iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Libya War Powers Debate: Obama's Lawyers Are Worse Than Bush's, Glenn Greenwald Says

Barack Obama Libya War Powers Congress

First Posted: 06/19/11 12:58 PM ET Updated: 08/19/11 06:12 AM ET

President Barack Obama overruled top lawyers from the Justice Department and the Pentagon and decided he has the legal authority to continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval, the New York Times reported Friday night.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team -- including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh -- who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Glenn Greenwald points out that when lawyers in the Bush administration faced a similar conflict in 2007 over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, they threatened to resign en masse:

Bush decided to reject the legal conclusions of his top lawyers and ordered the NSA eavesdropping program to continue anyway, even though he had been told it was illegal (like Obama now, Bush pointed to the fact that his own White House counsel (Gonzales), along with Dick Cheney's top lawyer, David Addington, agreed the NSA program was legal).  In response, Ashcroft, Comey, Goldsmith, and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to resign en masse if Bush continued with this illegal spying, and Bush -- wanting to avoid that kind of scandal in an election year -- agreed to "re-fashion" the program into something those DOJ lawyers could approve (the "re-fashioned" program was the still-illegal NSA program revealed in 2005 by The New York Times; to date, we still do not know what Bush was doing before that that was so illegal as to prompt resignation threats from these right-wing lawyers).

That George Bush would knowingly order an eavesdropping program to continue which his own top lawyers were telling him was illegal was, of course, a major controversy, at least in many progressive circles.  Now we have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping in a way that his own top lawyers are telling him is illegal, but waging war in that manner (though, notably, there is no indication that these Obama lawyers have the situational integrity those Bush lawyers had [and which Archibald Cox, Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus had before them] by threatening to resign if the lawlessness continues).

Last week, the White House issued a report to Congress detailing its justification for not seeking lawmakers' approval for military operations in Libya. In it, the Obama administration said the conflict does not rise to the level of a war because the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led operation -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time.

The report has not lessened lawmakers' displeasure at the Obama administration. House Majority Leader John Boehner announced late Friday that he plans to hold votes this week aimed at challenging Obama's authority to carry out U.S. military operations in Libya without congressional consent.

"From the outset of this operation, Members of the House have demonstrated respect for the authority granted to the Commander-in-Chief," Boehner said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the President has not exhibited a similar appreciation for Congress' important job of providing oversight and accountability. Even worse, he has failed to communicate to the American people why continuing this mission is critical to our national security."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
President Barack Obama overruled top lawyers from the Justice Department and the Pentagon and decided he has the legal authority to continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval, the Ne...
President Barack Obama overruled top lawyers from the Justice Department and the Pentagon and decided he has the legal authority to continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval, the Ne...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,133
  • 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 »  (52 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Damien Black 1
Expat in China
11:02 AM on 06/22/2011
I can't go on and support Obama for next term , war is wrong , it was wrong under Bush and it's wrong now. Libya has to write their own future it not for us to be involve, our bombs and weapons have killed enough people. Many people who voted for Obama will give him a pass but I rather stick to what I believe , I don't believe in war, I don't believe in keeping Gitmo open or being the world's police. Let's fix our country and spend the money on education and rebuilding this country. We the people should say no to Obama and stop this war machine that's been wasting money for 50 years. Where are the anti-war protesters that were rightfully protesting Bush?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Damien Black 1
Expat in China
10:47 AM on 06/22/2011
I didn't vote for this , we have the money to bomb people but no money for education or healthcare. SMH
04:30 PM on 06/21/2011
Obama seems to have been a poor enough lawyer that he declined to
release records of cases he tried or clients he represented, and doesn't hold a law license now.

Yet in his own mind he thinks he alone knows better than the best attorneys in the government on an issue that led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians?

