iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Suggests U.S. Involvement In Libya Limited, Support From Congress Welcome But Authority Not Needed

Libya

First Posted: 05/21/11 12:01 AM ET Updated: 07/20/11 06:12 AM ET

May 21, 2011 1:09:58 AM

By Alister Bull

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, facing criticism from some lawmakers that U.S. military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is about to become illegal, said Friday the mission would benefit from congressional support.

Obama did not explicitly ask Congress to authorize the action he ordered in March to protect Libyan civilians, as his critics say is demanded by the 1973 U.S. War Powers Act.

Instead, he suggested U.S. involvement in Libya was now so limited that Congress's authority was not needed.

"I wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution ... which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment," the president said in a letter to top lawmakers.

"It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation, and support."

Obama notified Congress on March 21 he had ordered military action against Libya as part of a multinational coalition.

That made Friday the 60-day deadline to seek congressional authority for the action under the War Powers Act. But the White House indicated it did not view the current level of U.S. military involvement in Libya as reaching that threshold.

"This is a narrow U.S. effort that's intermittent and is principally to support the ongoing NATO-led and U.N. authorized mission," a White House official said. "The U.S. role is also not only one of support but the kinetic pieces of that effort are intermittent."

The Senate last month blocked a vote on a proposal by Rand Paul, a first-term Republican senator and a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement, to reaffirm the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war.

Paul's amendment quoted then-Senator Obama's words from 2007, when he told the Boston Globe "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 (U.S.) nation."

Since March, NATO allies including France, Britain and the United States have conducted a campaign of air strikes to shield civilians from Gaddafi's forces.

Obama, who has ruled out putting U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, said on Thursday it was inevitable that Gaddafi would have to leave power.

In the letter to lawmakers, the president said NATO was now taking the lead against Gaddafi loyalists but that U.S. involvement remained critical to protecting Libyan civilians.

He also said congressional action to support the mission would be a valuable illustration of U.S. commitment, while nodding toward the constitutional issue raised by the 60-day War Powers Act deadline.

"Such a resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter," Obama said. (Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

May 21, 2011 1:09:58 AM By Alister Bull WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, facing criticism from some lawmakers that U.S. military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is...
May 21, 2011 1:09:58 AM By Alister Bull WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, facing criticism from some lawmakers that U.S. military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is...
Filed by Adam Goldberg  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,964
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (35 total)
photo
wbcoc
My micro-bio is empty
10:08 AM on 05/23/2011
And just when we think we are tired of all our "involvement" in other countries affairs, we get this. We could have just rubberstamped our approval on this civil war and let the French, Itaians and the Muslim countries handle this mess if they so desired.
09:38 PM on 05/22/2011
Where is Congress on this? Let's hear what our congressional leaders have to say. They need to take a stand so we can see it for our next elections.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
osofar
America once was exceptional, and could be again,
09:33 PM on 05/22/2011
The USA's MIC complex strives at all times for instability in the world. the more unstable the world is, the more profits that can be made. The more you can increase fear, the more profits that can be made. The more you have war, the more profits can be made. Our soldiers are used as disposable tools for expensive hardware solutions. Our peoples lives, health, and fortunes are squandered, so that the priviledged few can have too much wealth and power, with too little human decency.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
osofar
America once was exceptional, and could be again,
09:28 PM on 05/22/2011
How very Bush of Obama, to continue a failed legacy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VA RT
06:18 PM on 05/22/2011
So now Obama's "The Decider"????
photo
whyputaname
Faux Noise - Propaganda you can trust
12:05 PM on 05/23/2011
At least Obama has the Intelligence to be one......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terry63
treasure hunter.
05:34 PM on 05/22/2011
Maybe he should just appoint a Czar ,to handle these things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
04:10 PM on 05/22/2011
No president has acknowledged the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.  Presidents’ reports to Congress state they are "consistent with" the WPR rather than "pursuant to" or “in compliance with.”  The constitution does not include authority for congress to either conduct or terminate military operations. 
 
About 200 years ago, SCOTUS decided that the undeclared Quasi-War against France was legal even though not declared by congress because there was legislative authority for the president to act.  The mere funding of military operations in the absence of explicit congressional authorization constitutes authorization by implied consent, which has happened several times
 
The Libya conflict involves two or more treaties ratified by congress (UN and NATO), which constitutes congressional authorization to act in accordance with those treaties.  From the preamble of our NATO treaty (excerpt):
 
 “[signatories to this treaty] seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.  They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.” 
 
