Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 30, 2011
The Real Breach Of The War Powers Act

George Will asks: Is Obama above the law?

Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, the [War Powers Resolution] may or may not be wise. It is, however, unquestionably a law, and Barack Obama certainly is violating it. It stipulates that a president must terminate military action 60 days after initiating it (or 90, if the president “certifies” in writing an “unavoidable military necessity” respecting the safety of U.S. forces), unless Congress approves it. Congress has been supine and silent about this war, which began more than 70 days ago.

In asking this question and harrumphing about the 60 day limit Will is joining both sides of congress and the executive in their obfuscation of the real breach of law.

As any reader of the War Powers Act can clearly conclude, the attack on Libya was from the very first minute a clear breach of that law. As the War Powers Act, Title 50, Chapter 33, §1541, stipulates:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

In the case of the War On Libya there was:

  • no declaration of war (which would have to come from congress)
  • no specific statutory authorization (again something congress would have to vote on)
  • no national emergency through an attack on the U.S. or its forces

There are no exceptions in the War Powers Act to the above three points. Under the War Powers Act the use of U.S. forces against Libya was thereby under U.S. domestic law illegal from the get go.

But Congress does not like to be held responsible for wars. If it would take a clear stance, for or against a war, voters might have an opinion about that and vote accordingly. It therefore, like George Will, just does some partisan bickering about the 60 day limit, which is irrelevant to the legality of the war, and blames the president about it.

If Congress would do its duty, it would have voted on the war before it started or would have held the president responsible when he launched it in clear breach of the law.

This part of the game the village crowd in DC is playing. Ignore the law, avoid any responsibility and play up a conflict where it none really exist to provide a show for the masses. George Will is like many in the commentariat just a small part of the show. Nothing anyone should take serious.

Comments

brilliant and clear, b! thank you!
hubris creates the illusion of safety, invincibility, etc… and leads to disaster
perhaps it’s generated by the thought/faith of America’s god-given exceptionalism along with our search for saviors to obey and our desire to use our military spectacularly. and very lucratively for some…
reading that Khadaffi’s radar defences were bombed, with the story that he was firing on his people and this protected them, made me smell a fish right away!
thanks again for the bar and the light and sombrenesses and company!

Posted by: lambent1 | May 30 2011 11:03 utc | 1

This WPR, has been unconstitutional from it’s inception, and we’ve gone downhill from there. When it comes to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, the U.S. follows neither. Rule of law is for the serfs, not the corporate masters and their sycophants.

Posted by: ben | May 30 2011 13:18 utc | 2

Thank you, b. The kind of short succinct post many who are out of the loop can understand. I intend to print it on one page and staple/tack it in a few dozen public locations around my small community.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | May 30 2011 13:36 utc | 3

western troops on the ground in Libya
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya

Posted by: Susan | May 30 2011 18:30 utc | 4

Susan this was intentionally revealed by al Jazeera to heat up the psychological warfare:
this historian here has studied Ghaddafi and Libya for 30 years
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/NATO-failing-in-Libya,-media-hiding-the-truth,-says-Prof-Del-Boca-21697.html
He is no fan
“Many Western leaders see him as a theatrical character?
I do not think that Gaddafi could be considered a character or a clown. He always used these extravagant forms of dress and appearance for his audience, certainly not for us. His people have always wanted to see him excel and stand out. In reality he is anything but a character from the stage, but a man with a solid culture. He graduated in English language and literature in Benghazi, studied telecommunications in London and has also written books and stories. The most famous is the “Green Book”, it is highly questionable, but not all African Heads of State have written books, including our own. If today I had to choose another African leader to study and consider, I would be seriously stumped.
Why is the West so united in the war on Gaddafi?
Gaddafi is certainly an awkward figure. He has done business with everyone, which if it came into the open, would certainly not be very edifying for Europe and the West. However this drive to kill him at all costs is really exaggerated. In recent weeks they have tried to kill him at least four times. NATO continues to say that Gaddafi is not the main goal. I have never seen a war a cynical as this, where the statements are the opposite of the facts and I did not expect that after Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, that we were capable of repeating the same costly mistakes. ”
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Prof.-Del-Boca:-Gaddafi-the-target-of-a-cynical-war-21554.html
And in other news, neither the EU nor the rebels can pay the bill …

Posted by: somebody | May 30 2011 19:00 utc | 5

b is right about this. The president is breaking the law; and when he was challenged on this he simply shrugged it off. It’s just a little war, after all, and he doesn’t know what all the fuss is about.

