More

Obama Libya Policy: President Breaking The Law, Claims Bipartisan Group Of Lawmakers

Libya Airstrike

First Posted: 05/20/11 03:51 PM ET Updated: 07/20/11 06:12 AM ET

For critics of the Obama administration's decision to bypass Congress before taking military action in Libya, Friday is judgment day.

May 20 is the 60-day deadline for President Barack Obama to get congressional authorization under the War Powers Act, prompting outrage among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who believe that the president is breaking the law. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and five of his GOP colleagues sent a letter to Obama, demanding an answer.

"There is a law. It's on the books, and in plain reading of the War Powers Act, he appears to be in violation of the War Powers Act," Paul told CNN.

"To me it's the most important debate we'll ever have up here," Paul added. "If we're going to send someone, your son or my son to war, its important that it be done properly. And it's important that, if there are constitutional restraints, we obey them."

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) was just as emphatic, telling The Huffington Post, "[t]he War Powers Act is the law of the land, and it is clear. You must withdraw forces from hostilities after 60 days absent authorization from Congress. President Obama should seek authorization for the Libya operations and Congress should debate and vote. Our efforts to bring democracy to Libya should not undermine democracy and the rule of law in the United States."

And Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) says he plans to introduce legislation next week to halt the mission. In a statement, Kucinich decried that the administration is "setting the stage for endless war which will bring ruin and poverty."

Though previous presidents have ignored provisions of the act requiring congressional approval before military action, it is unprecedented for the commander-in-chief to blow the 60-day deadline, say presidential scholars.

"Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors," Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday. "If nothing happens, 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."

Other members of Congress don't seem as concerned.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has strongly backed military support for Libyan rebels, says he doesn't think the president needs to get a resolution. "I've never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, either Republican or Democrat," he said.

The White House did not return calls for comment. But Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that the administration intends to seek congressional authorization, describing it as a "narrow set of authorities."

The mission has already surpassed the $750 million projected cost at the outset of the NATO operation, with State Department officials estimating that enforcement of the no-fly zone will cost at least $40 million a month. And UN officials are seeking $233 million to handle a burgeoning humanitarian nightmare -- almost 800,000 refugees have fled Libya in recent months.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
For critics of the Obama administration's decision to bypass Congress before taking military action in Libya, Friday is judgment day. May 20 is the 60-day deadline for President Barack Obama to get...
For critics of the Obama administration's decision to bypass Congress before taking military action in Libya, Friday is judgment day. May 20 is the 60-day deadline for President Barack Obama to get...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 751
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
flossophy
Liberalism is not liberal.
05:20 AM on 06/22/2011
Wow. Ok, well... Just remove Gaddafi as soon as possible, and we won't press charges. Drop the ObamaHammer on him.
02:54 PM on 05/24/2011
As the Yale legal scholars revealed, Mr. Obama is breaking the law.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic which is designed to split power; not give it all to 1 person. Mr. Obama as president you should follow our laws, not break them.
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
08:51 PM on 05/23/2011
Hey "Obama must be destroyed" missionaries... I heard that he got up on the wrong side of the bed last week. Maybe you can start something on that next. LOL!!!
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
08:36 PM on 05/23/2011
SENATE DEMS, REPUBLICANS AGREE TO LIBYA RESOLUTION


WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Monday on a resolution backing limited U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military campaign against Libya, days after the expiration of the legal deadline for President Barack Obama to seek full-blown congressional authorization.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, introduced the non-binding resolution along with five other Republicans and Democrats.

The measure supports the limited use of military force and concurs with Obama that the stated goal of U.S. policy "is to achieve the departure from power of Moammar Gadhafi and his family, including through the use of non-military means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunity and justice for the people of Libya."

The resolution calls on Obama to submit to Congress a description of U.S. policy objectives in Libya – during and after Gadhafi's tenure – and to consult with Congress regarding U.S. operations in Libya.


WELL, THAT WAS QUICK. SO ALL OF YOU OBAMA-HATER TROLLS CAN GO BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE... NOTHING ELSE TO SEE HERE.... and for G.P.... "I TOLD YOU SO".

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a bunch of ultra-maroons". LMBO!!!
02:14 AM on 05/24/2011
First you didn't understand the War Powers law. Now you again show that you have no understanding of what you just posted. You're making Obama supporters look stupid.

This resolution is something congress has to vote on. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is also drafting legislation to get us out of Libya all together. Does that prove "Obama haters" wrong too? By your own logic it does.

Congressmen can't just write a bill and have it instantly come into effect. Congress has to vote on these bills. It sounds like you got so caught up with defending Mr. Obama that you left your logic at the door.

