GOBAMA!!!! Obama & Clinton eloquently explain why US involvement in Libya is unconstitutional

[Karmadillo]

Increased chocolate rations for everyone!!!

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya

Obama on presidential war-making powers
by Glenn Greenwald

I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country -- especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense -- but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when -- during the campaign -- he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: 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.

<edit>

And here's what then-Sen. Hillary Clinton said in response to the same question from Savage; it's at least as clear as Obama's answer:

The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action -- including any kind of strategic bombing -- against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.

more...

[Rex]

1. GOBAMA!

I like that, very catchy.

[undeterred]

2. What part of the Bush Doctrine, Charlie?

[DURHAM D]

3. You and Glenn both need to pay close attention.

We are not bombing anyone. We do not plan to bomb anyone.

[DevonRex]

4. It is hysterical drivel. In both meanings of the word. Typical greenwald.

[tekisui]

5. I don't think that is altogether clear. France has taken the lead, and

have starting strikes. We don't know yet to what extent the US will be involved. It could very well lead to US strikes.

[DURHAM D]

8. If you have not had an opportunity to watch SOS Clinton's presser today -

you might want to look for and watch it. She took a lot of good questions and it was very informative.

It was also reported that just before her press conference started she was on the phone with Obama. She speaks, and speaks well, for the President.

[Aryo]

6. Exactly.

Those criticizing the SOS and POTUS are doing so not over the facts but based on an emotional response.

[aquart]

42. Yes. screeching hysteria.

Boggles my mind.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. you are kinda splitting hairs

OK, we are not pulling the trigger, but in some ways we are driving the get away car.

We are involved in this conflict even if we don't fire a shot.

[DURHAM D]

13. We are "involved" in like 120 countries.

Are we "splitting hairs" in every case?

[Motown_Johnny]

26. what about the cruise missiles that have been launched?

and in how many of those 120 countries are we actively supporting air strikes?

[daleo]

20. Bombing has started now. n/t

[DURHAM D]

21. Wrong - missle launching. Not the same as bombing.

We are providing support for the French and the rebels regarding air defense system.

[daleo]

24. Are you seriously splitting hairs about bombs vs missiles?

Missiles deliver explosives aka bombs.

[tekisui]

38. We just bombed them.

[Motown_Johnny]

Epic Fail... Obama says "prolonged" in that quote and the war powers act

gives POTUS 60 days. So you can try this again in about 2 months if we are still taking action in Libya.

Clinton was talking about an attack on Iran which would require action beyond the 60 day window.



This type of misinformation isn't helpful. (is your last name O'Keefe?)

[Karmadillo]

10. Where does Obama say "prolonged" in the quote?

nt

[MannyGoldstein]

16. In the nonexistant part?

In any case, this will be going on at least until the end of Obama's term in office.

[Karmadillo]

23. Our hearts are large enough to sustain the committment. We're a caring people.

nt

[Motown_Johnny]

28. I read the first sentence as if it were a quote from Obama, my mistake

I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country



I should have pointed out that the word "unilateral" was in the Obama quote and that is the reason your post is an Epic Fail. The UN has authorized this, France has started the air strikes, Canada is sending planes along with Great Britain and there are Arab states which are supporting this. Unilateral this ain't!


With so many misrepresentations in one OP it is hard to keep track

[snappyturtle]

7. Yep. This is what Bruce Fein and John Nichols discussed on Bill Moyers

in July of 2008 and Fein again recently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x564483

The transcript and video of Fein and Nichols is archived on PBS's site per Bill Moyers July 13, 2008....if you're so inclined.

[leftstreet]

11. Thanks for that link

:thumbsup:

[snappyturtle]

30. I will always remember what Fein said on Bill Moyers show....

he was hard selling getting impeachment on the table prior to the '08 election with the admonition that if it was not done then there would be no succeeding president who would give up the powers of the oval office that bush had seized....illegally.

[Karmadillo]

43. Nice link. Thanks. Tacitius on the decline from Repubic to Empire: "The worse crimes...were

tolerated by all."

[NYC Liberal]

12. Where, exactly, is this "prolonged military conflict" that we have supposedly committed to?

Unrec.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Want to bet $5 we're still there in six months?

Take my money.

[ProSense]

14. Hmmmm?

"OBAMA: 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."

And the President didn't unilaterally do anything. This is not a U.S. led unilateral action like the invasion of Iraq war.

