As Gaddafi continues to slaughter civilians, America is fast approaching its own moment of truth. Despite its antiseptic label, imposing a "no-fly" zone is an act of war. As Secretary Gates explained last week, it "begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." The president has gathered his advisers to decide how to proceed. But the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power "to declare war."
The president does have the constitutional power to repel attacks on the homeland, but nobody suggests that Gaddafi's assault on his domestic enemies is a threat to the United States. An attack on Libya's air defenses would be a war of choice, not self-defense.
No existing statute or treaty allows this action. Gaddafi isn't linked to Al Qaeda, so an attack against him isn't supported by the resolution authorizing force against terrorists involved in 9/11. If Obama goes it alone, he must return to Bush-era assertions that the president, as commander-in-chief, can unilaterally launch the nation into war.
Upon taking office, President Obama immediately withdrew opinions written by John Yoo and others making these extreme claims. And his Justice Department has refrained from asserting unilateral presidential power in the conduct of the wars Obama has inherited: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen.
But Libya would be Obama's war. If he acts unilaterally, he will be consolidating one of the worst aspects of the Bush era, and set a precedent for further abuses by future presidents.
There is still time to take the constitutional path. As Secretary of State Clinton recently explained, "no decisions have been made and for good reason. Because it is not at all clear yet what the situation demands." And Congress is likely to give the president its strong bipartisan support. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently said that "we should be ready to implement [a no-fly zone] as necessary." Senator John McCain has gone further: "Don't tell me we can't do a no-fly zone over Tripoli."
The key question is not whether Congress will consent, but how it should limit its grant of authority. As Iraq shows, presidents can manipulate a poorly drafted Congressional authorization to escalate a war long after its original rationale has disappeared. It is one thing to approve a "no-fly zone"; quite another to authorize another decade-long effort at state-building once Gaddafi loses power.
To guard against mission creep, Congress should limit its no-fly resolution to a six month period. Conditions in Libya will be very different then, and it will be time for another round of debate. Congress can guarantee continuing oversight by stipulating that its current authorization expires on a fixed date. If the president wants the "no-fly" zone to continue, he will have to reopen the discussion, and convince Congress, and the American people, that the further use of force makes sense.
We are at a crossroads. President Obama can deal a death blow to our constitutional commitment to checks and balances in war-making. Or he can establish a precedent in constructive congressional engagement which will serve as a model for the foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century.
Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway are professors of law and political science at Yale. They expand on their sunset proposal in a recently published article in the Michigan Law Review.
Yoani Sanchez: Gaddafi and Castro, Solidarity Between Despots
But this spineless President could take other measures short of military actions to help the rebels. Recognizing the rebels government, selling basic arms to them, supplying them with intelligence, awarding Libya's seat in UN to that Gov, allowing oil receipts to go to them, establishing diplomatic relations with them. Obama have done none of these soft options.
What's worst is the usual mixed messages, and double often conflicting talk that has become the signature pattern of confusion coming from the state dept, the Defense Dept, and the WH.
This whole crisis highlights the chronic inept ways this administration handles issues of great importance leaving a vacuum that filled with empty senseless speculations from others on which way it should proceed.
"Recognize the rebels government" They don't have one yet. France has recognized the main opposition party as legitimate, but does not go so far as to call them the "Libyan Governement" The US has set up talks. We don't want another Iran.
"Sell basic arms to them" They seem to be doing pretty good right now. Besides are they even asking to buy any?
"Supply them with intelligence" How do you know we aren't? Plus what exatly do we know that they don't? The rebels seem to have a pretty good plan-Push Gaddafi to the sea
"Award Libya's seat in the UN" One member cannot "give" anyone a seat at the UN. And until that new governemtn forms and is recognised fully and internationally it can't even be recomended for inclusion. There are international rules and procedure for these things. We are not above them. We have a strong voice, but it is NOT the only voice.
Let's face it, Obama is taking Gaddafi's side here by doing nothing!
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110308/OPINION/103080333
"As is typical, the our-enemy-is-crazy card has been played. In response to Gadhafi's statement, "My people love me. They would die for me," Rice said, "It sounds, just frankly, delusional."
Was Gadhafi delusional when he firmly denounced the 9-11 attacks?
No, when Gadhafi said that all his people love him and that the Libyan uprising is solely the work of young Osama bin Laden supporters on drugs, he was acting like most Western politicians in a tough spot: He lied when candor didn't advance self-interest.
According to Rice, exile "may be an option" for Gadhafi, but this won't protect him from prosecution "for the crimes that he and those closest to him have committed." Thus Rice suggests that Gadhafi should relinquish power only to be tried in a kangaroo court and hanged like Saddam Hussein.
