Libya Advice From Justice Department, Pentagon Lawyers Reportedly Was Overruled By Obama

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.

The president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.

Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.

One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.

Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.

White House spokesman Jay Carney addressed the internal debate over the resolution at his briefing Thursday.

He said "there was a robust process through which the president received the advice he relied on in determining the application" of the War Powers Resolution.

He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973.

"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy."

Comments

[chas52man]

04:20 PM on 06/25/2011

The War Powers Act, until it is rewritten is LAW.
Any whining by obama that it constantly debated is a non-issue.
obama uses the Constitution as if were toilet paper.
He has ZERO respect for this country and we citizens.
He swore to "protect and defend" Wonder what country he thought he was going to be kink of. KENYA maybe? Not the U.S. for sure.

[chas52man]

04:05 PM on 06/25/2011

According to this story obama was advised by people that know the law and the Constitution to go to Congress. In his own arrogance he chose to ignore the advice and the Constitution. Which I remember him putting his hand on a bible and swearing to "protect and defend". Impeachable offense one would think.
There is the rest of the oath that included"to the best of my ability". Does this mean he doesn't have the ability to do the job? Or is just too stupid to realize what the oath of office was for?

[Fina Biscotti]

04:57 PM on 06/20/2011

More REASON to IMPEACH this screwball.

[Roxanna]

01:39 PM on 06/20/2011

What an utter disappointment Obama has become... Bush opened the floodgates but Obama has continued then even more.
Anyway you want to look at it we are entering into new territory where President goes to war to take a dictator down past 60 days without the approval or funding from Congress, even Bush didn't do that.. That is called breaking our constitution and heading in the direction of total Military State.

[Bush Liberated Me]

12:49 PM on 06/20/2011

Libs now defending illegal wars.

[Fina Biscotti]

09:59 AM on 06/20/2011

"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy."

*****
Not so healthy for the USA - w obama making use of US military action in Lybia - without consulting our US Congress - but conspiring w The Arab League and The United Nations - clearly indicating that obama is maliciously intending to affect the SOVEREIGNTY of our country - and our NATIONAL SECURITY.

Also not so healthy for the innocent civilians who are being killed in obama's PERSONAL WAR in Lybia - to assist his political contributors BRITISH PETROLEUM to gain access to the OIL in Lybia.
(hat tip teem)

[Cacey]

10:08 AM on 06/20/2011

Your rants might make some sense if you could spell "Libya"

[Fina Biscotti]

04:59 PM on 06/20/2011

then maybe you should change yr motto.

[Fina Biscotti]

05:12 PM on 06/20/2011

where are your anti-war rants?

[justsensational]

12:18 AM on 06/20/2011

"He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973." sighed Jay Carney, from the article.
President Obama is the first real President, to deal with such complex issues within the last twenty years. Two wars, fighting misfits, social security dilemna, horrific medicare program and health insurance fiasco.
Most of all voices of the unemployed "I need a job Mister President", "Where are the jobs Mister President" eight years ago the jobs left, the rich got richer, now the ship has sailed... docked on
"Republican Highroller Island", its a mess.
I give him my blessings to keep the air strikes on Libya, if it means that we all are safe from terrorists from aboard. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi tyranny leadership, with the demise of Bin Laden, itself warrants unconventional mandates and congressional diplomacy.

[chas52man]

04:12 PM on 06/25/2011

Those air strikes are ILLEGAL, and now unfunded or can't you read past obama?
This dufuss started the second war for his re-election bid. Defied the Congress and ignored advisers law and military alike. What don't you understand.? This guy needs to be impeached at the very least.
Stupidity and arrogance are a very dangerous combination.
Quit harping about Bush, he has been gone 3 years and this country in now in a nose dive because if a president that has no respect for this country or law. Go ahead and play the Black card too..... Look what we got from this guy. change in our pockets.

[brokerallen]

11:37 PM on 06/19/2011

I wish Obama was that headstrong on some of his campaign promises.

[baej]

08:41 PM on 06/19/2011

All Hail King Obama. God Save The King. (sarcasm for you serious libs)

[muck-raker]

08:37 PM on 06/19/2011

WAR IS THE NEW NORMAL: By Bill Boyarsky

Remember the war, the one in Afghanistan? The recent Memorial Day weekend forced the news media to briefly focus on it. But otherwise the war and its heavy toll have faded from our national consciousness, leaving President Barack Obama free to continue the combat without much pressure to get out.

Just how forgotten the war has become is revealed in the latest news coverage report of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. The project gives its findings in a nonjudgmental, just-the-facts manner, no how maddening they are. The Afghanistan War didn’t make the top five stories covered in newspapers, online or on cable and network television for the period May 16-May 22.

The war costs grow, adding to a national deficit estimated at $1.5 trillion this year. The website Cost of War reported that the Afghanistan War has cost $418 billion. Iraq’s $781 billion brings the figure for war costs to $1.2 trillion for a nation that won’t pay for decent health care for all, is firing teachers and has become resigned to a 9 percent unemployment rate.

