President Obama's letter to Congress about the Libya mission

[highplainsdem]

First, from WaPo's Plum Line:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama_explains_libya_mission_to_congress/2011/03/03/ABU9377_blog.html

Posted at 04:04 PM ET, 03/21/2011
Obama explains Libya mission to Congress
By Greg Sargent

The lack of clarity surrounding the mission ordered by Obama in Libya has triggered criticism from both parties, with Republicans demanding that he clarify its aims and some Democrats insisting that the President was Constitutionally required to seek Congressional authorization before ordering the invasion.

Obama has now sent a letter to leaders of Congress defining the mission, in keeping with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requiring a report to Congress within 48 hours of commencing military action, and it contains rebuttals of both lines of criticism.

Obama is taking criticism from the right for failing to articulate “regime change” as a goal of the mission. But his letter to Congressional leaders unapologetically sticks to the narrower definition of the mission as tailored to halting violence and preventing a humanitarian disaster:

-snip-

Note the mention of the “consequences to the national security interests of the United States.” Some Dems are arguing that Obama needs Congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution, which only allows the President to initiate military action without Congress if America is under attack or under serious threat.

-snip-

More comments from Sargent at the link.

Below is the complete text of the letter. It's a press release, already on a number of blogs. The Plum Line left off the header some other blogs included, which I'm including here:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2011

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi’s Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi’s defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

[NightWatcher]

1. so much for getting Congress to authorize the war, but it was nice of him to shoot them an email

[Tx4obama]

7. There is no need for Congess to declare war. This is a UN mission to protect the protesters. n/t

[David__77]

18. Protect protesters or protect armed guerrillas attempting to seize state power?

There is a big difference.

[joshcryer]

23. So if Egypt or Yemen devolved into violence...

...you would not support intervention? :shrug:

[David__77]

28. Absolutely not. No way.

I had the same position on Egypt prior to emergence of the Libyan events - non-interference in Egyptian affairs. I'm fine with economic measures if they are well-founded and set on consistent, objective guidelines. I really believe some would read my posts and conclude that I must be reflexively "supportive" of nominally "anti-US" governments and opposed to nominally "pro-US" ones. No such thing. I don't want foreign intervention in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Israel, Colombia, Venezuela, etc. Countries should refrain from arming insurgents or otherwise subverting other countries. I believe these things because I think that they are good guidelines for international relations, preserving peace, and promoting economic development.

[joshcryer]

29. Would you be demeaning the Egyptians and Yemens for fighting against their government?

[David__77]

30. I wouldn't be calling armed fighters "protesters."

That would seem demeaning. If there is an armed force fighting for state power, that's not a sit-in - it's something on a whole other field. And war is the highest level of politics. There's no call for demeaning. I see it as the affair of Egypt and Yemen.

[nosmokes]

19. The UN doesn't give constitutional authorization for POTUS to commit US troops

That still requires an act of Congress.Even if we've conveniently ignored that fact for a while. I know folks think the Constitution is a quaint little ole document, but I'm rather fond of it myself. And it is still the law of the land.

[Tx4obama]

20. President Obama has sent a letter to Congress within the required 48 hr time frame - see below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634700

p.s. You should also read up on The War Powers Resolution of 1973
Every law of the USA is NOT spelled out in the Constitution.

[nosmokes]

26. And I maintain the the war powers act is unconstitutional. How troops can be

committed is spelled out plainly in the constitution. it's not easy, nor should it be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. All that's missing is the "Bring it on" and "Smoke 'em out" part.

[sad sally]

3. No need for any uncomfortable face-to-face discussions -

avoids the chance of disagreement or pesky questions, like where's the money coming from?

[JoePhilly]

13. CNN reported earlier that he also met with Congrerssional

leaders first ... some were in person, those who could not be there in person used secure video links.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Does this start a 60 day clock as per The War Powers Resolution?

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

8. I would say it does. n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. Wouldn't that have started when he first used the military?

I may be mistaken, I can't remember all the details of it anymore.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. He has fulfilled the law as required in the The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)

All legal and in accordance with U.S. Law.

[howaboutme]

6. Whooa - Doesn't every POTUS deserve his own war?

This is about keeping up with precedent (or is it presidents).

Every US President for the last 30 + years has had his own war. It gives them something for their library. They get recognition for being a wartime CinC.

Imagine if you can being the Commander in Chief of the biggest hammer on the block. The temptation is overwhelming to use it.

[TBF]

9. Especially when there is an election coming up. nt

[sad sally]

17. Looks good in the history books, and makes for snappy pictures

saluting the military.

[Arkana]

10. The right is PISSED because he's not advocating regime change?

Funny--the left is pissed because they think he is.

What's the betting that neither side's opinion changes?

[nosmokes]

12. What a warm stinking load.

File this under easier to get forgiveness than permission.Any respect I had for Obama is gone. He's better than *, but so is my 3 legged dog and he's not fit to sit in the oval office either.And my dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

15. Not good enough

He has no authority under the Constitution or the War Powers Act to go to war.

There is no national emergency.

There is no statutory authorization to go to war with Libya.

There is no declaration of war from the Congress.

The attack on Libya is illegal.

I hate to say it but the constitutional Law Professor has violated the Constitution.

[gratuitous]

16. At least we got a note on the pillow this time

But certain body parts are just as sore.

[L. Coyote]

21. Obama admits acts of war in writing.

[highplainsdem]

22. kick

[lynne]

24. I'm guessing the WH filed it under "Better Late Than Never" - eom

[Catherina]

25. Disgusting. Now we go to war by presidential decree after hooking up

with other colonial vultures responsible for many millions of deaths in North Africa and the Middle East.

Hey Obama, could you explain the use of US-armed Saudi-Arabian and Pakistani mercenaries killing protesters in Bahrain? Or your clandestine war in Yemen where we've got Predator drones flying over the place and killed over 35 women and children in a single day?

[howaboutme]

27. President Obama goes to Brazil and we go to war

There is an epiphany of political change going on. We Americans are slowly coming to our senses. We argue about politics and Parties while we regularly get screwed by both, and mostly by elitist leaders that were made and now we've been had. It should highlight to us all that George Carlin was right on target that politics and elections are about making us think we have some control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Make no mistake this invasion or attack will end in another long term quagmire for us Americans who have been forced by either Wall St or DC to sacrifice while those who are rich such as WS and big oil gain. It is a quagmire in the making that the USA doesn't need to be involved in.

The local nations in the region should be protecting the Libyan citizens..not the supposed bankrupt Americans or others who will end up killing more civilians than protecting.

But that takes out the real mission which is to have a rationale for big business to invade Libya and establish command / control and influence that the big international business interests want while the American sheep sacrifice and pay for.

We're broke remember?