Bush unilaterally led the invasion of Iraq while misleading Congress even after securing an AUMF. The Afghanistan war was basically a declaration of war by Congress.

The UN did not approve the Iraq war. A unilateral declaration of war is different from a U.N. sanctioned action.

Please read: United Nations Security Council resolution

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

The current action is U.N approved, and the resolution specifically states, no ground troops. The UN did not approve the Iraq war.

The military action sanctioned by the U.N. is separate from the U.S. authorizing a war. Congressional authorization, including funding, would be required for the U.S. to take any direct action beyond the U.N. resolution parameters.

[tekisui]

19. Isn't the Constitutional restriction on unilateral Presidential war actions

in reference to Congress? There is nothing in the Constitution about joint or allied war acts. Unilateral, in the Constitution, is in reference to the President acting without a Congressional declaration of war. Of course, that hasn't been followed for decades, but the Constitution says nothing about US unilateral actions, on Presidential unilateral actions.

Not much is mentioned in the Constitution on participation with other nations. There is not restriction on the US declaring war unilaterally. The Constitution doesn't require a UN resolution or allies. It does require Congress to declare war, though.

This is a military attack, so far it is only French military attacking. If and when the US ends planes or bombers, it will be a US military attack. And, outside a declaration of war from Congress, it would still be a unilateral act by the Commander in Chief. But, like I said, that hasn't been the standard for decades so the point is moot.

[wtmusic]

15. u-n-i-l-a-t-e-r-a-l-l-y

words matter

[Motown_Johnny]

29. +1

[DevonRex]

18. So you and Glenn are anti UN? Rofl

[TheKentuckian]

22. Somewhere I thought we signed the UN Charter. This is not a unilateral action at all.

Nor is it a bogus "coalition" of the willing.

Folks are well within their rights to oppose involvement for whatever reasons are in their hearts and minds but I think this OP is a reach and ignores that ratified treaties are law.

This is not an internationally illegal action.

That said, I see no reason to ever put a troop on the ground other than as part of a UN or a NATO peacekeeping operation and not too hot on that.

I do favor the aircap and taking out the heavy equipment and then letting the chips fall where they may. That is my personal opinion and is stated as such. The position put forward in the OP is a distortion of facts.

[DevonRex]

27. Hell has frozen over. Surely it has. We agree.

This is cause for celebration! :party: :beer:

[ReggieVeggie]

25. HAHAHA! "But that's Campaign Obama, not President Obama!!"

holy crap...the cheerleaders better come up with a good spin!!!

[Moondog]

37. + 1

[Karmadillo]

41. Ouch

nt

[no limit]

31. This is UN action, not US action.

[nolabels]

33. The US has donned it's Super-UN suit and went into action

Yea, right, and btw, there is no US, its just a garrison shill state that does the bidding for the billionaires

[ReggieVeggie]

34. The UN also said "Israel needs to stop expanding" in 1967

they didn't listen and few have a problem with it

[no limit]

36. I have a problem with it, I think Israel should listen

Are you saying that we shouldn't listen to the UN?

I get the point that we pick and choose what UN resolutions we will follow and which ones we won't. That's perfectly valid. But this is different from US action, it's not. This is a UN action and we are simply following treaties as we always should do.

[EFerrari]

35. There's very little daylight between the US dominated UN and the US. n/t

[joshcryer]

32. THE UN RESOLUTION WAS TO RETURN INSPECTORS TO IRAQ!!!!!

BUSH CLAIMED THAT PREVIOUS UN RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ ENABLED HIM TO GO TO WAR!!!!

THE HOUSE AND SENATE DISAGREED AND DEMANDED HE VOTE FOR WAR!!!!!!!!

HE DID NOT GET UN APPROVAL TO INVADE IRAQ!!!!!!!

YES I'm YELLING! I'M UPSET! DON'T YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHEN SOMETHING IS EQUIVALENT TO SOMETHING ELSE?!?!!!!!!!!!


AHRG!!

[chill_wind]

39. Lugar: No-fly zone requires declaration of war

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

Congress hasn't been broadly consulted so far.

There was a Classified Hill briefing

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/inside_classified_hill_briefing_administration_spells_out_war_plan_for_libya

James Clapper has reportedly told Senate previously (10 March 2011) Libya's Muammar Gaddafi will prevail

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12707276

[Karmadillo]

40. Kick

nt