For veterans of the two wars, the toll includes unemployment, serious physical injury, mental illness and suicide. balance of article on link
Be sure to watch short video next which shows what perpetual war has done to our kids.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/war_is_the_new_normal_20110601/

[PRR Fan]

02:02 PM on 06/20/2011

To me, what's even more noteworthy in this case is the reaction of the media and so-called anti-war movement. Either the anti-war movement is a lot louder when its a Republican in the White House or the media doesn't pay as much attention to them. Probably a combiation of both. Political hacks all.

[Cacey]

04:28 PM on 06/19/2011

Whatever, the President's actions sure are good at dividing the Republicans who are now infighting over this.

[Fina Biscotti]

10:04 AM on 06/20/2011

The Democrats are also divided. Therefore, it is the perfect atmosphere to proceed w IMPEACHMENT proceedings - on another one of obama's numerous impeachable offenses.

[Cacey]

10:35 AM on 06/20/2011

The Democrats may be divided on this issue but we are solidly behind the President. Anyway, after the sham of the attempt made to impeach President Clinton, which made us the laughing stock of the world and caused a number of Republican Reps to loose their jobs, I doubt we'll see impeachment on the table for many decades no matter what.

[RiverWalker]

03:24 PM on 06/19/2011

Seems clear to me! The rebels needed and asked for NATO assistance in protecting civilians that were being pummeled by Gadhafi with no mercy and, in truth, terrorist motivations. It definitely was not an act of aggression by NATO, but one humanitarian in nature to protect the civilians. Iraq, on the other hand, was aggressive in nature and gaining Congress's approval involved accusations of WMD's which didn't exist, and accusations that Saddam was conspiring with and harboring terrorists, which was never the case. The two are not comparable.

[Fina Biscotti]

10:05 AM on 06/20/2011

al-Qaeda acknowledged they were sending "jihadists" to fight with the rebels in Lybia.

[RiverWalker]

12:26 PM on 06/20/2011

What has that got to do with the price of a cup of Starbucks coffee in Hong Kong? Your post and the posts of many of your compatriots in Obama bashing have zip to do with the the facts involved with the legality of what steps he took in regards to US complicity in NATO's actions. They are distractions from the issue, posted with the clear intent of muddying it up in order to bolster the "cause."

[threewarveteran]

03:07 PM on 06/19/2011

Lawyers Are": One skilled in the circumvention of the law.

-- Ambrose Bierce

Bush had his lawyers researched th laws against torture and created a legal brief that justified the use of torture by the united states as a sovereign right.

We elected Mr. Obama President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Libya is a military exercise in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organizantion. Anyone who can not understand this concept has no competent input. If these radical extremist republicans insist on worshiping the constitution they need to read it and abide by Article II, sections 1 and 2. The president is the executive, he executes. He does things. The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He executes the use of these forces. He has the power to make treaties, such as the NATO treaty and has the duty of enforcing those treaties. The congress is limited by the powers expressed in Article I, section 8. The have the sole power to declare War by passing a formalized declaration that becomes part of the national archives. They have no power to control the armed forces in limited action as part of a treaty.

The war powers resolution of 1973 differs from the war power act of 1941. The war powers resolution has never had the power of law and has been ignored by Clinton and Bush, as well as Obama. The supreme court has never heard any argument because it is not a law.

[zmanusmc]

09:56 PM on 06/19/2011

There is not stated objective or end game. It would be appropriate if he communicated to the citizens of the United States what the goal and exit strategy is for using military force in Libya. And if Libya is ok, why not Syria or Yemen? or Bahrainz? The incvonsistencies are puzzling to the majority of the US when the Noble Peace Prize winner is escalating wars.

[Fina Biscotti]

10:11 AM on 06/20/2011

Obama should also adhere to The US Constitution - that no sitting US President can be involved with any governing authority that would affect the sovereignty of The United States of America = Article 4, Section 4.

Obama sitting on The Security Council of The United Nations - is in violation of The US Constitution - and a CRIME against The US Constitution.

His failure to consult with our US Congress over US military action in Lybia - while conspiring w The United Nations and The Arab League - shows his malicious intentions is to affect the sovereignty of our country - just as he had when going to The United Nations against the State of Arizona over their legal immigration state law.

[TheSwaf]

02:31 PM on 06/19/2011

I wonder if you displays his awsome Nobel Peace Prize Medal, shows it off and stuff, gets a good laugh with his buddies while they make and continue war.

[threewarveteran]

08:31 AM on 06/20/2011

Maybe you need to move to a more political friendly country such as north korea or iran. Talk like an idiot there and you are executed. I will contribute a few dollars to that operation.

[Fina Biscotti]

10:13 AM on 06/20/2011

Obama is no different a TYRANNT than Lybia's Gaddafi and Iran's Armadinejad.

[PRR Fan]

02:05 PM on 06/20/2011

He and Paul Krugman probably get together and have a laugh over trying to decide who deserved their medal less.

[maxom]

02:17 PM on 06/19/2011

We don't need no stinkin' War Powers Resolution......