Breaking: Obama Sends Libya War Powers Act Notice To Congress

[kpete]

Source: Daily Kos

...........

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period ha not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya


Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/21/958769/-Breaking:-Obama-Sends-Libya-War-Powers-Act-Notice-To-Congress

[David__77]

1. Hopefully congress doesn't approve and it ceases soon.

[totodeinhere]

4. No, hopefully it will continue until that murderous madman is removed from power. n/t

[David__77]

9. You've got the approved lingo down: "madman."

See, Chavez is a "strongman." Gaddafi is a "madman," so you have the words right. Great that you want an open-ended conflict until "regime change" is affected. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" too? Or just bomb Libya? There's more madmen to get I'm sure.



I love this picture. You can really see the camaraderie here.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Bandit]

89. How much longer until he is called Hitler or heaven forbid even Saddam?

The worst names Republicans can come up with..Must make him seem extremely evil so conscience won't be bothered by the killing of women and children. You know... "Collateral Damage"....

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[totodeinhere]

16. I am not a warmonger. I am supporting President Obama's very well

thought out foreign policy. It's too bad it had to come to this, but the UNSC authorized it and therefore it is a legal action.

You would have probably also called people who wanted us to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda warmongers.

[David__77]

27. "You would have probably..."

"You would have probably" does little good, does it? One could say you would have probably supported war against Iraq if the UNSC has approved it, although it still would have been an unjust and highly immoral war. What's the point?

[Fool Count]

55. Just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it should

be done. Just saying.

[tcaudilllg]

57. Doubtful. Boots on the ground for peace-keeping purposes? Why not?

But for regime change? NEVER.

[Critters2]

20. I trust you posted this from your smartphone or tablet as you sit in the waiting area

of your local enlistment center.

[totodeinhere]

44. Everyone who supports President Obama's policy doesn't need to enlist.

I have the right to support the president's policies whether I decide to enlist myself or not.

[cosmicone]

54. So you support this Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell and Elf driven

exercise for the benefit of only those oil companies and no one else?

[totodeinhere]

69. So those companies control all of the ten countries who voted on the

UNSC to authorize this action? I am not big fan of the oil companies either, but your analysis is way too conspiratorial for me.

[cosmicone]

70. Just think. The only countries pushing this war while drooling

are the countries who have big multinational oil companies. No one else is really interested in starting a war.

If the requirement for going to war was a 25 year pledge by each country which participates in the war effort to not allow any of its corporations do business in the target country, all these wars would be greatly diminished.

[Arctic Dave]

59. Which one?

Hehe.

[DBoon]

60. I have my disagreements with Obama

But to call him a "murderous madman" is a bit much

[cosmicone]

72. I think he was calling Gaddafi the murderous madman, not Obama. n/t

[Lars77]

88. I agree with you

Seems like many people on here do nothing but watch RT while wearing tinfoil hats. People need to dig up the old twitter threads from Libya Catherina made weeks ago when people were posting videos and images of Khadaffys massacres.


Latest word from Misrata is that the Ghadaffy loyalists are now attacking the citys hospital where scores of injured civillians are being treated. Its not the first time hes attacked hospitals either.


I am perfectly able to keep two thoughts in my head at once: Libya=good, Afghanistan and Iraq=bad.

[cliffordu]

21. Truly a point and click political philosophy ya got there, skippy.

[David__77]

28. Who's skippy?

I think it's brilliant compared with a lot of the warmongering and blood lust on display. We're at war once more - I want it to stop.

[cliffordu]

30. The get your ass out there on the barricades.

If you cannot find any, then rent some and put them up yourself.

The self righteousness reeks in here sometimes.

:hurts:

[David__77]

33. Thank you for the criticism, I completely agree.

Thank you for advocating direct action. I agree it's FAR more useful than chatter.

[cliffordu]

58. Having taken direct action in a war zone and on the barricades when I came home,

I couldn't agree more.

Skin in the game works. Everything else is bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

62. It reeked when Bush was president also, but no one here

seemed to mind it then.

[No Elephants]

87. I"self righteousness reeks in here sometimes" Ironic?

[Xenotime]

71. Not with war-loving rethugs there. THis is money in the bank for them

[No Elephants]

85. It's money in the bank for many Dems, too.

[snooper2]

79. We have an excess inventory of missles...

You don't want them to expire do you?

