Obama Defies His Lawyers on Libya - NYT

[PapaG]

This is one of his bigger "fuck you" statements to Congress and the American people. Even more odd considering Obama cited the War Powers Act when he starting killing people in Libya.

If this was Dubya, the libs in America would be marching in the streets. Since it's the Golden Child, nobody seems to care, and the right is too busy working to protest.

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.


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.


continued at link

 

[maxiep]

I keep saying it, but the closest presidential comparison to Barack Obama is Richard Nixon. How the Democrats can keep supporting him is beyond me.

 

[barfo]

I keep saying it, but the closest presidential comparison to Barack Obama is Richard Nixon. How the Democrats can keep supporting him is beyond me.

"I keep saying it, but Obama is in fact Satan. How come no one takes me seriously?"

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm trying to figure out what "participation" they're arguing over.

I've been here almost a month, and in that time we haven't dropped a bomb, put a troop on their soil, supplied any weapons, or done anything except help refuel some NATO planes and start (for lack of a better term) Search-and-Rescue watch. Other US agencies may or may not be involved, but that doesn't have anything to do with DoD or "war" actions. Effectively, they "scaled back" their actions Mar 31, when they went from Operation Odyssey Dawn to support of NATO Operation Unified Protector.

Everything we're participating in falls under "support to allies in accordance with our treaty requirements" and under the auspices of the multiple UN resolutions enforcing a no-fly zone.

I'm sure, if someone wanted to bash the legality or constitutionality of some of the President's actions, that there are much better candidates than our military "action" in the Med right now.

 

[barfo]

I'm trying to figure out what "participation" they're arguing over.

I've been here almost a month

Here? Where is here, Libya?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Operation Unified Protector.

 

[barfo]

Operation Unified Protector.

Cool, didn't know you were on the case.

I must say, however, that Operation Unified Protector isn't the most stirring name.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't get to make those up. Some random word-generator deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, probably.

 

[barfo]

I don't get to make those up. Some random word-generator deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, probably.

Wouldn't it be someone in the bowels of NATO? Maybe that's the problem. The US names have actually been pretty good (Desert Storm, etc.).

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

true statement. I mistakenly thought that if I dropped a SHAPE/Casteau reference, it would go over the heads.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm trying to figure out what "participation" they're arguing over.

I've been here almost a month, and in that time we haven't dropped a bomb, put a troop on their soil, supplied any weapons, or done anything except help refuel some NATO planes and start (for lack of a better term) Search-and-Rescue watch. Other US agencies may or may not be involved, but that doesn't have anything to do with DoD or "war" actions. Effectively, they "scaled back" their actions Mar 31, when they went from Operation Odyssey Dawn to support of NATO Operation Unified Protector.

Everything we're participating in falls under "support to allies in accordance with our treaty requirements" and under the auspices of the multiple UN resolutions enforcing a no-fly zone.

I'm sure, if someone wanted to bash the legality or constitutionality of some of the President's actions, that there are much better candidates than our military "action" in the Med right now.

The constitution states that treaties are the law of the land. I don't see why Obama has to ask congress' permission to fulfill treaty obligations.

Obama seems within his rights and has fulfilled his duties regarding the War Powers Act, too. There is a sort of blur between when we stopped softening the defenses so NATO could go in, and when it became a NATO operation.

The strongest argument against Obama's decisions is that NATO basically is the US (for the most part).

 

[BrianFromWA]

so what's Ron Paul bringing this up for?

 

[julius]

I'm trying to figure out what "participation" they're arguing over.

I've been here almost a month, and in that time we haven't dropped a bomb, put a troop on their soil, supplied any weapons, or done anything except help refuel some NATO planes and start (for lack of a better term) Search-and-Rescue watch. Other US agencies may or may not be involved, but that doesn't have anything to do with DoD or "war" actions. Effectively, they "scaled back" their actions Mar 31, when they went from Operation Odyssey Dawn to support of NATO Operation Unified Protector.

Everything we're participating in falls under "support to allies in accordance with our treaty requirements" and under the auspices of the multiple UN resolutions enforcing a no-fly zone.

I'm sure, if someone wanted to bash the legality or constitutionality of some of the President's actions, that there are much better candidates than our military "action" in the Med right now.

why let something like facts get in the way of a good rant?

pfft...just because you're there and know first hand doesn't mean that Obama isn't just as bad as Nixon or he's secretly trying to start another war!!

 

[Denny Crane]

so what's Ron Paul bringing this up for?

The constitution says we don't commit troops without a declaration of war, too.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So I reiterate, then...

Of all the things that the President and/or the Congress has done over the last 2+ years (on his watch, too) he's choosing Libya to go to the mattresses over (sue the president?) constitutionality? He tried this with Kosovo and got shot down, also.

Are Boehner and Paul really suggesting that we back out of NATO over Muammar Gaddafi? B/c it seems that all the President has to say is "Hey, guys. NATO's committed to enforce UN resolution 1973. We're committing forces and leadership to the operation in support of our NATO treaty agreement. You now stand informed."

 

[MARIS61]

As the linked blog written by perpetual student Saul Relative concludes:

As noted, President Obama seems to have broken no laws.

 

[julius]

So I reiterate, then...