This king needs to be dethroned in 2012.
photo
captainad
It's still GWB's Fault
04:18 PM on 06/21/2011
Obama believes he is the King of the world and his wife Michelle thinks she is the Queen of Sheba. They believe they can do pretty much anything they want no matter how destructive it is to America. Obama believes the Constitution is outdated and he has a better plan. But where the real problem comes in is that most liberals agree with them! Its plain to see after 2 1/2 years that the guy is a fruitcake. When you disagree with him you are labeled a racist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldyforce6
And THAT's Cooperation. ~ Bert and Ernie
12:02 PM on 06/21/2011
Some interesting points made by Alan Grayson this morning:

1. The Constitution gives the President the "Commander In Chief" role
2. The Constitution gives Congress to "Declare War"
3. The Constitution does not allow for a "standing army" but rather individual within the states were to be allowed to be armed IN CASE the government needed to "call them up" for military service on behalf of the government

Therefore, since we DO have a standing military there is no need for Congress to "declare" war to "call up the militia" and you have a standing military that has a Commander In Chief who does not have to do anything but "advise" the Congress of what he is doing (and he does through the Defense department if no other way).

I wonder if that and the fact that Congress gave "the President" (and I would assume that authority passes from one President to the next) BROAD leeway to fight "terrorism" after 9/11, if that is why we see the President(s) appearing to go against what everyone THOUGHT the founders wanted.

I found this argument as well, made by John Yoo (who has NEVER been prosecuted for being WRONG...and doubt that this SCOTUS would ever find to be in error).
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

I am not agreeing with this argument...merely noting that the Constitution has never been updated to give clear directives as to the running of a STANDING Military.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:34 PM on 06/21/2011
I'd fan you again if I could. Faved. You have made very cogent points. The constitution does not require the advice and consent of congress for actions in the capacity of commander in chief. To the extent that the War Powers Act purports to require it, the WPR is unconstitutional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldyforce6
And THAT's Cooperation. ~ Bert and Ernie
01:03 PM on 06/21/2011
Thanks...I am just wonderingly about the points because I have truly been wondering WHY there appears to be such confusion about this (and I am coming to the conclusion it is political more than it is constitutional). When it was laid out this way, it began to make more sense....and, I tend to agree...if anything is truly unconstitutional it would be WPA.

Perhaps, Kucinich's lawsuit WOULD clear that up once and for all.

Of course, Congress DOES have the ability to DEFUND the military but I would "assume" that the Defense Department actually has authority on HOW the money is used...I don't think that Congress has the right to tell the Defense Department how to spend their budgeted money...but, perhaps, I am incorrect on that.

I thought that the supplemental money requests are a request for $ that is "justified" by the Defense Dept. by stating the costs for the wars. Again, I could be wrong on that.
06:11 PM on 06/20/2011
The root of the problem is the fact that Obama is also a lawyer. Three years of law school teaches you that you can find enough ambiguous case law and constitutional law to support almost any position, which is exactly what he's doing.