Unfortunately drafting a resolution, or writing any other bill, does nothing to change the fact that the law was broken by Mr. Obama.
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
02:52 AM on 05/24/2011
No "0 fanned troll".. the entire process makes YOU and your anti-Obama minions look vengeful AND stupid. Because the following paragraph describes what I "tried" to explain to pseudo-intellectual myopics like YOU as to why your "defamation attempts" were going nowhere...

"The measure supports the limited use of military force and concurs with Obama that the stated goal of U.S. policy "is to achieve the departure from power of Moammar Gadhafi and his family, including through the use of non-milita­ry means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunit­y and justice for the people of Libya."

But since it's obvious that your comprehension skills have been decimated by your willful ignorance, it's easy to see how you miss this. And as far as your remark in a condescending attempt to tell me "how Congressional voting works", the result of the vote is academic and this "targeted controversy" was going nowhere in the 1st place. So unlike YOU, I simply skipped over the "petty" details and just went to the heart of this matter, which is... CONGRESS WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS BEFORE IT HAPPENED, THERE WERE NO LAWS BROKEN AND PASSING THE RESOLUTION AT "THIS POINT" IS JUST A FORMALITY.

So as I stated before, time for YOU and related clones to go back under the bridge and look for another way to defame this President. Because this "attempt" will become "history" soon.
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
03:06 AM on 05/24/2011
What's really funny is people like you think you're smarter and know the law better than PRESIDENT Obama. But you're not and you don't... not even close.
01:58 PM on 05/25/2011
If your interpretation is that he didn't break the 60 day window because Congress agreed to the action AFTER the 60 days, I'd say you're a pretty bad lawyer.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:11 PM on 05/23/2011
This is now officially an illegal war.
 
and the odd thing is, everyone knows congress would have approved of it.  Very strange.
 
 
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
08:44 PM on 05/23/2011
UH HUH... RIIIIGHT. You people are unbelieveably deluded. Get a prescription for that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:09 AM on 05/24/2011
If you're going to argue it's not illegal, than you know, you have to actually make an argument. He's violated the War Powers Act. Hence, illegal. The UN can't provide the necessary approval for US action, only the US Congress can. He had 60 days to get the approval. He didn't get it.  His war is now illegal.
 
Unless the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
05:15 PM on 05/23/2011
1st there were "the Birthers", then there were "the Deathers"... now we have "the Questors"... those who are on a "mission" to find something, ANYthing, that will discredit THIS President. They just keep devolving and morphing into something that'll ultimately become extinct... like all of the "other" dinosaurs with large mouths, ravenous appetites and walnut-sized brains have before them. So just give it "time"... it'll take care of everything.
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
03:49 PM on 05/23/2011
I'll be back when all of you propagandists, Obama haters and associated bigoted malcontents are proven wrong and Obama CONTINUES to uplift this Nation DESPITE "YOU" after such a letdown by the previous administration. Because if Obama is guilty of "this", then the entire Bush Cabinet should be IN prison right now and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be locked up UNDER the prison with no "key" to be found.

I know you all want Obama to be destroyed "by any means neccesary"... even by means that are totally biased, hypocritical, and inconsistent... I read your insipid "Get Obama" whines EVERY day, I just don't respond to them because it's as "useless" as your relative ambitions to destroy THIS President by "hook" or "crook". All you're doing is setting yourselves up for MORE disappointment... AGAIN... because in essence, you're "disappointing PEOPLE" and doing something like THIS is the "best" you have to offer to society. It's VERY "sad" and you have my sympathies... "kinda".
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
04:58 AM on 05/23/2011
War Powers Resolution of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

PURPOSE AND POLICY

(c) 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, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) "specific statutory authorization" (THE PRESIDENT HAD "SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION" BY RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST OF THE "U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL" REGARDING LIBYAN CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY), or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

So that's it. The President broke NO laws, did NOTHING unconstitutional, and some of "you people" need to get off your "witch hunt" and go find something "really" important to pursue... like "furthering your education". Because it's becoming quite obvious that "watching television" and "blogging" isn't doing a D**N thing to "elevate your minds".
09:03 AM on 05/23/2011
Actually you're incorrect, unfortunately.

This represents specific authorization by the United Nations, but is not specific statutory authorization as required by the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act itself draws this distinction. Section 1547(a) of the WPA declares that Congressional intent to authorize specific military action may not be inferred from appropriations laws or general treaties:

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

Since the War Powers Act specifically excludes treaties like those of the the UN, Mr. Obama is breaking the law.
09:21 AM on 05/23/2011
That's not where Congress is going. Their issue is with the 60 day timeline to withdraw unless they authorize the action.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:52 PM on 05/23/2011
Where does the constitution empower the congress to either conduct military operations or terminate them?  Virtually every president, republican and democrat, since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution has treated that resolution as unconstitutional.  Therefore President Obama ("Mr." Revel8) is not breaking the law, but is exercising his authority under the constitution as commander in chief.
 