[bluestateguy]

2. Every president since Nixon has regarded the WPA as unconstitutional

And yes that includes Jimmy Carter, who is much revered on this board.

Presidents abide by it as a matter of convenience and courtesy.

Any war Congress does not like, they should defund it. They could have done that in 2007, but they chickened out.

[Hosnon]

3. With the famous line:

"... consistent with the War Powers Resolution." Not "pursuant to".

Presidents don't think they have to do this, but they do it as a courtesy. I tend to fall on the side that the War Powers Act is largely unconstitutional.

[Maat]

5. Why shouldn't Congress have to declare war?

That's what the U.S. Constitution specifies.

[Tx4obama]

8. Here's a link to some info regarding The War Powers Resolution of 1973

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

[Critters2]

22. I guess I missed the attack or serious threat to the US. nt

[Luminous Animal]

75. Funny how everyone overlooks that. They act as though the War Powers Resolution

is a smorgasbord rather than 3 distinct conditions and each condition triggers its own conditions.

[ixion]

6. Obama gettin' his turkey shoot, er, I mean 'war' on

:puke:

[CoffeeCat]

7. Well it sure bumped Japan off the media radar...

...didn't it?

The stories I read today about the radiation indicated that even though radiation was
found in spinach and milk--it was still safe to eat those things. Right.

The article was up for only two hours.

Wag to the Dizog.

[ixion]

17. Yeah, suddenly all these elevated levels are 'no danger'

what's a little radiation exposure?... Ann Coulter says it's good for you! :sarcasm:

[CoffeeCat]

19. A big new story in the headlines--with several...

...subsequent stories---and then one little story on Japan suggests that Libya is
big and the radiation in Japan is comparatively small.

It's a form of psy ops.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[David__77]

14. I can appreciate the frustration.

The consolation is that the mission will fail with far fewer consequences than the failed Iraq adventure. I will still vote for Obama and will indeed campaign for him, despite his foolish errors.

[Critters2]

23. +1 nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

25. To impeach = 'charge with a crime'. Obama has NOT committed any crimes ;) n/t

[No Elephants]

86. Agree Obama should not be impeached, but "impeach" is much broader than your definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impeach

[AKDavy]

13. War is easier than peace for leaders

Wars are started by people (usually old and rich) who do not share the burden of the dying that will be done.

It's easy to shed crocodile tears on the graves of other people's children.

This is what Bush and Obama have in common: They each have two daughters who will never fight or shed blood on foreign soil.

[David__77]

15. That's what my grandfather taught me about war.

It was a great lesson - the rich elites start wars. Now the pundits and "activists" cheerlead for them, far, far from the suffering at hand.

[ixion]

18. Yep.

Peace is far more difficult, as is anything worth obtaining. War is childlike frustration on a massive, deadly scale.

[Tx4obama]

24. So, you think that Gaddafi should be allowed to bomb and kill all the folks in Benghazi?

I don't! I support the UN's mission to protect the protesters.

[David__77]

29. So you think US bombs should rain down on Libyan women and children?

I don't. I support the Libyan people's right to be free from foreign interference.

[Tx4obama]

34. So then, we should STOP Gaddafi from bringing in the foreign mercenaries :)

You can't have it both ways!

[David__77]

40. That would be up to the countries bordering Libya, not the US.

I'm not "having it both ways." I simply have a much narrower view of what should be the US's role. I agree that ALL foreign intervention should be opposed. The role of the US is to prevent intervention by the US, in my opinion. It is up to Chad to independently conduct its foreign relations with Libya.

[Catherina]

41. How about all the foreign mercenaries killing people in Bahrain and Yemen?

The Saudi and Pakistani foreign mercenaries slaughtering innocent people, entering hospitals and killing the medical staff, are armed and supported by us, the US. According to Galloway, Gates was personally involved in working on this with Saudi Arabia.

I have video of old men being mowed down by snipers in the street after raising their hands to show they're unarmed.

The hypocrisy isn't going unnoticed on the Arab street. We're the ones who can't have it both ways.

