Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 67752 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #750 on: June 18, 2011, 04:56:26 AM »
Obama Is Trying To Redefine What Constitutes Warfare (US-Libya)
6/18/2011 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist
Posted on June 18, 2011 4:21:21 AM EDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

...With Harold Koh (legal advisor for the Department of State) and Jay Carney in tow - engaged in a game of semantics.

Harold Koh recently said: "We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own. We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of hostilities envisioned by the War Powers Resolution."

Problem is, is that the WPA does not make any distinction between one kind of hostility and another kind. The Obama administration has said that as long as U.S. forces are at "little risk" or as long as there are no boots on the ground (and so on) that all is well and that the WPA does not apply to Libya.

In the end, although the WPA is unconstitutional, Obama shouldn't try to redefine what constitutes "hostilities" or play a game of semantics by saying that the WPA makes a distinction between one kind of hostility and another and thereby try to redefine what constitutes warfare. Obama should have asked Congress to scuttle the WPA before the war started, but it's too late for that. Now he should do what President Bush would have done were he in this situation as the Orwellian New Speak ("not the kind of hostilities envisioned", "Kenetic military operation", etc) is getting old.

Freeborn126

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #751 on: June 18, 2011, 05:13:28 AM »
^Orwellian Newspeak, that is exactly what it is.  We see more and more parallels to that book everyday with this administration.
Live free or die

Freeborn126

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #752 on: June 18, 2011, 05:38:58 AM »
LIBYA BOMBSHELL: Obama Overruled Two Top Lawyers, Who Told Him War Must Be Terminated
         

Joe Weisenthal
Business Insider
June 18, 2011

This week several members of Congress challenged Obama on the legality of the Libya war, given that actions have exceeded the 90 day period during which The White House doesn’t need Congressional authority for military action under the War Powers Act.


The White House response: We don’t need Congressional approval because this is not technically a hostile action (because we don’t have ground troops in Libya).

Tonight the NYT has a major bombshell: Two top lawyers — Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — told The White House otherwise.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder sided with Krass.

But Rather than heed their advice, he instead went with two lawyers with views more favorable to him: Bob Bauer (who is internal at The White House), and State Department advisor Harold Koh.

This is striking:

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

No doubt this will only embolden the bi-partisan group of Congressmen who think the war at this point is illegal.

And of course one can only imagine how news like this would have gone down under the Bush administration.

All that being said, Obama does have the support of serious lawyers, and he himself was a constitutional lawyer, so the idea that just because Johnson and Krass opposed this decision doesn’t in itself end it.

But this is still tough.

For some context, see this American Conservative story (from last June) on the war philosophy of Harold Koh, a renowned liberal legal scholar who also has a history of justifying hostile activity.

At the end of March, Harold Koh, top lawyer at the State Department, used his keynote address at the annual confab of the American Society for International Law to make an announcement: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to kill suspected terrorists is legal. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan are lawful because, Koh delineated, they are done only in national self-defense, their proportionality is always precisely calibrated, and they carefully discriminate civilians from combatants.

There’s both more and less to it than that, but the legal argument itself is of minor importance. What matters is that Koh said it. Harold Hongju Koh: renowned human rights advocate; leading theorist of international law (which, the ASIL conventioneers would happily have told you, is much more civilized than mere national law); until last year dean of Yale Law School and therefore unofficial pope of the American legal system, and former director of the school’s Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Obama appointee accused by Glenn Beck and likeminded screamers of wanting to smuggle Sharia law into U.S. courts. All of which is to say, if a liberal lion like Harold Koh says drone strikes are lawful, what more do you need to know?
Live free or die

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #753 on: June 18, 2011, 05:43:20 AM »
Obama is trying to collapse the nation.   I have zero doubt about it. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #754 on: June 18, 2011, 09:42:04 AM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama's Gift to Samantha Powers
National Review Online ^ | 17 June 2011 | Stanley Kurtz
Posted on June 18, 2011 12:44:46 PM EDT by Meet the New Boss

Over at the Lawfare blog, Jack Goldsmith has some thoughts on the Obama administration’s war powers argument. Whatever you think of the War Powers Act, Goldsmith’s second point is of particular interest:

The Administration argues that its operation is legitimated and limited by the U.N. Security Council Resolution. It does not really explain why it thinks this. But in any event, the “no danger to troops” theory, combined with the heavy reliance on the Security Council Resolution, suggest that the Administration is creating a principle of unilateral presidential war power for U.N.-sponsored interventions from a distance. In practice, this principle will likely favor humanitarian over national security interventions, since the U.N. is more likely to authorize a purely humanitarian intervention than one that has a more obvious U.S. national security interest. So the ambition of the Obama legal theory – or at least its effect – is to carve out a place for presidential war unilateralism for U.N.-sponsored humanitarian wars but not (for lack of a better phrase) national security wars. That ambition (or effect), unsurprisingly, dovetails with the commitments and preferences of some top Obama advisors.
Somewhere Samantha Power is smiling.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #755 on: June 18, 2011, 09:56:27 AM »
Obama is setting the precedent that UN law supersedes American law. Anyone besides andreadadicksucker surprised by this?