Additionally, since congress ratifies treaties (and also rescinds them), they do constitute statutory authority regardless of what WPR says, and the WPR appears to require a case-by-case a priori congressional review of implementing our obligations under those treaties, another infringement upon the president's constitutional authority to comply with our treaties, and in particular with the UN and NATO.
 
And now that the 60 days are over, what action does congress expect the president to take?  Is the US now engaged in hostilities?  When was the last time an American pilot flew into Libyan air space?  When was the last time the US launched missiles into Libya?  And if congress really thought Obama was breaking the law under WPR, why did congress not invoke Section 5(c), which states that congress may, by concurrent resolution, stop an "unauthorized" military action at any time without regard to the 60 days in Section 5(b)?  Section 5(c) states:
 
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 had 60 days to pass a concurrent resolution, but has not even attempted to do so.  Under the law, informed and knowledgable silence can be construed as consent.  And if we are called upon sporadically by our allies to launch missiles, does that constitute the "introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities?"
 
Of course, congress has the authority to rescind UN and NATO treaties if it doesn't want the president to honor them.  If that's what you want, why not just say so, instead of pretending Obama is some kind of criminal?
 
This is a tempest in the tea pot, which the anti-everything-Obama crowd will never let go of, just as "birthers" cling to the conspiracy theories about Obama not being a natural born US citizen.
09:06 AM on 05/23/2011
War Powers Resolution of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
01:12 PM on 05/23/2011
Thanks for the clarification.....I was wondering why the original post started at (c).
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
04:17 PM on 05/21/2011
And just to be clear so that EVERYone understands "these" facts...

Over two thirds of the $14.3 TRILLION U.S. National debt was accumulated under REPUBLICAN administrations ...

100% of the Wars that the U.S. are STILL involved in were initiated under REPUBLICAN leadership...

The single most horrific terrorist attack IN HISTORY that happened on American soil happened under the REPUBLICAN'S watch...

The largest economic recession since the Great Depression was caused by REPUBLICAN economic and War policies... and ironically, the Great Depression was caused by a "small government" touting Republican as well.

Just so we all understand "who" caused "what" and "how" we've gotten to "this" point... since we now have a President who's been trying to clean up all of the YEARS of leftover "elephant mess" with a "disinfectant" handi-wipe. He's "wiping it up" fairly well... but it's the "disinfecting" aspect he's having a problem with...
11:45 PM on 05/21/2011
"The largest economic recession since the Great Depression ..." happened under a democratic president's watch.

You get so confused about this. Is the president who is in charge at the time responsible? Or are the policies leading up to that time responsible? You can't blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush simply because he was in office at the time...it ignores all that Democratic leadership did in the years prior to help that whole plot along.

The world is a bit more complicated than you admit...or than you able to comprehend. Either way, on balance, you are wrong. Not to suggest that republicans are less responsible...would never suggest such a thing. But Democrats have their fingerprints all over the issues of today.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:41 AM on 05/22/2011
You're playing fast and loose with the facts.  The financial crisis and the recession began under Bush, not Obama.  TARP was passed under Bush, not Obama.  The recession ended under Obama, and unemployment is falling, thanks to nearly 2 million new jobs created since early 2010 under Obama.  I agree with you, Obama has his "fingerprints" all over this issue of today.
 
The 9/11 attacks occurred under Bush, and there was intelligence warning of an aerial attack on US soil planned by bin Laden, but Bush was unable to stop it.  Can you be more specific about what Clinton leadership did to "help that whole plot along?"
 
 
 
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
05:05 AM on 05/23/2011
I won't even entertain your ridiculous, condescending commentary with a response. Let someone else do it... I'm gettin' REAL tired of all the right winged obfuscating ignorance on this site. You people are "simply" confused about just about EVERYthing and it's becoming a huge waste of time and energy to respond to your insipidness.
01:12 AM on 05/22/2011
You’re a bit off topic, but the correct national debt breakout is : No Party = .0006%, Democrat = 41.0068%, Demo-Republic=(.0003%), Republican 58.9927%, Whig = .0001%. The national debt has increased 26.08% in the last two years.

The recession had nothing to do with war policies or government policies for that matter. Instead it was caused by a speculative bubble and reckless lending practices within the private sector.

Currently 2 of the 3 (75%) military conflicts began with the prior administration. All of these conflicts received both Republican and Democrat approval. This particular article pertains to the 1 (25%) in Libya that did not.

Lastly, before you go faulting other Americans for a terrorist act, you should at least consider that the terrorist came to be via Carter's secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. I doubt anyone is more grateful for OBL’s death then Carter and Clinton. However, I’m willing to bet neither washed their hand to point of saying their party has done nothing for years. Like it or not we got here together and right now where we are is getting worse.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:51 AM on 05/22/2011
You need to review your history (and your math).
 
Also, Obama's second budget year is not yet over.  Bush's last budget year ran from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. 
 
