Congress should update and amend the existing War Powers Act (WPA), passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon's veto, to cover future American military operations relying on drones instead of ground forces. Republican and Democratic House leaders seriously questioned President Obama's executive order for the war in Libya, but have not followed up with amendments to protect the crucial constitutional role of Congress -- and American voters -- in future decisions to go to war.
The Pentagon budget for Libya, submitted by Obama to Congress, included an initial outlay of $713.6 million for "military operations." The War Powers Act, however, requires the President to terminate any deployment within 60 to 90 days unless authorized by Congress.
Democrats like John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich were joined by Republicans like Speaker John Boehner, Walter Jones and Ron Paul in opposing the unilateral military action without Congressional approval.
The Obama team was internally divided in its rationale for the war, and has refused to disclose key internal legal documents. In their view, the War Powers Act applies only where there is "sustained fighting," an "active exchange of fire with hostile forces," or the deployment of ground troops. The US interpretation could be applied in present and future wars deploying only drone attacks without troops on the ground.
The Pentagon's own budget language for Libya included a plan to "find, fix, track, target and destroy regime forces;" "suppression of enemy air defense;" "occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets;" and the utilization of massive refueling and intelligence assets on behalf of NATO forces.
The US claim that these military operations were devoted only to the protection of civilians has nothing to do with the requirements of the WPA.
Follow Tom Hayden on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TomEHayden
Now I have had time to read your interesting posting, which fits right into what I'm reading about just now: The Nixon-Kissinger plan to "win the war" by continuing to drop millions of bombs on a more or less defenseless populations. That should NOT have been allowed to happen but because, as you say," (the House) has not followed up with amendments to protect the crucial constitutional role of Congress -- and American voters -- in future decisions to go to war."
I don't know much about American Laws and the relationships between different units of government, but there ought to be law that prevents madmen like Nixon and Kissinger from murdering hundred of thousands innocent old people, women and children.
There also should be a law that prevents President Obama from attacking Iranian power plants :)
Best regards,
Dr Karl Andersson
I'm writing a book about the Russell Tribunal on the US wars in Indochina and I've looked for references to it in your autobiographical writings, but not found much. I wonder if you e.g. met Ralph Schoenman or any other member of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation?
I've just published a secondary bibliography of the Russell Tribunal in "Russell: Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies" that I would be happy to send to you.
I'm also trying to engage antiwar activists to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the elevate Pentagon event in October. Noam Chomsky has politely declined, Richard Falk, Jane Fonda and Mohammad Ali haven't answered yet.
Do you believe in such a reunion?
Best
Dr Karl Stefan Andersson
at the Bertrand Russell Archives, McMaster Univeristy, Hamilton, Canada, but from Sweden :)
homepage www.stefankarlandersson.com
Why is that a problem? one reason why the Iraq war became unpopular and contributed to Obama's presidency was how unpopular Bush's Iraq war became due to U.S. casualties. Now with no sacrifice, the protest will be minimal (at least on our end here in the U.S. I cant' speak on behalf of the families over there).