United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 (updated)

[ProSense]

First, from the War Powers Act

(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

The Libya no-fly zone is a Security Council action under U.N. Charter.

Precedent (long before the WPA passed): United Nations Security Council Resolution 84

United Nations Security Council Resolutions

On 25 June 1950, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.<83> After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states yield military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime. On 4 July the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister accused the US of starting armed intervention on behalf of South Korea.<84>

<...>

Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya

Updated to add a touch of irony: Iraq war illegal, says Annan:

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

<...>

Bush secured an AUMF from Congress, but made false claims in his report in order to launch an illegal attack on Iraq.

Given the War Powers Act section above and the fact that Iraq didn't meet the criteria of an imminent threat, the right course of action would have been to follow the lead of the international community. Millions of lives could have been saved.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. So who said this:

"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."

Whoever it was must not have been a constitutional scholar.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[ProSense]

2. "President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack"

The action wasn't a "unilaterally authorize a military attack."

President (Constitutional scholar)

<...>

Now, keep in mind, we’ve only been in this process for two days now, and so we are continuing to evaluate the situation on the ground. I know the Pentagon and our Defense Department will be briefing you extensively as this proceeds. But the core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community almost unanimously says that there’s a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words; that we have to take some sort of action.

I think it’s also important to note that the way that the U.S. took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition are bearing the burden of following through on the mission, as well. Because, as you know, in the past there have been times where the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.

Now, last point I’ll make on this: I could not be prouder of the manner in which the U.S. military has performed over the last several days. And it’s a testament to the men and women in uniform who, when they're given a mission, they execute and do an outstanding job.

But, obviously, our military is already very stretched and carries large burdens all around the world. And whenever possible for us to be able to get international cooperation -- not just in terms of words, but also in terms of planes and pilots and resources -- that's something that we should actively seek and embrace, because it relieves the burden on our military and it relieves the burden on U.S. taxpayers to fulfill what is an international mission and not simply a U.S. mission.

<...>

[vaberella]

11. Why is that phrase used so much?! You and other's have debunked it a thousand times.

It's turning into spam on DU.

[phleshdef]

5. Look up the word unilateral and then rethink your post.

[ProSense]

3. No other comments? n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Bush broke UN law; that's not the point. The War Powers Act REQUIRES Authorization unless attacked

Read it. What you have posted CONFIRMS that UN permission doesn't grant him the right to do so.

I'm condensing what you posted for clarity:

(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall NOT BE INFERRED—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

In simple language:

(a) It is NOT to be considered permission to send forces if
(1) from a DOMESTIC LAW that doesn't specifically authorize use of force, or
(2) from a TREATY that Congress doesn't attach authorization for force that either was or wasn't there in the original treaty.

The point is clear: a treaty that calls for use of force does not authorize force unless Congress specifically says so, which is specifically NOT the case with our United Nations Participation Act of 1945. It specifically states that Congressional AUTHORIZATION is necessary.

Similarly, a Federal Law doesn't authorize military action unless it specifically says so.

Please respond.

[ProSense]

6. "Bush broke UN law" That wasn't the point

U.S. Presidents can act without the U.N., especially in self defence. Also, once they receive Congressional authorization, they need to abide by the terms.

The U.N. Charter is clear

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter (see OP) and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. You're right about Bush, and I'm incorrect, but you're wrong about the War Powers Act

The War Powers Act requires either a Declaration of War or Authorization UNLESS WE'RE ATTACKED.

If we're attacked, the President may respond, but STILL has to CONSULT with Congress. Your link entitled "consulted" doesn't seem to show any consultation with Congress. He's sent a letter, but that's not "consultation", that's "here the fuck it is and this is why I'm right".

He leaves himself open to horrible consequences if things don't go quickly and cleanly: the Republicans will say that he should have consulted with them, whereupon they would have given them the genius 20-20 hindsight plan that would have avoided the mess. The term "consultation" is an expression of the honoring of the separation of powers, and is designed so legislators have a right to make their opinions and specifics known. Unless he's done this today, it doesn't seem that he has.

By the War Powers Act, he needs authorization.

[ProSense]

8. No

you keep ignoring the U.N. Charter. The President can act in accordance with a U.N. resolution. Truman did.

[karynnj]

10. He actually did consult with Congress before the UN vote

He had a meeting with the House and Senate chairs and ranking members of Foreign relations, armed services, and intelligence and the leaders of both Houses. It was a closed meeting and some were connected via secure phone lines.

Even so - I would have preferred a vote, but by the time the US decided to go with this there was not time before the vote. I wish there was because he easily would have gotten the numbers needed - and it would have protected him as you said. I agree with Prosense that it was not required.

There are a long list of similar NATO or UN actions that did not have approval - like Serbia and Kosovo. In addition, Clinton bombed Sudan and Iraq unilaterally with none. Reagan attacked Libya and Grenada. GHWB attacked Panama. Both Panama and Grenada has boots on the ground.

[vaberella]

12. It's well known that he DID CONSULT with Congress.

That can't be denied---it's everywhere and even congress attested to that. They were consulted---if you're saying a "vote" well that's not necessary. Congress doesn't need to vote on this unless ground troops.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Where do you get this about "ground troops"? He DID NOT consult, according to Boehner.

The consultation issue is NOT settled, although there were discussions with some members. The leader of the opposition party claims that "no opportunity was afforded to consult with Congressional Leaders", Obama did not cover his ass here, and it looks like he didn't really even make much of an attempt. Talking with members of one's own party is pretty damned iffy. "Congress" is very ill-defined, but it would seem that members of the leadership would AT LEAST be the necessary mark to hit, and that was not done.

The UN Charter speaks of "armed force", the War Powers Act speaks of "armed forces" and the UN Participation Act speaks of "armed forces". "War" is not mentioned in the UN Charter when delineating these actions, nor is it in the UN Participation Act. It doesn't really matter, since the UN Participation Act defines how and when the President can send in forces, and the UN Charter confirms that agreements are subject to the congressional process of the member nations.

The War Powers Act DEFINES war as introducing armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. From what particular thin air do you pull the concept of ground troops being the metric?

I'm trying to be civil with all of these threads, but it's infuriating: the UN DOES NOT CLAIM THE AUTHORITY PEOPLE INSIST IT HAS, and the Congressional Law that governs our participation with the UN clearly requires the President to get Congress' permission for sending in forces. I guess a specific thread is necessary.

[ProSense]

14. "He DID NOT consult, according to Boehner."

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.


"I'm trying to be civil with all of these threads, but it's infuriating"

Well, basing one's opinon on what Boehner said could be the source.

[karynnj]

9. Nice job!