White House: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need for Congressional Authorization

[Psephos]

Source: ABC News

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone. The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

<snip>

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. Of course. Of course.

:puke:

PB

[DJ13]

2. So anything unconstitutional, if done in a 'limited' way, is now legal?

That opens up a big can o worms.

[Stuttgart77]

51. This is easy to fix

No need to worry about the Constitution or the War Powers Act.

Congress has the power to defund it.

[Arctic Dave]

3. Is this a "kida pregnant" arguement?

Looks like Obama has fallen in love with the war machine.

[OwnedByFerrets]

4. If the President does it, it has to be legal....where have I heard that one before?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

6. Endless war...no need for "authorization by Congress." But, if they needed authorization

they would get it through since Chimpy set the bar so low and it was ignored. Obama is golden to get what he needs without even bothering with congress approval...but he'd get it if he asked.

[Mr. Jefferson]

18. Actually, Bush asked for and received Congressional authorization for his unconstitutional war...

However, you are correct, if he asked, Obama would receive.

[No Elephants]

52. Wars.. Iraq and WOT

[wordpix]

7. keep the endless war machine going while our schools, environment & nation die

Where in the Declaration or Constitution does it say this country is of, by and for the warmongering profiteers?

[ProSense]

8. How did ABC get that from this letter:

President Obama’s Letter About Efforts in Libya

On March 21, I reported to the Congress that the United States, pursuant to a request from the Arab League and authorization by the United Nations Security Council, had acted 2 days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by deploying U.S. forces to protect the people of Libya from the Qaddafi regime. As you know, over these last 2 months, the U.S. role in this operation to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 has become more limited, yet remains important. Thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, I wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators Kerry, McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Lieberman, which would confirm that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government.

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the United States Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

While we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians from the actions of the Qaddafi regime. I am grateful for the support you and other Members in Congress have demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime. Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a Resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter. It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation, and support.


Sincerely,

Barack Obama

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

14. What does that have to

do with suggesting no Congressional authorization is needed?

Since the President's letter wasn't good enough to debunk the distortion, how about a couple of other media reports:

LA Times: Obama asks Congress for resolution on Libya

The Hill: Obama asks Congress for a resolution of support on Libya

[kelly1mm]

19. In the last sentence of the letter the President writes that it is "better"

to engage in military action with congressional support, not that that support is required or legally mandated. I agree that the writers of the article referenced by the OP took liberties with the Presdient's words but there is some wiggle room there.

Do you think that continued US military action in Libya requires congressional approval under the war powers act?

I think it does.

I am not sure the President thinks so.

[knitter4democracy]

9. Limited my ass. My nephew's there (we think--not totally sure).

Boots are on the ground there, Mr. President. You need Congress to authorize.

Why the fuck does he keep acting like Bush?!

[kelly1mm]

10. Damn, even Bush got "permission" from congress for his wars. nt

[Countdown_3_2_1]

53. I don't like rule by Presidential edict. This stinks.

The War Powers act is clear. limited or no, you get congressional authorization!

[Vidar]

11. It's apparently to avoid democracy at all cost, especially while

pretending to spread its benefits abroad.

[lovuian]

13. they are using our children's blood and lives for this crap

its all for OIL that is what it is about

China is going to win this battle you watch and see

[JDPriestly]

15. This is really bad news. In the future, the US will conduct lots

and lots of wars with drones. And eventually, someone else will get one of our real secrets: how to make and manage the drones. And then we will be the victims of drone attacks.

This is the stupidest form of cheating. This will boomerang.

[Fumesucker]

16. The insurgents in Afghanistan hacked our drones two years ago..

The software to do so cost $26 and allowed the insurgents to view the video feed from the drones (which were not encrypted).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

[DeSwiss]

17. Stierscheiße n/t

[GeorgeGist]

20. Too bad Obama doesn't dare exercise ...

his Magical Power on the domestic front.

[blackdem76]

21. White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Au

Source: ABC News (US)

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”



Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

---

We don't need no stinking badges.

[vandelay]

22. This sucks big time. Hit the STREETS!

It's impossible to get people fired up on this. I can't believe it. Nobody cares.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

23. the Libyans whose lives have been saved care.

[vandelay]

26. That was a lie to get into Libya's pants for oil

The civilians of Libya were never in any danger. That was all a lie to get the oil. The rebels are hiding with the civilians. Of course some civilians are going to suffer when the rebels hide among them.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

27. you don't know shit, Mr. Architect. quite a load of falsehoods you've bought into.

[vandelay]

28. If you don't believe Libya is all about oil I can't help you.

How much evidence do you need?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

29. sorry, I don't believe the same lies you do

[blackdem76]

38. Is it really necessary to use abusive profanity?

We are only having a discussion.