There's a reason our media is only talking about Libya, Libya, Libya. Same for Al-Jazeera but that's a whole other story.

[AKDavy]

35. It just wouldn't be a decent war without a band wagon and war drums

Would it?

As I wrote in the other post, our history in the Middle East is convoluted and self-serving. Our motives are not pure.

What Qadaffi was doing to his own people the Israelis do to Palestinians, and we veto UN actions opposing the slaughter by Israel.

Too much bullshit for me.

[Maat]

46. Again, Sir, you hit the nail on the head!

Bravo!

[Tx4obama]

36. There should be any women and children at the air/military bases that are being taken out.

The UN mission is not bombing cities.
They are taking out military installations, bases, tanks, planes, command centers, etc.

[Historic NY]

65. +1

[AKDavy]

32. It would be easier so accept such a simple view

If our history in the Middle East were not so convoluted.

Why don't Arab nations offer assistance? Because the weapons and training we sell and give them are being used to suppress their own people. While the U.S. protects the Libyan people from the Libyan leader, the leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are using U.S. weapons and training to suppress the people of Bahrain.

[TMcCaleb]

37. but

who are these "protestors/rebels"?

[ixion]

50. We're protecting them from being bombed by bombing them...

check. :eyes:

[dixiegrrrrl]

83. this might be of some interest to you:

"White House: Helping install 'a democratic system' is goal in Libya

According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will."

The term "installing" suggests the goal of regime change."

from this earlier post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717304

[Maat]

43. Exactly! (n/t)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. a bucket of truth

[juajen]

26. I just read that the Act provides 60 days for the President to

prevail, and then it has to go to the Congress for approval. Don't ask me to remember where I read that, though I believe it was on Yahoo news. Remember, I have senior citizen memory and emotions, and, I will cry if you criticize me.

[Luminous Animal]

76. The act outlines specific conditions for a President to engage our military...

1) Congressional approval.
2) An emergency in which the U.S. is being or attacked or under serious threat of being attacked.


The second condition allows for defensive flexibility and if the President chooses that path AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE TO BYPASS THE CONSTITUTION, he/she must then report to Congress within 48 hours. Congress reserves the right to respond within 60 days to a approve such action.


There was ZERO, NADA, NIL contingency powers granted to Obama under the War Powers Resolution that allowed him to bypass the Constitution. He skipped step 1 and pretended the conditions necessary to step 2 applied.


The act DOES NOT allow the President to engage our military on a personal whim. Either you get approval or you respond to an attack and appeal for an approval later.

[JDPriestly]

31. I am pleased that he is respecting the Constitution and the War Powers Act

on this although it is my personal opinion that the Constitution requires Congress to declare war before our military power can be committed to action in a war zone (as opposed to in a natural disaster somewhere in the world).

[Hosnon]

39. There are a few ways for war to be entered into.

And a declaration from Congress is but one. The draft version of the War Clause used "make"; that was narrowed to "declare" to allow the President to engage an enemy in response to aggression (e.g., if Libyan forces started killing Americans in Libya).

[JJW]

38. Impeach

From the President who stated, war is peace, we find ourselves in a third war. Obama demands Gadaffi do so and so. Yeah, sure so what happens when he refuses? This is the same stupid policies that lead to the Iraq war.

[Tx4obama]

45. Impeach? What would the 'criminal' charge be? Obama has not commited a 'criminal crime' n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. he went to war in Libya first and Kuccinch called him out on it ...., Obama knows the law .....

to bad he didn't act on it before he ordered our military to war.

[neoralme]

42. Obama didn't want to take the chance of standing in defiance

of REID V. COVERT (1957), with the decision that no treaty can override the Constitution, including mandatory notification of Congress when entering into an Act of War.

[ThomCat]

47. There was a reason why Congress was supposed to be the only body

that could declare war. Not the President.

By going to war first and then going to Congress afterward, regardless of how quickly afterward, the approval process becomes a rubber-stamp. Few will ever vote against a war that has already started.

It is far, far more difficult to stop a war that has started than it is to prevent it. That is why congress should be the body discussing whether or not to go to war.