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #756 on: June 18, 2011, 09:59:08 AM »
Anyone still defending this, and not also calling for us to bomb Syria , is a total Obama dildo and piece of trash.   


Notice Obama has not said a damn thing on that?   


It's laughable the lengths Obama cum receptacles like Andre and Benny will go to defend this disaster.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #757 on: June 18, 2011, 10:08:10 AM »
“The Senate approved by unanimous consent - Senate resolution 85 on March 1st, which among other things states:

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

Yes, Rand Paul voted for it too............

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #758 on: June 18, 2011, 10:11:52 AM »
Apples n oranges.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63875
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #759 on: June 18, 2011, 10:27:00 AM »
Obama not listening to advice from his advisors, who are smarter than he is on this subject.  Precisely the kind of thing I thought he would do as president.   :-\

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #760 on: June 18, 2011, 10:36:48 AM »
Brilliant harvard legal genius my ass.  More like radical communist marxist tyrant and destroyer.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #761 on: June 18, 2011, 12:53:00 PM »
Brilliant harvard legal genius my ass.  More like radical communist marxist tyrant and destroyer.

45 members of senate with a "republican" tag didn't know that, and gave him a blank check to get us into a messy situation in Libya without an exit strategy.

Of course obama and the dems are morons - but why do you suppose 45 REPUBLICANS decided they trusted obama's judgment enough to give him the green light on Libya?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #762 on: June 18, 2011, 12:55:37 PM »
Don't know, obama initiated thgis though. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #763 on: June 18, 2011, 01:09:05 PM »
Don't know, obama initiated thgis though. 

i guess i'm just baffled here.  Getbiggers predicted obama would be a disaster on Libya.  Rush predicted it. 

But 45 members of congress didn't have the foresight to predict it?

or did they just vote like that because they like plenty of war?  Or because they didn't want to be on the wrong side of it, if the war went well for obama?


Either way, the 45 republican senators were stupid to look at the first 2 years of obama leadership and say "Hey, maybe he'll get this one right" and commit $ and weapons to this conflict.  The 55 dems were just doing what their boss told them.  But the repubs?  We voted them into office specifically to stop obama's dumb ass decision making. 

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #764 on: June 18, 2011, 01:12:27 PM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/16/obama-the-new-caesar/

Obama, the new Caesar

President’s claim on power to besiege Libya will not stand

President Obama has crossed the Rubicon. He now believes - and acts - as if he is above the law; the Constitution no longer applies to him. This is the real meaning behind the U.S. military intervention in Libya. Mr. Obama is abrogating the linchpin of our democracy: the rule of law.

He is violating the War Powers Act. Passed in 1973, the law clearly stipulates that the commander in chief can only deploy U.S. forces for 60 to 90 days without congressional approval. He must then receive authorization from Congress. If he does not, he is usurping legislative authority and expanding the prerogatives of the executive branch - concentrating power in his hands, especially the most important act of all: war. In short, by flagrantly transgressing the War Powers Act, Mr. Obama has sparked a constitutional crisis.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, is demanding that the Obama administration explain why it has passed the deadline without seeking or getting congressional approval for the Libyan campaign. The White House’s response: Get lost. The administration sent a report to lawmakers defending the NATO-led Libyan war. For Mr. Obama, the War Powers Act does not apply because U.S. forces apparently are not engaged in “sustained hostilities” with troops loyal to strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Moreover, U.S. air and missile strikes are only being conducted in a “supporting” role. Hence, there is no need to have congressional buy-in.

This is postmodern humanitarian interventionism. According to the liberal apparatchiks in the White House, Mr. Obama can bypass Congress simply by redefining “hostilities.” War is no longer war. It is whatever Mr. Obama says it is - or isn’t. George Orwell warned that the perversion of language is the first step on the dark road to authoritarianism.