[Ter]

33. So?

Let them care.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. It's about the oil. It's always about the oil.

[cstanleytech]

31. One reason why so few might care is

probably because of the way we have it setup on who to vote for in our elections people realize that.
Until thats changed and we no longer have a two party system most people will look the other way when the only other option viable is to vote for a candidate who is a member of the party they oppose.

[bhikkhu]

39. I care a lot

and I think the president is following an admirable course, and that the majority of people in Libya and the ME are appreciative - not just that we are standing up for them, for once, instead of obfusticating about how little can be done, but that we are doing it in such a careful manner.

With a little help. the Libyans will become a free country, while an invasion or disproportionate response just changes the yoke, so to speak. I don't think any repug I've talked to would be able to follow that fine line, but Obama has done admirably.

[blackdem76]

40. That's why it's wrong to call Obama our "Dear Leader."

There is absolutely no similarity between Obama's practices and those of Kim Jong Il.

[bhikkhu]

42. Now that you mention it, there is no similarity

what an odd post.

I might add, you bear no similarity to Karl Rove, and the simple act of placing words in proximity - such as "blackdem76" and "Joseph Goebbels" - is a clever way of saying nothing at all, while yet seeming to leave the impression that something has been said.

[blackdem76]

47. That's what I said.

You're a genius!

[whoneedstickets]

24. I think he's trying to goad the GOP house..

..into passing some sort of new 'war making' bill restricting the CinC. He knows they can't or won't act and he's poking them in the eye.

[blackdem76]

25. Isn't that kinda...convoluted? n/t

[IScreamSundays]

30. There is a very interesting provision inside a defense bill we need to keep an eye on:

From the ACLU

May 18, 2011
Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.

President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.

snip>
http://www.aclu.org/new-authorization-worldwide-war-without-end

[KoKo]

34. Yep...ACLU's "Hair on Fire" over this... That's a positive..

to get more attention. Also Dennis Kucinich has been all over it...but he's not liked around here so no one cares what he says.

[blackdem76]

32. Map of foreign oil concessions in Libya

This helps to explain French and British involvement along with the US. The recent attacks on Libya began after Gadafi threatened to nationalize foreign oil holdings.

[KoKo]

35. Thanks...interesting isn't it.

[bhikkhu]

41. Libya nationalized oil holdings many years ago

what he recently suggested was that, given rising oil prices, the deals struck with foreign oil companies might need to be renegotiated. That's pretty standard practice anywhere when prices go way up.

As the foreign oil companies are losing fortunes while the civil war goes on, more or less predictably, I doubt that they were behind it. Only an idiot would start a civil war to avoid renegotiating contract rates.

[blackdem76]

44. False.

Your own post proves its falsehood. If Gadafi had really nationalized oil years ago, there would be nothing to "negotiate."

[bhikkhu]

45. "In the 1970s Libya initiated a socialist style nationalization program..."

...which is well documented. The quote is from the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_Corporation

As far as renegotiating contracts:

http://www.getenergyevent.com/News/Oil_and_Gas_Training_News/Libya-National-Oil-renegotiating-contracts-with-IOCs_19226737

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294570/FRENCH-TOTAL-LED-CONSORTIUMS-ACCEPT-LOWER-PRODUCTION-SHARES-IN-LIBYA.html

http://www.thugvillage.com/media/general/politics/1084-is-oil-the-reason-for-libya-intervention

"False" would be "it didn't happen". There are some theories that the renegotiating of oil contracts was an impetus to support for the rebellion, as mentioned in the third link there, but it could hardly be a cause in itself. War and unrest shut down oil fields and damage infrastructure in unpredictable ways, and they aren't the sorts of things oil companies look to get involved in.

[blackdem76]

46. The 1970s deals with the 7 sisters by Arab countries were not 'nationalizations.'

And they certainly were not "socialist style," as one of your sources says. All the OPEC countries made similar deals with Western oil companies, including Saudi Arabia.

Besides, you are straining at a gnat. The point is that the war in Libya is about oil.

[elias49]

36. The War Powers Resolution is a joke.

Pretty soon all we'll need is a nod and a wink to invade foreign countries.

[blackdem76]

37. Caligula made his horse, Incitatus, a Senator.

That's what Suetonius says in Twelve Caesars.

[frylock]

43. what a shock..

enjoy your nu war president, suckers.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Generalissimemo Chessman hath spoken

The rest of you peons should be quiet.

[LetTimmySmoke]

50. The War Powers Act allows for, has always allowed, and will always allow any invasion.

From your friendly Department of Mini-Truth.

[BlueIris]

54. Dig that hole a little deeper.

God. The level of b.s. in the WH statement is staggering.