Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 07:13 AM
Original message
2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 17, 2011

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?ref=us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Two things are horrible about this report, if true.
1. Obama disrespected his legal experts in deciding whether he needs to get Congressional approval.

2. Someone in the room leaked the story to the NYT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Seems like mixed opinions among legal advisers provided
Edited on Sat Jun-18-11 08:08 AM by HereSince1628
an opportunity for the president to choose a response for himself.

The legal advise he went with included an opinion that parsed the meaning of hostilities. Reporting earlier in the week suggested that parsing stretched common sense and suggested that unilateral push-button/remote attacks weren't hostilities. It's possible that the argument was motivated in order to protect US participation in NATO as well as to rationalize the US campaign of attacks by drone aircraft on targets across SW Asia. Because of the organizational nature of our government, the executive branch and congress struggle over control of power. Although on a different matter entirely, we saw this practice of the executive branch searching for an enabling decision constructed from stretching and parsings of legal meanings in the memos of Mr. Yoo that provided the thin cover for 'enhanced interrogation' (a.k.a. torture) by the Bush administration.

The reality is that our president chose to accept "enhanced parsing" to justify circumventing limits of executive power that congress thinks, and common sense suggests, was intended by the war powers act. The president found a way to do what he wanted to do without Congressional approval. And in that decision, legal challenges not withstanding, he has established remote controlled war and confirmed war by proxies/allies as outside the control of Congress under the war powers act.

If one believes that in our democracy limiting the presidency's war making powers is a good thing, this decision is another in a line of not such good things.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. the Terminator defense: it's not a crime if my robot (drone or cruise missile) does it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thaddeus Kosciuszko Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, what do you expect?
After all, Obama is always the smartest man in room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. that's because the room is empty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. Not really.
Two top lawyers were in the minority, and lost the debate. Given that the President was a Constitutional Law scholar, I think he probably had as much knowledge on the issue as anybody else in the room - this is his area of professional expertise, after all. I don't know who's right on the issue, but I do support Congress' challenging of the authority of the President. We need to get this resolved/clarified, as it is a constantly recurring problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrDiaz Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. LOL
He sure does love him some wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. The prez has had to choose who his freinds & foes are a lot lately
he's been choosing poorly most of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmorlan1 Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hubris Writ Large
Obama, like Bush, thinks he is King of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. I guess that, in Obama's view, the bombing of Pearl Harbor didn't constitute "hostilities"
And FDR should've callled it "a day that will live in questionable legality" or the like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC