The U.S. is now at war in a third Muslim country, according to the "official tally" (that is, counting Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya but not Pakistan or Yemen, for example). But Congress has never authorized or debated the U.S. military intervention in Libya. (A sharply disputed claim holds that the Pakistan and Yemen actions are covered by the 2001 authorization of military force, but no one has dared to argue that the 2001 AUMF covers Libya.)
Some will no doubt claim that the president is acting in Libya within his authority as Commander in Chief. But this is an extremely dangerous claim.
To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime.
Some members of Congress have strongly objected to President Obama's bombing of Libya without Congressional approval.
On the Democratic side, John Larson, chair of the Democratic Caucus in the House, called for President Obama to seek congressional approval. Reps. Jerrold Nadler, Donna Edwards, Mike Capuano, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Rob Andrews, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee and Eleanor Holmes Norton "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during a Saturday call organized by Larson, Politico reports.
"They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress," one Democrat[ic] lawmaker said of the White House. "They're creating wreckage, and they can't obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground... There aren't boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air."
"Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called," added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.
"Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members."
On the Republican side, Senator Richard Lugar, ranking Member on Senate Foreign Relations, told CBS' Face the Nation yesterday that if we're going to war with Libya, we ought to have a declaration of war by the Congress:
A memo distributed to Republican aides in the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee made the case that Congressional authorization is necessary and used Barack Obama's own words to make the case, ABC reported.
The memo quotes Obama when he was in the Senate and there were concerns that then-President George W. Bush would take strike Iran.
"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 nation," the memo quotes then-Senator Obama saying on Dec. 20, 2007.
In times like this, you can be sure some journalist will marvel at the "strange bedfellows" coalition of Democrats and Republicans standing up to the president. But there's nothing strange about this bed. Everyone who wants to live in a constitutional republic belongs in this bed. Everyone who wants to hold the administration to its promise of a "limited intervention" aimed at "protecting civilians," rather than overthrowing the Libyan government, and to avoid "mission creep" from the former to the latter, belongs in this bed.
Congressional debate is a key means of compelling the administration to clearly state its case and its objectives, to be honest and transparent about the potential cost of its proposed policies, and to limit its actions to its stated objectives; and to force members of Congress to go on the record, in opposition or in support, and to state clearly, if they support, what it is that they support. On cost, for example: each Tomahawk missile is reported to cost on the order of a million dollars. So, firing 110 of them over the weekend cost about $100 million, far more than House Republicans cut from National Public Radio with great fanfare. Shouldn't Congress consider this expenditure?
Two days into the military intervention, there was already sharp dispute over whether the military intervention that has unfolded has already gone beyond what the UN Security Council authorized and what the Arab League endorsed.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported:
A day after a summit meeting in Paris set the military operation in motion, some Arab participants in the agreement expressed unhappiness with the way the strikes were unfolding. The former chairman of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, told Egyptian state media that he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya.
"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said, referring to Libyan government claims that allied bombardment had killed dozens of civilians in and near Tripoli.
Today, Moussa appeared to walk back these remarks.
But with Benghazi apparently no longer under Libyan government threat, and with Western bombs falling in Tripoli, this dispute over the scope of Western bombing is virtually certain to intensify.
You can debate the constitutional issue of war powers until the cows come home; but as a practical matter, if Congress doesn't formally address the issue, such debate isn't very relevant. If a majority of the House and the Senate support the present U.S. military intervention in Libya, let them say so on the record, at least, by voting for a resolution to authorize military force. If the majority of the House or Senate are opposed, let them say so on the record. A minimum standard for transparency in government is that the House and the Senate go on the record for or against a new war.
UPDATE: Former MoveOn and Democracy for America staffer Ilya Sheyman, who is exploring a run for Congress in Illinois' 10th Congressional District, has a petition calling for Congress to debate the war in Libya.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Or is this disdain and disregard for our contemptible Congress done with the same dismissive arrogance the Caesars gave to the senate of their time? Like our own President the dicators of Rome used the SPQR pretext for their decrees, (Senatus Populi quo Romanorum for the Senate and People of Rome.
So we now have a Louis XIV, Sun King, who could reply wit the same arrogance when asked if his Versailles expenditures and national debt would bankrupt the state,"Etate c'est moi , I am the state."
We have a facade of "Feed The Tiger, Kick The Cat". We make pretentious and hypocritical almost theatrical dispalys of concern for poor civilians ,except those brutalized and tyranized citizens in China, Saudi Arabia , Sudan, Byelorus and Georgia, most of Africa, Tibet, and so it goes. But for the above reasons we borrowed more free trade profit money from China, Wall Street, Riyadh and other foreign lenders to finance this charade. What are the terms, conditions and collateral for these loans, you will find out when American government assets are seized by our creditors. And don't be surprised if the UN troops enforce this expropriation of Taiwan, national parks, drilling sites because of President Obama.
When has this administration EVER been willing to plainly state its goals? They plan and act in secret, then no matter what pans out, Obama says "that's what I wanted all along" and calls it a victory. There's nothing remotely surprising about how this has been handled, nor should it surprise anyone when he commits ground forces under the guise of "humanitarian aid".
The only question before us is whether Opologists will drop the meme "it's fine when our guy does it, now let's all turn our attention to Bush and Fox News" because they can't possibly find merit in this.
If you don't like that (and I don't) take it up with Congress, who overrode Richard Nixon's veto to pass it.
However, it amazes me that we are so broke that we need to gut Social Security and Medicare and yet there is enough fat in the Defense Department budget that we can engage in yet another military adventure without asking for additional funds.
Perhaps some priority changes are in order.
Obama taking heat from all sides for Libya action
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/obama-taking-heat-from-all-sides-for-libya-action
Under-gunned, under-manned "rebels" caught the fervor and thought they could overthrow the rehabilitated dictator. The west was more than willing to allow Libyan "justice" to take its course, until they actually gained control of the oil in the east. It was only then that the multinationals were able to twist arms (pun intended) and get their respective national powers to step in to ensure their investments.
France became the first European nation to call for military action in Libya after the Gaddafi government forced Total, France’s leading oil company, to take a smaller share of the proceeds from their Libyan oil leases.
BP signed $20 billion dollar deal by negotiating release of the Lockerby Bomber.
PetroCanada signed six exploration and production sharing agreements (EPSAs) with the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) in a 30 year deal.
You don't get to unilaterally renegotiate a 30 year deal without consequences. Ask Saddam (oh right, you can't...)
Obama has already committed us to war within Libya.
For no purpose. With no goals. No end game.
Just mercenary support for Arab League, who has already repudiated it.
$100 million in deficit spending already. Most likely a $ Billion or more before we leave.
To intervene in another country's civil war. Which we pick and choose rather randomly.
Didn't we learn anything from our intervention in the civil war in Vietnam?
“This isn’t the way that our system is supposed to work,” he added.
Webb said that the administration has also lacked coherence about the end goal of the military mission in Libya.
“We have a military operation that’s been put into place, but we do not have a clear diplomatic policy or a clear statement of foreign policy that is accompanying this military operation,” Webb said.
We have moved into the area of dictatorship when we allow this kind of action to stand without Congressional action. Obama may be benevolent..... or he may not, but he has made decisions that are not his alone to make. And NO ONE but Dennis Kucinich or Jim Webb says anything?
Pathetic!
"They did it before me" is not a rationale for doing something that is not legal or just.
Say goodbye to your Republic. The Ides of March strike again......