War Powers Act? psssshh

[Disco Pickle]

"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"


  Barack Obama - 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/15/war.powers.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Washington (CNN) -- The White House defended to Congress on Wednesday the legality, the costs and accomplishments of the U.S. military mission in Libya.

In a 32-page report titled "United States Activities in Libya," the administration says the cost of military and humanitarian operations through June 3 was about $800 million. It estimates the total cost through September 30 will be $1.1 billion.

The report was drawn up in response to a House resolution that accused President Barack Obama of failing to consult with Congress over the military effort in the North African country.

It denies the accusation by some members of Congress that Obama has violated the War Powers Resolution by intervening militarily for more than 60 days without seeking approval from Congress.

"Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the president had constitutional authority, as commander-in-chief and chief executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to address such limited military operations abroad," it says.

"The president is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision."

The report was accompanied by a two-page letter jointly signed by legislative affairs officials with the departments of Defense and State and directed to House Speaker John Boehner.

"Taken in response to direct appeals from the Libyan people, and acting with a mandate from the United Nations, the United States mobilized a broad coalition, stopped an advancing army, prevented a massacre, established a no-fly zone, and limited the spread of violence and instability in a region pivotal to U.S. security interests," it says.

In response, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said, "The creative arguments made by the White House raise a number of questions that must be further explored. Regardless, the commander-in-chief has a responsibility to articulate how U.S. military action is vital to our national security and consistent with American policy goals. With Libya, the president has fallen short on this obligation. We will review the information that was provided today but hope and expect that this will serve as the beginning, not the end, of the president's explanation for continued American operations in Libya."

The exchange of documents came after a bipartisan group of House members filed a lawsuit Wednesday that challenges U.S. participation in the Libya military mission.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a letter to Obama on Tuesday that the administration could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution, if it fails to get congressional authorization by Sunday, the 90th day since the mission began and a deadline that some legal experts cite as the deadline set by the resolution.

The lawsuit addresses a long-standing dispute between the executive and legislative branches -- meaning the White House and Congress -- over the powers of the president to send forces to war.

"We are intending through our presence and through this lawsuit to correct an imbalance which exists today, to correct a deficiency in the separation of powers, to correct ... and to firmly establish that Congress is a co-equal branch of government and that the founders made it unmistakably clear they did not intend for the war power to be placed in the hands of an executive," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal and one of the 10 legislators filing the lawsuit.

Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Illinois, said the legal issue was whether Obama exceeded his authority in committing U.S. forces to the Libya mission.

"Did he act illegally? The answer is yes," Johnson said.

But Wednesday's report from the White House say that U.S. operations are limited to a supporting role in a coalition whose operations are authorized by the U.N. Security Council resolution. They "do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." it says.

In a letter to Boehner and to the president pro tempore of the Senate, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Obama called U.S. support for the NATO-based coalition "crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from the actions of the Gadhafi regime, and to address the threat to international peace and security posed by the crisis in Libya."

He noted that no U.S. ground forces have been deployed, except for operations to rescue the crew of a U.S. aircraft on March 21.

But Kucinich said earlier in the day that the Obama administration must make its case in court. "They can tell it to the judge now," Kucinich said. "They can't claim this isn't a war."

The lawsuit asks the court to "declare that the war in Libya is illegal and order the White House to stop."

The goal of the administration and legislators who support the Libya mission is approval of a new resolution that backs U.S. participation, which would serve as an equivalent to congressional authorization.

The White House has said it was complying with the War Powers Resolution through frequent briefings on the Libya mission, and Wednesday's report cited dozens of them.

Boehner's letter contested that assertion.

"Since the mission began, the administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action," Boehner's letter said. "It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the administration's strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution."

Such political wrangling over war powers is common in Washington, with presidents frequently seeking to expand their freedom to commit U.S. forces and Congress battling to exert influence on the process.

Congressional opponents of the mission say that its objective of civilian protection fails to match the stated U.S. goal of Moammar Gadhafi's resignation or ouster and that the Libya situation could become a stalemate.

The White House says incremental progress is occurring through increasing diplomatic, political and military pressure on Gadhafi to step down.

In a coincidence of scheduling, Obama and Boehner are set to play golf together for the first time Saturday, a day after Boehner's deadline for information from the administration and the day before he says it could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  I've been wondering for some time now how much things like this are really decided among the Pentagon brass and simply approved by the President. 