Of all the things that the President and/or the Congress has done over the last 2+ years (on his watch, too) he's choosing Libya to go to the mattresses over (sue the president?) constitutionality? He tried this with Kosovo and got shot down, also.

Are Boehner and Paul really suggesting that we back out of NATO over Muammar Gaddafi? B/c it seems that all the President has to say is "Hey, guys. NATO's committed to enforce UN resolution 1973. We're committing forces and leadership to the operation in support of our NATO treaty agreement. You now stand informed."

Why let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign?

It's never stopped anyone (D and R) in the past, why would it now?

 

[Denny Crane]

So I reiterate, then...

Of all the things that the President and/or the Congress has done over the last 2+ years (on his watch, too) he's choosing Libya to go to the mattresses over (sue the president?) constitutionality? He tried this with Kosovo and got shot down, also.

Are Boehner and Paul really suggesting that we back out of NATO over Muammar Gaddafi? B/c it seems that all the President has to say is "Hey, guys. NATO's committed to enforce UN resolution 1973. We're committing forces and leadership to the operation in support of our NATO treaty agreement. You now stand informed."

No matter how you spin it, we certainly bombed a sovereign nation. That is an act of war. They're asking for a vote on it, is all.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think Obama is within his rights as President to do what he thinks best here. I like a Prez that exhibits some guts and stretches his authority.

 

[julius]

No matter how you spin it, we certainly bombed a sovereign nation. That is an act of war. They're asking for a vote on it, is all.

all the sudden NOW the Republicans and right wingers are concerned over bombing a sovereign nation?

(conversely, all the sudden NOW the Democrats and left wingers aren't? Well, some more, but not for the reasons the RW and R's are)

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

all the sudden NOW the Republicans and right wingers are concerned over bombing a sovereign nation?

(conversely, all the sudden NOW the Democrats and left wingers aren't? Well, some more, but not for the reasons the RW and R's are)

It's a topsy turvsey world in DC.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Of course the right is hypocritical, and this very thread is. But that isn't the point.

The point is Obama has gone past ridiculous right now. He continues to go against things he said just a few short years ago.

If this was Dubya, the libs in America would be marching in the streets.

It was "Dubya".

 

[PapaG]

all the sudden NOW the Republicans and right wingers are concerned over bombing a sovereign nation?

(conversely, all the sudden NOW the Democrats and left wingers aren't? Well, some more, but not for the reasons the RW and R's are)

It's more of an authority issue to me. Obama's lawyers were trying to tell him that bombing a sovereign nation is an act of aggression, and Obama himself quoted the WPA. We currently do have drones flying over Libya, and are offering support for the bombing raids. When his own lawyers are advising him to seek congressional approval, it's probably a good idea to do so.

But, the rules don't apply to this President, and his supporters certainly aren't going to admit to their own hypocrisy.

 

[PapaG]

Of course the right is hypocritical, and this very thread is. But that isn't the point.

The point is Obama has gone past ridiculous right now. He continues to go against things he said just a few short years ago.



It was "Dubya".

Where is the hypocrisy? Dubya followed protocol and received congressional approval. If Barry does that, I'm cool with our new war against Libya.

I'm not sure you understand what "hypocrisy" means.

 

[Denny Crane]

all the sudden NOW the Republicans and right wingers are concerned over bombing a sovereign nation?

(conversely, all the sudden NOW the Democrats and left wingers aren't? Well, some more, but not for the reasons the RW and R's are)

I just explained Ron Paul's reasoning. FWIW, he voted against the war resolutions during the Bush administration.

 

[PapaG]

all the sudden NOW the Republicans and right wingers are concerned over bombing a sovereign nation?
(conversely, all the sudden NOW the Democrats and left wingers aren't? Well, some more, but not for the reasons the RW and R's are)

I'm not concerned about bombing Libya. I'm concerned about Obama trying to circumvent the existing separation of powers, against the advice of his own legal team.

Why are liberals always so binary in their arguments?

 

[barfo]

I'm concerned about Obama trying to circumvent the existing separation of powers, against the advice of his own legal team.

As usual, your premise is faulty. Did you not read this part of what you quoted when you started this thread?

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team [...]

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

It's more of an authority issue to me. Obama's lawyers were trying to tell him that bombing a sovereign nation is an act of aggression, and Obama himself quoted the WPA. We currently do have drones flying over Libya, and are offering support for the bombing raids. When his own lawyers are advising him to seek congressional approval, it's probably a good idea to do so.

But, the rules don't apply to this President, and his supporters certainly aren't going to admit to their own hypocrisy.

HIS lawyers (White House Council and State Department legal council) said it's perfectly legal.

The Pentagon and Justice Dept lawyers (right-wing stooges) incorrectly stated otherwise.

 

[PapaG]

HIS lawyers (White House Council and State Department legal council) said it's perfectly legal.

The Pentagon and Justice Dept lawyers (right-wing stooges) incorrectly stated otherwise.

So, since there is confusion, why not just seek congressional approval? I'd expect his personal lawyers to side with him; he's going against the DoJ and the Pentagon at this point, and a bi-partisan faction of Congress wondering what the hell is going on.

Wouldn't it make sense to just seek congressional approval? Seems like Barry thinks he's above the separation of powers to me.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i can see obama's top aides now, standing at the gallows "i was just following orders"