little child at last. 'Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,' said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. 'But he has nothing on at all,' cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, 'Now I must bear up to the end.' And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist."*
_______________
I was mildly surprised. I vaguely expected, or thought I remembered, that the Emperor has a comeuppance after the innocent child naïvely speaks truth to power. The actual ending as quoted above is honest, if bleak-- it can't even be called cynical.
Only in my unreliable, uncharacteristically sanitized imagination did the Emperor's exposure teach either him, his court, or the public a chastising object lesson.
I thought for sure that at least the Emperor would be mortally shamed or embarrassed, or the crowd would "come to its senses" and, even in the throes of its own shame, turn on the emperor and his sycophantic ministers. Or at least congratulate the child and vow not to be so complacent or gullible in the future.
In Andersen's version, though, everybody just more or less lives happily ever after.
Tragically, the moral arguably echoes the cynical contempt of Deadeye Dick Cheney: "So what?"
I'm not knocking Nader for hewing to the task of calling out Obama and its maladministration for flouting the Constitution. But it really IS like "The Emperor's New Clothes", to an extent I hadn't realized until I refreshed my memory of the tale.
Obama's constitutional nakedness is indeed unconscionable and shameful, deserving of reproach and even impeachment. And there is a constant murmur of discontent to that effect in the rear echelons of the crowd.
But Obama's profound obscenity is rendered esoteric and trivial compared to, say, the sensational and much-attended "obscenity" of a scandal du jour like Anthony Weiner's social-media soft-porn indiscretions.
It once more brings to mind journalist Ron Suskind's 2004 quote from "a senior adviser to Bush", reportedly Karl Rove:
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
As creepy, insidious, and offensive as this quote is, it contains much bitter truth. For instance, the phrase "studying that reality" is presumably used because "Rove" was talking to a journalist. But he's really describing a discrete, mutually exclusive two-tier dynamic or process that describes "acting upon that reality", not merely "studying" it.
By this I mean that the present Empire and ruling Unitary Executive, the Obama maladministration, only operates in a partial vacuum. The political, social, and cultural spheres still permit sufficient freedom and play to allow countervailing action and criticism.
That is, some "ministers" can take issue with the Emperor's Constitutional nakedness and other dubious and illicit policies and behaviors, and judiciously avail themselves of processes and avenues to contest and at least mitigate the imperial regime's excesses; Nader, and like-minded critics in the commentariat, can still fight the good fight; political activists can still organize and rally ordinary unprivileged citizens in an attempt to check and ultimately reverse the draconian, toxic plague of capitalist Empire.
But this "judicious action" and the "judicious study" that precedes it occurs fitfully, incrementally, and in slow motion. The anti-imperial forces on all levels within and without the "system" are like dreamers in a nightmare, moving in agonizing slow-motion, and always a step behind or too slow, too far away, or too feeble to overcome the dominant horror.
So it's even more dire and dreadful than us, all of us, being "left to just study what we do." It's that, having misappropriated the lion's share of power, wealth, and resources, "Empire's actors" have so much more momentum, inertia, and traction that the resistance.
I write without pleasure or satisfaction that I am coming to see Nader et al's laudable "judicious study of discernible reality" as important only to a dwindling reality-based community effectively sidelined and ignored by design in Amerika's new, improved authoritarian government, abetted by a corporate mass-media mainstream hubbub of superficial "news" and "analysis" broadcasting sensational melodrama and State-serving scripts.
I wish it weren't so, but Nader might as well be holding up a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the Imperial procession serenely and ineluctably marches along.
* http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html
Obedient Servant, you're one of the main reasons I read the comments. You have considered the Rove quote further your first posting of it to very revealing results (pun both intended and not). As you said recently in a post, we rush from story to story, letting each day's fare drop with the next day's influx. But often I'm not really ready to respond to a post immediately after reading a story and the following comments. Sometimes I do some research. Sometimes I let the ideas roll around in my head for a while. I'm glad you held onto that quote; you help me to clarify my own ideas. I've been thinking about that Emperor a lot lately myself.
"Obedient Servant"
You make me want to visit Philadelphia again.
Here are some random thoughts.
The child spoke the truth.
While corrupt power may continue in its promenade, without honesty I would not have the joy of reading your words.
Yes, we may be fools who love equal justice, but at least we do not depend upon lies (and worse) for affirmation of our being.
In a related way, of the presidents from my "adult" lifetime, it seems the ones who have been most ardently religious (as far as I know) have been the ones who most willfully slaughter people. Nixon, G.W. Bush, and Obama. Each claimed devout christianity and each lied (inveterately?) in order to have slaughter for their legacy.
I must confess I didn't think it was war at all either, but merely correctional kinetic protection to advance uniquely American values. Did I miss something?
Nice! Some of the comments are better than the original article.
Ralph, why do you pull the so-called "War Powers Resolution" into the discussion of Libya? That Act is patently unconstitutional because it amends the Constitution by a Congressional resolution which is clearly not included in the process of emendation of the Constitution. No Congress can allow a President to "wage war" for a few weeks without explicit Congressional fiat because there is no clause in the Constitution for it. The WPR is tantamount to the police telling a car thief "you can steal one car without us arresting you but not two cars".