NATO Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
 
NATO and Libya - Operation Unified Protector
On March 27, NATO Allies decided to take on the whole military operation in Libya under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The purpose of Operation Unified Protector is to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack. NATO is implementing all military aspects of the UN Resolution.
 
The WPR contains a provision that ostensibly empowers congress to halt military operations “at any time” without regard to the 60-day period that has just expired:
 
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces
are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions
and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization,
such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by
concurrent resolution.
 
Congress has not directed Obama to withdraw US forces from this conflict under its own WPR.  Given our UN and NATO treaty obligations, it is unlikely to take any action against Obama for the Libya conflict.  Furthermore, this is one of several WPR provisions that are likely unconstitutional.
09:37 PM on 05/22/2011
Wow, that was one big rambling excuse you've got there....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:06 AM on 05/23/2011
Just imagine what I could have written without that dang word limit...............................................................
photo
whyputaname
Faux Noise - Propaganda you can trust
03:46 PM on 05/22/2011
I see the Trolls are out in force today....It must be getting close to election time, the Reichties are foaming at the mouth..........
06:33 PM on 05/22/2011
Thanks for your contribution. Very enlightening.
09:35 PM on 05/22/2011
Do you see these trolls often? Have you discussed these trolls with your healthcare provider?
photo
whyputaname
Faux Noise - Propaganda you can trust
12:10 PM on 05/23/2011
No, but you should......I hear it is very contagious.....Ah, but I hear it is a pre-existing condition which you wouldn't be qualified under you healthcare provider..........

I just love it when a Reichtie foams at the mouth like a rabid dog....It's to funny....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marshallwyattearp
exposing the lies and deceit from all sides
01:26 PM on 05/22/2011
Not only is Obama lying about why he is involved with Lybia... He lied about Iraq's WMD

http://paj­amasmedia.­com/blog/s­atellite-p­hotos-supp­ort-testim­ony-that-i­raqi-wmd-w­ent-to-syr­ia/

http://arc­hive.newsm­ax.com/arc­hives/arti­cles/2005/­3/2/230625­.shtml

http://pra­iriepundit­.blogspot.­com/2010/0­6/new-evid­ence-of-ir­aq-wmd-in-­syria.html

http://www­.nysun.com­/foreign/i­raqs-wmd-s­ecreted-in­-syria-sad­a-says/265­14/

AND there's more.

All of you so called Liberals, progressives, and intellectual elitist, should be ashamed of yourselves... You have been bashing and calling people names, while supporting a liar that is killing our economy. You continue to bash others, while you and your chosen leaders spread lies, and destroy our economy.

Where is your outrage now? Our soldiers are still over there, we are bombing other soveriegn nations, our president is responsible for places radical muslims in government positions. He is keeping us dependant on foriegn opil and putting more regulations on US companies. He has been giving our tax dollars to big corporations and unions. Forest are burning, people are being flooded out of their homes. None of you are saying a thing.

Were you ever true to your word? I'm believing not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zmanusmc
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic
02:29 PM on 05/22/2011
You are right. The sheeple are blindly following their Messiah as we continue to lose American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan (another broken campaign promise), he scuttles NASA, he gives/forgives money to our enemies, wrecks our economy as we keep losing jobs except for the public sector and unions, starts another war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Act, Then he totally backstabs Israel - although Netanyahu shows the world what an amateur Obama is. He ignores the constitution by fiat and executive orders, and runs this country with his czars who ignore congressional approval to institute failed policies. His transparency promise is broken every day with the back room deals and payola, Obamacare is a total farce with all his cronies getting waivers, gasoline and food prices are escalating, unemployment is back over 9% ("if we pass the Stimulus Bill it will not go over 8%????), he is printing worthless money as our national credit rating is being lowered, inflation is rising, and our national debt is bankrupting us. He is in charge. All the name calling of Bush should be applied to Obama - what hypocritcal lemmings his followers are as he leads them into national disaster with all his failed policies. And now he starts a third war in the Middle East without congressional approval or support of the American people. He is so bad for this country.
photo
whyputaname
Faux Noise - Propaganda you can trust
03:48 PM on 05/22/2011
NO, you should be ashamed of yourself for the propaganda that the Reichties did to invade a country....