I'd also be curious to see how much stock in Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and the other top 10 defense contractors, is held by top Military brass, making them direct beneficiaries of military action.  After all, if a bomb is used, it has to be replaced, and that's a guaranteed cash flow.

[Doktor Howl]

Did anyone honestly expect a new president to relinquish powers claimed by his predecessors?

If anyone did, please contact me.  I have some ocean front property here in Arizona that I'm selling for cheap.  A fire sale, if you will.

[Disco Pickle]

I damn sure didn't.

Sure were a lot of doe eyed young folk running around in 07 that seemed to think so.

[Doktor Howl]

I damn sure didn't.

Sure were a lot of doe eyed young folk running around in 07 that seemed to think so.

Stupidity is bipartisan.

Observe, for example, the "conservatives", who are now outraged by Obama's continuation of Bush's policies.

[Elder Iptuous]

there's plenty of them that still have their 'change' bumper sticker believing that he actually did...
i saw my first obama '012 bumper sticker yesterday.  figured i'd see them sooner.

i haven't found a Boehner/Weiner '012 sticker mentioned in another thread yet, but i'd shell out for one.

[Elder Iptuous]

I damn sure didn't.

Sure were a lot of doe eyed young folk running around in 07 that seemed to think so.

Stupidity is bipartisan.

Observe, for example, the "conservatives", who are now outraged by Obama's continuation of Bush's policies.

this has provided me unlimited amount of fun since he's taken office!

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Personally I'm supporting the Big Bird/Batman campaign.

[Doktor Howl]

The best part is, if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich got in next time around, they'd do the exact same thing.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

The best part is, if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich got in next time around, they'd do the exact same thing.

It's really just an >insert name here< for a repeat of the past few decades isn't it?

[Disco Pickle]

The best part is, if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich got in next time around, they'd do the exact same thing.

which would go a long way toward proving my suspicion that the military and think-tank policy wonks have really been calling the shots for decades and it doesn't really matter who the hell you vote for.

[Doktor Howl]

The best part is, if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich got in next time around, they'd do the exact same thing.

which would go a long way toward proving my suspicion that the military and think-tank policy wonks have really been calling the shots for decades and it doesn't really matter who the hell you vote for.

Since forever.  Google Smedley Butler.

[Disco Pickle]

The best part is, if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich got in next time around, they'd do the exact same thing.

which would go a long way toward proving my suspicion that the military and think-tank policy wonks have really been calling the shots for decades and it doesn't really matter who the hell you vote for.

Since forever.  Google Smedley Butler.

I continue to learn more things on this forum than any other I've ever visited.  

I was familiar with our occupation of Veracruz in 1914 from when I did some reading on the city's history, but never did any reading specifically about this guy.

Once again, thanks for the point in the right direction.  Currently devouring the article.

ETA:  found this: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

PDF of his book(let) and currently side tracked reading it.

[Disco Pickle]

From that book, first published in 1935:

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In
the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we
kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous
international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the
Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is
about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in
the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators)
have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments
of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go
to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of
lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and
mentally unbalanced men.

Predicting future wars becomes easy when you follow the money.  I'm a little disappointed in myself for not having heard of this guy before.  I've held the belief that Woodrow Wilson was a piece of shit for a decade at least, but am a bit surprised I never stumbled upon this guy until now.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

From that book, first published in 1935:

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In
the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we
kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous
international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the
Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is
about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in
the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators)
have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments
of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go
to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of
lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and
mentally unbalanced men.

Predicting future wars becomes easy when you follow the money.  I'm a little disappointed in myself for not having heard of this guy before.  I've held the belief that Woodrow Wilson was a piece of shit for a decade at least, but am a bit surprised I never stumbled upon this guy until now.

How old are you again?

[Disco Pickle]

From that book, first published in 1935:

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In
the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we
kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous
international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the
Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is
about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in
the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators)
have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments
of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go
to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of
lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and
mentally unbalanced men.

Predicting future wars becomes easy when you follow the money.  I'm a little disappointed in myself for not having heard of this guy before.  I've held the belief that Woodrow Wilson was a piece of shit for a decade at least, but am a bit surprised I never stumbled upon this guy until now.

How old are you again?

Just celebrated my 32nd anniversary on the planet.  And much celebrating there was.