Posted by: Copeland | May 30 2011 22:02 utc | 6

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal
Same as it ever was

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 31 2011 2:23 utc | 7

breaking the law and risking his reelection why and for whom?
there is this
in early 2008, Libya’s sovereign-wealth fund controlled by Col. Moammar Gadhafi gave $1.3 billion to Goldman Sachs Group to sink into a currency bet and other complicated trades. The investments lost 98% of their value, internal Goldman documents show.
What happened next may be one of the most peculiar footnotes to the global financial crisis. In an effort to make up for the losses, Goldman offered Libya the chance to become one of its biggest shareholders, according to documents and people familiar with the matter.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576347190532098376.html
and this
WASHINGTON, March 31 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today questioned why the Federal Reserve provided more than $26 billion in credit to an Arab intermediary for the Central Bank of Libya.
The total includes at least $3.2 billion in loans that the Fed was forced to make public today in addition to earlier revelations under a Sanders provision in the Wall Street reform law.
Sanders also asked why the Libyan-owned bank and two of its branches in New York, N.Y., were exempted from sanctions that the United States this month slapped on other Libyan businesses to pressure Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=41518cce-d8e1-4752-83a5-050dbc4b2175
and of course this
White House officials yesterday released their personal financial disclosure forms, and included in the millions of dollars which top Obama economics adviser Larry Summers made from Wall Street in 2008 is this detail:
Lawrence H. Summers, one of President Obama’s top economic advisers, collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the past year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations. . . .
Financial institutions including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch paid Summers for speaking appearances in 2008. Fees ranged from $45,000 for a Nov. 12 Merrill Lynch appearance to $135,000 for an April 16 visit to Goldman Sachs, according to his disclosure form.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/04/summers
there will be more – definitely Ghaddafi has got to go :-))

Posted by: somebody | May 31 2011 4:44 utc | 8

and these kids would be called child soldiers in other circumstances?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/31/c_13902003_10.htm

Posted by: somebody | May 31 2011 6:13 utc | 9

that’s it – the British right has got enough
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1392253/Libya-Gaddafi-1bn-battle-save-David-Camerons-face.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
really that’s it – there is one more potential mediator now
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-05/31/c_13903679.htm
“China would like to stay in touch with all parties and play its own role in seeking political solutions to the crisis, Jiang said.”
this will be in the history books as the end of some thing and the beginning of another thing

Posted by: somebody | May 31 2011 10:32 utc | 10

Right now almost everyone is afraid of holding President Obama responsible for this massive breach of the social contract.
This well-calculated move by Obama is the inevitable result of the gradual accumulation of presidential power since Nixon took office in 1969. That year was the start of the creeping 40+ year drive by the elites to impose a corporate socialist dictatorship upon this country, a drive in which George Will has enthusiastically participated.
His radical Republican detractors do not want to call him on this because they are expecting to seize control of the Presidency and turn the chief executive into a permanent dictator. Meanwhile, Obana’s now disillusioned supporters (such as myself) are not speaking up about this because they are afraid to undermine him. They know all too well that the Re-pub Party alternatives are even worse than he is.
http://www.albanyweblog.com/2009/12-Dec/12-20-09.php
Corporate foot soldier George Will knows full well what Obama is doing. He can’t bring himself to defend the US Constitution that he hates so much, yet it simply infuriates him that a non-Repub not spawned by the aristocracy is currently reaping the benefit of the rising dictatorship.
Thus, in the end, George Will is once again revealed as little more than a namby pamby idiot.

Posted by: Dan Van Riper | May 31 2011 12:06 utc | 11

For Those Who Support the Libyan “Opposition”
‘Maybe those who refuse to call the Libyan Opposition terrorists and instead continue to accuse the forces of the Libyan Government of attacking innocent civilians – see the photos accompanying this piece – could answer some of the questions posed in this article. If not, then maybe they could ask themselves why they are supporting Islamist terrorists.
Under which United Nations resolution did NATO get the right to murder civilians? Why did NATO murder Colonel Gaddafi’s son if their remit was to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians? Why did NATO murder three of Colonel Gaddafi’s grandchildren? Why has there been no accountability for the murder of innocent children? Why is nobody calling Cameron, Sarkozy or Obama a cold-blooded child murderer?
etc
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/02-06-2011/118101-support_libya-0/
and to Somebody…No Gadaffi is not awkward…thats just your fortress europe misperception:
http://blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective

Posted by: brian | Jun 2 2011 21:44 utc | 12