Where are the WMD's????????????

It's so funny to watch a Reichtie Foam at the mouth like the Rabid Dog that they are............
06:38 PM on 05/22/2011
It should be Reichty, not Reichtie. If you're going to make up words, at least do it right.

Again, we all appreciate what you have contributed to this debate. Top notch.
09:38 PM on 05/22/2011
Do you ever have an intelligent response to offer?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KingofthePaupers
09:51 AM on 05/22/2011
Jct: I guess it's fair to label this illegal and immoralt war of aggression (no fly zone, har har har) against Libya by GuantanamObomber alone. Obama's Crime Against Humanity. Hope to see him in the Nuremberg prisoner's dock some day.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:00 AM on 05/22/2011
If we are going to remain engaged in Libya, in whatever fashion, the President should seek congressional approval. He needs to know who's on his side.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:34 AM on 05/22/2011
Exactly.
09:32 PM on 05/22/2011
We should know too.
photo
cobry4949
cobry1112
04:41 AM on 05/22/2011
We ned to tell our Polticians enough is enough, no more wars because someone is having a bad day or he getting paid by the war profiteers. We have 2 wars now and were broke, where is China and Russia. where is Europe. Let them handle this one. We are $14 trillion in the hole because of elites and there war mongering. What we need is real border security and real immigration laws. The the corporate media will try to sell America onthese wars and soon as they get us in them, they disappear. Our media dosn't even cover the wars were in and they were from Bush's 975 lies. Let Russia do its duty or China they have a million man Army and they are rich and they are onthat side of the planet. Someone needs to tell the President and the war mongers were broke. These dingbats politicians and Generals to war profiteers wonder why moral is so low in the military because we have leaders who do not know what there doing or care what is going on, they get paid and eat, sleep just find and safe. But they will send the poor and the middle classes children to fight their wars, while even while there so called elite kids so called are serving they are so far back in the rear with the gear, there in Texas in the desert. It is time we do the draft, no medical deferrments and send all elite kids.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Brock
02:41 AM on 05/22/2011
Obama is not the first president to not consult congressional law makers......all presidents have the authority and duty to take action when needed, thus the title "Commander and Chief"...Obama was cleaning up the job Bush failed to do, amoung a million other failings of the Bush administration. The Republicans have gone out of their way to advoid consulting with congress, and especially when it is Democratically dominated...Carter did it once. Presidents have done it forever.......nothing new here. Common practice, another non-issue. Next......................
03:34 AM on 05/22/2011
Nope. That's EXACTLY why we have the WPA, because the constitution is vague about the role of the CiC. Obama was pushing the law by even getting involved in Libya, now he is breaking it.

Bush went to congress, go approval. Congrats on the worst "but Bush" post of the thread.

It is new, uncommon and a serious issue. Find me a violation of the WPA that was legal. Do it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
04:55 AM on 05/22/2011
WPA has never been recognized as constitutional by any president, as is evident in their careful references to it when they "comply."  The US constitution does not give congress the authority to conduct any military action, nor to end any military action.  And of the 130 or so military conflcist with foreign powers engaged in by the United States, only 5 were declared wars, the most recent being WW II.  Some were not even expressly "authorized" by congress, although they were funded.  Also, about 200 years ago, during one of the first military engagements that was not "declared" by congress, the Supreme Court ruled that a formal declaration of war was not necessary for the president to exercise his authority as commander in chief.
 
In legal terms, if congress as a body is silent about presidential action, that silence is "implied consent."  So far, there has been no violation of the constitution by Obama.
03:50 AM on 05/22/2011
And it's "Commander IN Chief."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:50 AM on 05/22/2011
The Islamist are going to take over North Africa ,and the Middle East ,and I will support them just to see Obama fail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amy carson
no thanks, no party needed, i can do crazy all by
08:23 AM on 05/22/2011
What an IDIOTIC statement. I am not a Dem, but this man is our President now, and while I don't agree with him most of the time, I support and respect the fact he is our President.
06:36 PM on 05/22/2011
venom & bile
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]