And Gadhafi is the delusional one?
Why not make an offer that Gadhafi might accept, exile with a security guarantee? This offer might save lives. ..."
That sounds like a plan.
C'mon. Obama should have been rounding up NATO and the Security Council from day one. But once again, he prefers to play ball and let others fret and flap their arms in his administration while they try to come up with another fancy speech.
I'm tired of MBA presidents. I'm tired of lawyer presidents. I'm ready for a leader who will get things done and do the right thing for a change, without surrendering to the legions of government mandarins in DC.
For all his posing, George W. actually doesn't know how to ride a horse.
And hate to burst your bubble, but Libya is already in a war state.
As an African American all of this criticism offends me even more when I think about our struggle in this country for civil rights. I don't recall seeing one Egyptian or Lybian sitting at those lunch counters with us or marching with us, or swinging from trees by their necks as we were lynched just for wanting our freedom. So excuse me if I'm not jumping on this Obama bashing band wagon for not risking more American lives for other peoples quest to be free. We have put too much of our blood and treasure onthe line, it time for other countries to step in and do their part.
And yes lynchings were awful, despicable acts. According to the Tuskegee Institute, between 1882-1968 (86 years), there were 3,446 lynchings of African Americans, compared with 1,297 lynchings of whites. In total that averages 55 lynchings per year for all races, nationwide.
In 2005 (last year available by the DOJ) just over 6,400 African-American males were murdered, the overwhelming percentage by other African-American males. That's just one year.
Where is your outrage over that number? Where are the marches and the protests and the community leaders to get gangs out of our cities and get these young people to stop killing each other? You don't need Libyans to tell you that's a pretty striking difference, you can see for yourself that there is a serious problem with black on black murders. Their lives are no less important and are being lost at twice the rate, every year, than what occurred under racist acts over 86 years.
And I believe I did say in my comment that Obama should be leading NATO and the Security Council here, which by definition is the very involvement of multiple countries to step up and do their part.
Every year in this country
Sovereignty is an important issue among United Nations members.
A "Temporary No Fly Zone" is still an act of war, just like no woman is just a little bit pregnant.
From the United Nations:
"Definition of Aggression"
"United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)
Article 3
Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State........"
In addition, it would be difficult to manufacture a case for "Just War" (Jus ad Bellum) under the current circumstances in Libya, ie. a "Civil War".”
If President Obama injects the U.S. military or strong arms NATO into supporting the "Rebels" in Libya, the rebels wiill become a proxy foreign army.
Mr.Obama will have effectively hijacked the peoples revolution in Libya.
Obama and any "Coalition of the Willing. Version 2.0" will allow the U.S. to appoint the next leader of Libya, a repeat of the Afghan model.
The final touch, lots of "purple fingers" to justify the charade.
1.) not everything that happens in the world is for America to address;
2.) not every crisis can be helped by American intervention;
3.) even in cases where American should intervene, there are few cases where America can intervene successfully.
The worst part of the current Libya debate is this: The same discredited group of players, McCain, Lieberman, Fox News, et.al. that gave us the never-ending bloodbath in Iraq (the lowest credible estimate is 100,000 civilian casualties and counting) are once again banging the war drums. That any of these characters still command an audience is a testament to the stupidity of the American people.
Libya could be the first of several countries whose people are going to be hammered down by iron-fisted dictators. Are we going to save them all? Are we ready to take on our buddies the Saudis, if the same happens there? Something is amiss with the people who run our government. I'm not sure what it is, but it's a sad state of affairs. Read more, if you like, at http://whyileftamerica.wordpress.com.
especially after the Bush/Cheney copyrights to 'it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission' war on
Hussein! But like so many politicians, they get stuck on terms that they believe to be written in concrete.
Look at the situation from different points of view. Focus on other aspects. Gov. Walker managed to
do it, can Obama?
Several "purely reconnaissance flights" over East Libya, engine trouble, must ditch the plane, rebels appear and commandeer the planes. Who's to say .....!?!
Obama. Do something to help these people! We can hold the rebels "accountable" for stealing our
planes later like we held Wall Street/Bankers/BP/Bernanke accountable.
Thats great, except on a "purely recon mission, the planes would not likely be armed, so no help if the rebels got them AND since most of the military is still loyal to Gaddafi (or has asked for asylum in other countries) how many of the "people" have the training to fly US military jets?
Obama has done thing. Libyan assests in the US are frozen, Gaddafi, his top level advisors and any family are on the international $h!t list. We have suspended all money to his government and we are giving humanitarian aid to the rebels and helping fly out refugees. What else would you like him to do (that the US is able to do unilaterally)?