Having it discussed in congress also ensures that much of the discussion will be knows publicly. We will all know why there is a need for war, and why it is justified, and it won't just be for shitty political reasons that exist only inside the bubble of the beltway.

I think congress has become far too weak. (also far too owned by corporate interests, which is another huge problem) A congress that was independent and retained it's powers to balance the executive branch would not have us fighting THREE (3!) expensive, useless wars at the same time. Two of them for an entire decade now!

What the Hell is Obama thinking?

What the Hell does he think we're ever possibly going to get out of this war that could ever be worth; the additional mountains of debt, the people who will be hurt or disabled or killed, or all poverty that will be created here in America by redirecting our resources to this?

Who is he trying to help by doing this? It certainly isn't the country as a whole. It certainly isn't the typical working people throughout the United States. So why is he doing this instead of helping all of us?

Is this really what came to the top of his list of priorities?

:wtf:

[VermeerLives]

48. I agree and well said (n/t)

[Baclava]

53. Buy two wars and get the third free?

What a deal.

[Monique1]

56. Where do you all call this a war?

It is not a war - no war has been declared and we have no troops on the ground.

Everyone needs to calm down and quit assuming. Think please but I am sure you won't.

[Baclava]

61. Name the last "Humanitarian Mission" we lit off 150 cruise missles to help

Blowing up air bases, bombing runways, blowing up SAM sites, AAA bateries, command and control bunkers, tanks on the ground...


Just a little police action, we'll clean it up in a jiffy.

Got it.

[GeorgeGist]

63. Come back AFTER you've read the War Powers Act.

Hint: America is NOT under attack.

[Solly Mack]

64. K&R

[Baclava]

66. B-2 stealth bombers just returning - sending in the big boys

WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Missouri - Three Air Force Global Strike Command B-2 Spirit bombers returned to Whiteman Air Force Base after striking targets in support of the international response which is enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.



The B-2s landed at Whiteman after a more than 25-hour mission in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

The bombers employed 45 guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions, each weighing 2,000 pounds, against hardened aircraft shelters in Libya.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/B-2-bombers-return-to-Whiteman-Air-Force-Base-after-striking-targets-over-Libya-

[humbled_opinion]

67. At the very least Obama should

Return the Nobel Peace Prize....

For the rest on this forum that somehow find a pathway to fogive this President and even support him in this foolishness, I think you have lost your way and need to do some serious soul searching.

This is not a game, real people both the guilty and innocent, women and children, are being killed and maimed in your names. For what? At the very least, the last monster hid behind the fig leaf of a terror attack on U.S. soil, and a charge that WMD could be used against U.S. interests, by a ruthless tyrant.

What is the reason today?

Because some crazy lunatic dictator did not step down when his people rose up to challenge his totalitarianism.....

Well if that is all it takes to support U.S. military involvement then we have about 50 more countries to invade.

[ej510]

68. If Bush was doing what Obama is doing there would be an

uproar, but because we have a democrat in the white house there is a shit load of silence.

[ProSense]

73. Senate passed resolution urging a no-fly zone

March 1

Also see the precedent for U.N. action.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

84. I think they passed resolution for unlimited intervention

"...such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone..."

vague, open-ended, no limit on troops, no time limit, just a third war in the region.

[Nossida]

74. Jeez

Libya sends 99% of their Oil to the EU.
Let the Europeans secure their own Oil
supply. This phony 'Humanitarian Oil
War' is a farce from day one.

NO US TROOPS FOR LIBYA!!!!!!!
Let the snotty French fight their own War.

[Javaman]

77. Easier to get forgiveness than permission.

"quick! drop those bombs, we'll worry about the law later!"

[mvd]

81. Yeah, it was a little late

Drop the bombs, then notify. We're also the main participant, as usual. And sorry to say, but I don't think UN approval means as much as it used to. Lots of politics even there.

[VermeerLives]

78. It's a good thing he studied Constitutional law...

How hard would it be for a journalist to ask, "Mr. President, since you had time to choose your basketball brackets, how come you didn't have time to tell Congress that we were going to war?"

[ronnie624]

80. Or a journalist might ask him what this means:

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.

[nalnn]

82. Is this

What we get as the new form of WPA? 3 wars? It is 3 right? I lose count easy.