Unfortunately, Obama is now following Bushes' rule book.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
04:43 PM on 06/20/2011
I guess George Bush must've been Obama's role model. The current President is doing all the same things as the former president. You would have thought that BO would choose someone other than King George to emulate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
0311SaltDog usmc
to protect and serve
04:27 PM on 06/20/2011
this and the last president are all the more reason to minimize FEDERAL GOVT!.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:47 PM on 06/20/2011
I'm surprised he didn't seek approval. He would have certainly gotten it.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
03:25 PM on 06/20/2011
No time for the inevitable debates. That's why the constitution does not require the advice and consent of congress for the president to act in the capacity of commander in chief. [US Constitution, Article II, Section 2]
04:27 PM on 06/20/2011
The Constitution vests the President with the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This was and is not intended to be a grant of power to start a war. The Constitution vests Congress with the exclusive power to start a war. The fact that Congresses have often acquiesced to the usurpation of this power does not change the Constitution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:34 PM on 06/20/2011
Congress has to give approval for war.
02:21 PM on 06/20/2011
There's nothing left to say about this except that when King George is charged with constitutional crimes Pres Obama should be too. It's just sad that such a smart guy like Obama would do (fall) for something like this.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
03:27 PM on 06/20/2011
King George's constitutional crimes include lying about WMD as a pretext for invading Iraq, and abandoning the primary mission of getting bin Laden and neutralizing al Qaida's protectors, the Taliban. Also, outing Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband revealing the "yellow cake" WMD fraud. No comparable conduct on Obama's part, so you're making a false equivalence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
04:47 PM on 06/20/2011
. . . at least, not that we know of. Not yet. But it's obvious that President Obama has a vision of presidential power which is close to that of Bush. Tragic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vorpalmusic
07:11 PM on 06/20/2011
Not so sure. I`d argue that Obama`s treatment of Bradley Manning is worse than the outing of Valerie Plame.
02:20 PM on 06/20/2011
Obama should quit the charade and just become a Republican.
InYourWorld
Progressive, educated, redneck but fan of no party
04:10 PM on 06/20/2011
Or....... people could just finally grasp the notion that both parties are essentially the same. They fire us up with gay marriage, abortion, to take our focus away from the fact their campaigns are financed by the same people, and they each cave into lobbyists from the same industries. Obama and GWB answer to the same people, and it's not the people that voted for either of them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vorpalmusic
06:43 PM on 06/20/2011
It would be amusing if he changed parties tomorrow, just because half of the people on this forum would suddenly be against the Libya operation and would try to pretend they never argued passionately on its behalf.
01:50 PM on 06/20/2011
Ah yes, the Obama-pologist knives come out: how DARE somebody call Obama on something he did? The Obama-pologists sound an awful lot like those who defended Bush no matter what he did and no matter the evidence........
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:19 PM on 06/20/2011
My good friend, as an Obama supporter, I am not an ideological supporter of any person, political party, or philosophy, and there's nothing I care about more than the relevant truths. Obama was not my first choice in the primaries, and even though I voted for him in the general election, I thought out loud that whoever becomes elected president in 2008 was likely to fail in the eyes of the American people, because as a culcture we are spoiled through and through, from left to right and sea to shining sea, we are a nation that consumes the earth and then moves on to the next plunder. The reason I support Obama is because he has accomplished so much in such a short time and against all odds; I count over 170 promises he has kept, about 130 without compromise, another 40 or so with compromise. I support compromise because without it there can be no democracy. I support Obama because he is a uniter, not a divider, and because he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For comparison and contrast, I supported GW Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of pursuing bin Laden and neutralizing the Taliban that protected al Qaida, provided them aid and comfort. I criticize GWB for abandoning the effort, for his administration's culpability in lying to GWB's own cabinet, the congress and the world about the pretext for invading Iraq, and I critize Cheney in particular for the outing of Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband exposing the "yellow cake" fraud perpetrated by GW Bush's administration. I do wonder at times if GW Bush wasn't merely a puppet, and Cheney?Rumsfeld/Worfowitz were the puppet masters. I also supported the first invasion of Iraq under GHW Bush, which was executed only after first forming a broad international coalition, UN backing, and generals who knew when to stop. Similarly, I supported NATO's bombardment of Serbia under the Clinton administration which, like Libya, was a humanitarian intervention. I don't consider myself to be an Obama apologist because he's done nothing that I would apologize for.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
03:31 PM on 06/20/2011
What evidence of Obama lying to the world as a pretext to go to war? What evidence of Obama abandoning the original legitimate mission of apprehending bin Laden and neutralizing al Qaida and its protectors the Taliban? What evidence of Obama outing under-cover CIA agents in violation of the law? Just asking.
03:51 PM on 06/20/2011
I never said Obama = Bush. To suggest otherwise is a massive misreading. BUT, I DID make the point that in the area of cherry-picking legal "advice", Obama did the same thing as Bush did. Now perhaps every President does it. But Obama criticized it vociferously (as he SHOULD have). Now he's doing the same thing. And look, I'll say it again, every President probably does it. But to claim that somehow Obama didn't just cherry-pick what he wanted to hear is delusional. It's just the latest of Obama's "do what I say, not what I do".
12:10 PM on 06/20/2011
The conflict is clearly a bad idea, but is it illegal? I'm certainly not qualified to say. But Glenn is, and he made a convincing case against the war on today's Democracy Now!, check it out: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/20/glenn_greenwald_could_obama_be_impeached
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:25 PM on 06/20/2011
Are you saying international humanitarian efforts sanctioned by the UN are a bad idea? As for Greenwald, I wouldn't trust him with my daughter; he's an unprincipled faux journalist who foments anger for its own sake. There's an example of his deceitful practices in the Greenwald quote above, to whit he wrote "Now we have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping in a way that his own top lawyers are telling him is illegal...". I have been asking since this article appeared for someone to show me a link that supports this Greenwald statement that Obama is not only eavesdropping illegally but his top lawyers are telling him so. Where does Greenwald get off feeding us this BS?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vorpalmusic
06:31 PM on 06/20/2011
You`re seriously mentally challenged. Here is what Greenwald said:

That George Bush would knowingly order an eavesdropping program to continue which his own top lawyers were telling him was illegal was, of course, a major controversy, at least in many progressive circles. Now we have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping in a way that his own top lawyers are telling him is illegal, but waging war in that manner (though, notably, there is no indication that these Obama lawyers have the situational integrity those Bush lawyers had [and which Archibald Cox, Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus had before them] by threatening to resign if the lawlessness continues).
____


As anyone with high school reading comprehension can see, he is not accusing Obama of illegal wiretapping. He is saying that what Obama does is far worse than merely illegal wiretapping.
12:08 PM on 06/20/2011
"Glenn Greenwald points out that when lawyers in the Bush administration faced a similar conflict in 2007 over the NSA's WARRENTLESS WIRETAPPING PROGRAM..."

hmmm....seems like a very expansive and broad meaning attached to "similar"....
01:51 PM on 06/20/2011
Perhaps the author should have used "analogous". Does that help? Your nit-picking over the word similar vs analogous doesn't change the fundamental nature of the argument.
02:24 PM on 06/20/2011
No, because it is NOT a similar nor analogous situation. Sad, I would have hoped that you understood this
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rick Aronhalt
08:41 AM on 06/21/2011
I understand what you are trying to say, but some would say there is a big difference between bombing a sovereign nation and protecting American citizens from terrorists.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:31 PM on 06/20/2011
F&F. Greenwald is not just a conflator of false logic, he's a purveyor of outright falsehood. He wrote "Now we have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping in a way that his own top lawyers are telling him is illegal...." This bold assertion is offered as a declaration of fact when it is completely unsupported and made up by Greenwald. It won't be long before Greenwald's fans are quoting him on this fabrication.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
04:52 PM on 06/20/2011
Of course, because anyone who criticizes President Obama must be accused of moral turpitude and other sins to keep their arguments from being given consideration by the Obamabots.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vorpalmusic
06:35 PM on 06/20/2011
I`m noticing a pattern here. This whole argument revolves around your inability to understand what Greenwald wrote, and your other argument revolves around your inability to understand what it says in the Constitution.

How much more clear can `Congress shall have the power to declare war.` get?
11:29 AM on 06/20/2011
If Obama is so convinced he needs to kill Gadhafi's to make this world a better place, why hasn't he asked Congress for approval to send ground troops. Why the semantic games over what's war or not war? We need lawyers to define war? Ask any veteran he can tell you. This like Clinton saying he didn't know cunnilingus was sex to the grand jury. Or better yet why hasn't NATO sent ground troops after all isn't Gadhafi's the most terrible man in the world, or is he?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:46 PM on 06/20/2011
Why hasn't Obama sent in ground troops? Because he's learned from history what works and what doesn't. Boots on the ground tend to get stuck in the mud, and tend to get a lot of Americans killed. Bad idea. This is a limited humanitarian intervention. I don't care if anyone wants to call it a war; it's a war. What is happening between Obama and Congress right now is theatre on both sides. Only fools like Kucinich on the left, and libertarians and Tea Party on the right, are trying to foment a constitutional crisis. Obama and Boehner are both tap dancing, and they both know it. This too shall pass. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Obama's primary defense for his actions comes from the constitution, which grants the president the powers of commander in chief whenever called into such service; no declaration of war is required; no criteria other than the president's judgment are required. Article II, Section 2, enumerates presidential powers, some, bnut not all, expressly requiring the advice and consent of congress. Actions taken by the commander in chief do not require the advice and consent of congress. Look it up, and learn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vorpalmusic
06:39 PM on 06/20/2011
Anyone who has been to 5th grade in the US should already know that Congress declares wars that`s what ``calls the powers of the commander in chief into such service,`` as you say it.

Read the Constitution more carefully next time you pretend to know something about it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Congress shall have the power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;