There is a substantial lag time between the adoption of an economic policy, the implementation of that policy, and the effects of that policy on the economy.  There is no such lag time in acts of war and terrorism.
 
As for Carter and Reagan's support of OBL, yes OBL was fighting with the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, but the Mujahadeen were not the ones who attacked us on 9/11.  The Mujahadeen were toppled by the Taliban, which was joined by OBL.  We are not fighting Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are fighting Taliban and al Qaida.
 
As for the economy, we are recovering under Obama.  GDP is positive once again, and 2 million new jobs have been created since early 2010.  Things are getting better.
photo
str8fwd
Realistic Idealism for an Ideal Reality
03:39 PM on 05/21/2011
Why is everyone so concerned about "the legalities" all of sudden? When Bush invaded and ACTUALLY "declared war" on the SOVEREIGN Nation of Iraq, not only was it illegal, it was downright criminal. But "almost" everyone stayed silent about that while chanting "USA, USA, USA!" at any given chance... until they "wised up".

So it seems that not only does President Obama has to pay ALL the "sins" of the Bush-Cheney administration... and with "interest"... he also only receives HALF the credit for accomplishing TWICE as much as they did in only ONE-QUARTER of the time. Now... why IS that... "America"?

I guess it's something like "elevating" a person who went to 6 colleges to barely get a Bachelor's degree in Communications who quit "her" job as Governor... while "degrading" a person who graduated Summa Cum Laude at the symbolic top of "his" class from one of the most demanding Law Schools in the World that served successfully AND fully as a State and U.S. Senator before becoming President of the United States of America.

Now... what is it about these two people that would make so many Americans accept "her" and reject "him" by using different standards. Hmmmm... I wonder...
11:48 PM on 05/21/2011
"Why is everyone so concerned about "the legalities­"

It bears pointing out the most people on this site were concerned about the legality even during the Bush admninistration. And that includes Obama who said during his campaign that the very actions he has taken as president would be illegal under the constitution without the express approval of congress. And that's why it is relevant and that's why people are mentioning it. At least Bush claimed that he believed what he was doing was legal. Obama believes what he is doing is illegal.
09:24 AM on 05/23/2011
The President can't 'declare war'. But then, you knew that Counselor. It's the 60 day timeline they claim he's running afoul of, not the initial act.
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
10:59 AM on 05/21/2011
It would seem the dem legislators have little choice but to go after the Obama administration on this issue. A legal precedent is being set. Either the War Powers Act is law or it isn't. The courts will not permit them to use it only against repub Presidents.

If they don't stand up for it now, it's gone....
photo
EdCorner
fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus
03:42 PM on 05/21/2011
O is a republican and war monger. Good post
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eddie Sengole
10:04 AM on 05/21/2011
Obama presidency is becoming a nightmare to the grassroots that worked hard to make him President­! Obama may turn out to be the Best Republican President ever!
Imagine if W did this? A non-fly zone morphed into a oil war against a defenseles­s African country!


A very moving message of a Libyan girl to the House Negro President Obama and North Atlantic Terrorist Organizati­on that has been bombing Libya everyday for two months as of next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLioBMp1nO8&feature=player_embedded
Dan FL
Watching the Dream die. With popcorn.
10:57 AM on 05/21/2011
"House Negro President Obama?"

stay classy.
photo
EdCorner
fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus
03:38 PM on 05/21/2011
True, he had me faving until racism. We can't be that ugly
11:49 PM on 05/21/2011
Dude...no kidding. Jumped the shark. Uncalled for.
photo
EdCorner
fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus
03:40 PM on 05/21/2011
Hard to put down bias with a biased comment. Your video bro, excellent. Wtf are we doing?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr MOTO
Three Strikes And You're Not Out!
10:01 AM on 05/21/2011
Libya is a proxy war with China and Iran
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jwalter
The State is a gang of thieves writ large.
11:05 AM on 05/21/2011
among others
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tosc
08:38 AM on 05/21/2011
when our country goes to war the three branches of government are part of the process of declaration, financial allocations and troop dispatching. War is not the president's privelage! If it is then let him go fight it himself and not use taxpayer funds and U.S. military to carry out his personal wishes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bill Bushing
Liberal but open to ideas that make sense (leaves
09:17 AM on 05/21/2011
How is SCOTUS involved in this? I agree in general... we should have sent Bush/Cheney to arm wrestle Saddam Hussein to the death
09:50 AM on 05/21/2011
The whole thing is well worth a read but the section I've noted might help both you and the original commenter:

Page 21; Page 31, Section 3
http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/War_Powers_Deciding_To_Use_Force_Abroad.pdf
08:32 AM on 05/21/2011
"we" are bombing libya for the light sweet crude in oil parlance. humanitarian? only a cover for empire's needs. blood for oil. still. end of oil looming.