More to Read About Libya: Stephen M. Walt questions the justifications and legality

[PurityOfEssence]

Foreign Policy, April 14

Did you know that the Office of Legal Counsel published it's findings for how Obama's actions in Libya were legal? One of the documents cited in this article pretty much tears the artifice down.

Ever hear of Meddelin v. United States in 2008? Here's a citation from one of the two articles Walt refers us to, Michael Glennon's article in the Harvard National Security Journal wherein the

the United States Supreme Court found that the United Nations
Charter is non-self-executing. “A non-self-executing treaty,” the Court
explained, “by definition, is one that was ratified with the understanding
that it is not to have domestic effect of its own force. That understanding
precludes the assertion that Congress has implicitly authorized the President
— acting on his own — to achieve precisely the same result.” The Court
concluded that the Executive cannot rely upon the President’s responsibility
to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” as grounds for enforcing a
non-self-executing treaty. “This authority allows the President to execute
the laws, not make them,” the Court noted. Medellin thus undercuts
arguments that the Charter combined with a Security Council resolution
provided a domestic source of war power permitting the President to use
force in Libya.

He also cites Kuperman's article, which is another thread I started, but taken as a whole, these two referrals by Walt are quite a condemnation. Why this is even an issue is hard to believe, since the UN Participation Act of 1945 clearly states that the President may only send forces in response to an Article 42 call-up "pursuant to such special agreement or agreements" which are, by definition subject to the authorization of both houses of Congress.

Not only is the involvement here illegal, the justification for them are highly suspect and the President's language in his speech was misleading at best.

[guruoo]

1. You seem to have finally found your purpose in life. nt

[inna]

2. why are you discussing (dissing) the poster?

it's against the rules of the board, you know. :eyes:

plus, your comment made absolutely zero sense, just so you know. why even waste your (and everyone else's) time? :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Let's just say I'm a big fan of the Constitution

and would like to see it survive intact. Imperial Executives are a danger to us all.

[Gravel Democrat]

5. Don't worry

A glance at many other sites shows that almost everyone is much more concerned with whether Sarah Palin is lying about possible children. Few care about whether the President is following the Constitution, unless they are members of the opposing "party" and even then (now) we see little interest. Sarah Palin didn't appoint Goldman Sachs monkeys that ripped off the government for billions, but she might be covering up a personal family matter. Barack Obama has started a "war" (kinetic military action?) against a sovereign nation based upon questionable "facts" and has cost the American people millions and millions of dollars. As well as appointing bankers that have fattened their wallets with bad faith transactions.

This is how a Republic dies.

Not with a bang, but with whimpers, ignorance, bread and circuses and tons and tons of rationalizations.

At some point, the "leaders" do what they are allowed to do. And the People are responsible. We are there.



"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson

[inna]

3. K&R - and marked for later reading. thanks for posting this. nt

[pampango]

6. Good post. I do support the UN's increasing use of R2P since 2005. The US should support the UN, but

there is a real question as to whether we can constitutionally do what I believe we should do.

The UN has invoked R2P to intervene in 12 countries now (Libya being the latest). UN-sanctioned multilateral intervention in such situations is much better than unilateral interventions (which the US is unfortunately quite good at). It is the UN at its best.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. I agree, and I think the justifiability of the individual situations will provide the legal support

Even though I am VERY mindful of sovereignty, at some point we DO have the right to step in. Where that point is is subjective, but this situation doesn't get ANYWHERE near it. The clashes with protesters were few and small, the casualties very low, and the protesters at least somewhat armed in most if not all cases.

We can easily act constitutionally to do such things, either with the UN or without. If we follow the UN Participation act--which we absolutely MUST do in all dealings with them, per US law--all the President has to do is make a special agreement for availability of forces and intended use with the Security Council and send it to Congress for an urgent vote. Congress will HAVE to put aside everything else and address it immediately or risk huge blowback. If the cause is justifiable, I think we can get the votes, even in a hostile Congress. If not, then perhaps you are right.

The President has to share the glory, though, for being a good guy, and he runs the risk of not getting approval, but there will almost definitely be cases where they're approved. With a few cycles, the machinery will be well oiled (quite appropriate in this case...) and parameters set. It shares the responsibility and galvanizes the country. It is a good thing, and I think most worthy causes would be supported. Not playing games is often the best way to bring decency to the surface.

I simply do not buy this instance in the least. I don't see it as having been an imminent disaster, I don't see the true depth of popular support, and I see a very big greed component to get a new set of players in place who will be more agreeable and profitable. The Imperial Executive is something that gets reinforced with each transgression that gets made, and this one is literally the WORST transgression since the War Powers Act came into being: it's a violation of both that AND the UN Participation Act. Much of why the Republicans are letting him get away with it is that they LOVE THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY. They want to shut Congress out of it as much as they can.

As a closing note, it's most depressing to see a heartfelt cry of decency being used to trash the Constitution and provide for economic conquest; that's just deplorable.