America has declared war on Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Mr. Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron have openly called for regime change. U.S. and NATO jets have pounded Tripoli, rained missiles upon Col. Gadhafi’s army positions and destroyed his air defenses. CIA agents are on the ground, helping to arm and train the Libyan rebels. Without U.S. drones, fighters, equipment, ammunition and missiles, NATO would not be able to sustain the no-fly zone or the relentless military campaign. Mr. Obama may pretend that our involvement is minimal or somehow not the equivalent of a full-scale war because of the lack of ground troops. But it is shameless propaganda. Col. Gadhafi and the Libyan army consider America to be at war, as do the civilians who suffer collateral damage from NATO’s missiles and bombs.

From its inception, the Libyan campaign has been strategically incoherent. First, the administration claimed military intervention was necessary to save civilians from a potential Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. When that was averted, Mr. Obama then argued that NATO bombing had to continue to prevent Col. Gadhafi from routing poorly organized rebel forces. Now the policy has evolved into overthrowing Libya’s police state.

Mr. Obama pledged in the war’s opening days that the campaign would be quick, limited and well-defined. Instead, the conflict drags on and the goals keep expanding. It has become another exercise in nation-building. The president has misled Congress and the country.

Moreover, the rebels - contrary to Mr. Obama’s spin - are not pro-democracy freedom fighters. Many of them are Muslim fundamentalists who seek to forge an Islamist Libya. Al Qaeda is in their ranks. Libyan jihadists who spent years in Iraq killing U.S. soldiers form the nucleus of the anti-Gadhafi movement. Hence, Washington is doing the unthinkable: empowering Islamic butchers whose hands are soaked in American blood.

Mr. Obama’s policy contravenes our national interest, is inept, immoral and illegal. This is why members of Congress are in open revolt. A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, and Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, have filed a lawsuit demanding that the courts force Mr. Obama to end the intervention in Libya. They are right. It is time Congress reined in an out-of-control administration. There is a growing alliance between conservative constitutionalists and anti-war liberals.

Mr. Obama, however, continues to thumb his nose at lawmakers for one reason: He lacks the votes in Congress. The administration refuses to ask for congressional approval because the Libyan adventure is deeply unpopular - both on Capitol Hill and throughout the country. Having failed to make his case, the president now hopes simply to ignore the public and the Constitution.

In addition, the hypocrisy of the liberal establishment is stunning. For years, progressives, such as Mr. Obama, railed against President George W. Bush. He was denounced as a “fascist” dictator and compared to Adolf Hitler for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Bush lied, people died,” went the slogan. Yet, regardless of whether one supported those campaigns or not, Mr. Bush received congressional authorization. Ironically, it is Mr. Obama who is behaving like a political thug.

Congress is rightly reminding the president that America is a self-governing republic. We will not allow the Anointed One to turn himself into a modern-day Caesar



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #765 on: June 18, 2011, 01:17:34 PM »
Good article. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #766 on: June 18, 2011, 07:57:19 PM »
Libyan rebels blame West for lack of cash ("Rebels" admit their campaign is a failure)
yahoo ^ | 6/18/2011 | Reuters
Posted on June 18, 2011 8:15:50 PM EDT by tobyhill

Rebels waging a drawn-out war to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi have run out of money, their oil chief said on Saturday, and he accused the West of failing to keep its promises of urgent financial aid.

His comments came as cracks were appearing in the NATO alliance over its 3-month bombing campaign against Gaddafi, with some allies showing mission fatigue and the United States accusing some European allies of failing to pull their weight.

The rebels have made several gains in the past few weeks, but remain far from seizing their ultimate prize -- Gaddafi's powerbase of Tripoli and its hinterland -- despite air support from the world's most powerful military alliance.

"We are running out of everything. It's a complete failure. Either they (Western nations) don't understand or they don't care. Nothing has materialized yet. And I really mean nothing," rebel oil chief Ali Tarhouni said in an interview with Reuters.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #767 on: June 19, 2011, 10:46:25 AM »
Anger ramps up in Congress over Obama’s legal defense of Libya operation

By David A. Fahrenthold and Peter Finn, Published: June 18

On Capitol Hill, legislators who disagree with President Obama’s legal defense of the military operation in Libya will have two options when they resume their session this week. They could try to cut off funding for the campaign, or they could formally register their disapproval that Obama did it without congressional say-so.

The first tactic has rarely worked in U.S. history.

And the second one hasn’t worked on Obama so far.

Unhappiness in Congress was magnified Saturday by a report that Obama ignored some of his legal counselors when he decided last week that the Libya campaign should not be counted as “hostilities.”

That decision allowed him to bypass the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law that requires presidents to report to Congress on any ongoing military conflict within a limited period of time. After receiving the report, Congress then has to decide whether to authorize the action taken.

On Saturday, sources familiar with the deliberations said Obama had not overruled a formal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — because there wasn’t one. They can take months or a year to put together.

Instead, the sources said, advisers presented him with their opinions and he chose one that White House counsel and the State Department favored.

Still, many in Congress said they were not persuaded by Obama’s logic for avoiding a congressional debate over the three-month-old conflict.

“The president has had to go through legal contortions because he knows he faces a Congress that would not give him approval,” said Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio). He has proposed a resolution that would allow Congress to formally “disapprove” of the Libya operation. “This has to be stopped,” Turner said.

This week, the Libya debate will become a key test for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who appears caught between his members and his own instincts. In the House, legislators from the ideological right and left have demanded a showdown with Obama. But Boehner has seemed wary of a confrontation. When members rallied around a bill to stop the campaign this month, he authored a resolution that gave Obama 14 more days to make his case.

Obama waited 12 days. And then, on Wednesday, he told Congress he didn’t need its permission.

“U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by” the War Powers Resolution, a White House report said.

The logic was that U.S. forces are mainly limited to supply, logistics and intelligence missions — although American drones continue to attack Libyan targets.

On Saturday, sources said Obama had solicited opinions on the matter from the Pentagon, the State Department, White House counsel and the Office of Legal Counsel, which is set up to provide independent legal analysis.

Advisers from the Pentagon and the Office of Legal Counsel, the sources said, believed that the drone strikes required that the Libya operation be described as “hostilities.” Advisers from the State Department and the White House believed they should not.

Obama, trained as a constitutional lawyer, sided against the inclinations of the Pentagon and the Office of Legal Counsel. One source emphasized this was not an illegal, or even very extraordinary, outcome.

Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman, said that “there was a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process that led the president to his view.”

On Saturday, a New York Times report describing his decision making about Libya and the War Powers act further inflamed Obama’s critics on Capitol Hill. Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) said the report had convinced him that Congress ought to cut off funds for the operation.

“Today, yes, I would” support that, Rooney said. He said he was troubled by the idea that “people inside the Pentagon . . . are saying one thing but then the administration is saying something different.”

But what is Congress prepared to do about it?

On Saturday, a spokesman for Boehner said the New York Times report “reinforces the need for the White House to answer the questions that Congress and the American people have about our involvement in Libya.”

But spokesman Michael Steel was noncommittal about Boehner’s next move. “That’s something we’ll discuss” with GOP legislators, he said.

The two party leaders in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were not available for comment on Libya on Saturday.

One option would be to hold a vote to approve or disapprove of the Libyan campaign, even if Obama has said Congress’s approval isn’t necessary.

Last week, two of Obama’s strongest allies on Libya — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) — said they wanted such a vote. Durbin last week teamed with Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) and introduced a resolution that would support the president’s Libyan actions but would set an end date of Dec. 30 and bar the introduction of U.S. ground troops, something Obama has said repeatedly he does not plan to do.

Another would be to seek to cut off funding for the operation. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said Saturday that he would introduce such a measure this week, when the House plans to consider a bill to fund the Pentagon.

That has happened before. In 1973, for instance, after a cease-fire had been agreed to in Vietnam, Congress voted to prohibit money being used to reintroduce troops into Southeast Asia.

In many cases, Congress has been leery about withdrawing money for troops already in harm’s way. That might still be true here, even though U.S. forces are not on the ground in Libya and face relatively little danger in the air.



Staff writers Scott Wilson, Jerry Markon, Felicia Sonmez, Walter Pincus and Ylan Q. Mui and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63875
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #769 on: June 19, 2011, 11:29:39 AM »
Shocking.   ::)  This man is a disaster. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #770 on: June 19, 2011, 12:01:40 PM »
repub senate is cool with it.

They could stop him with a nice de-funding act

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #771 on: June 19, 2011, 12:05:48 PM »
Yawn.  Stop the bullshit. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #772 on: June 19, 2011, 12:09:52 PM »
Yawn.  Stop the bullshit. 

obama is a moron who is breaking the law here.

methinks the senate (who voted 100 to 1 to start this war) secretly wants it to continue, but doesn't want their fingerprints on it ;)

Republicans Graham and mccain and durbin all back this war... on the record.  How many secretly support it and won't say it?  methinks 42 repub senate members...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #773 on: June 19, 2011, 12:14:33 PM »
More deflection and cts.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #774 on: June 19, 2011, 12:18:43 PM »
More deflection and cts.

where is the cT?  They voted 100 to 0 to give him this war, and they don't want to vote on it to defund it.  And some of them are on NBC this morning saying it would be helping the terrorist kadaffi to defund it at this point.  Would double price of oil.

Repub fear tactics to keep obama's warring going... hard to label this as a lib thing ;)