Breaking: NYTimes Obama Overruled 2 Top Lawyers on War Power in Libya

[Mira]

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.”
Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

for the rest go to

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp

[ixion]

1. he's the decider

:eyes:

[shanti]

6. yeah

we've heard that one before!

[CelticThunder]

10. AKA Dictator. Laws don't apply to him.

[treestar]

41. You're making the lawyers into the dictators.

Newsflash: lawyers take opposing sides on questions. Go into any appeals court and listen.

[DJ13]

2. I would have thought a Constitutional scholar would know better

[SusanaMontana41]

50. That makes two of us.

I'm well beyond disgusted.

[Distant Observer]

54. Makes on think they don't feel there is clear justification for the action to present to congress

[midnight]

3. Someone must have some pictures....

[Distant Observer]

52. More please

[Octafish]

4. Must be a case of: 'If Bush can do it, so can I.'

Oh. Bush didn't do it. The Smirking Warmonger went to Congress who gave his stinking wars without end a Constitutional fig leaf.

Either way, the USA gets to do the one thing we're any good at these days: Make War.

Thank you for the heads-up, Mira. Very important information.

[sad sally]

15. Like this? From his March 28 Libya speach?

President Obama's Monday night speech on Libya was probably as striking for what he didn't say as much as what he did say.

For instance, he didn't offer details for how much longer the U.S. military will be actively involved in the effort.

It's not hard to see why he'd avoid that one. No one knows at this point how long it will take for Moammar Gadhafi to fall, if he indeed does. Weeks, months, more, who knows?

And with the military option being handed off to NATO that means the U.S. essentially handed the operation back to itself since it is the first among equals in the U.S.-European military alliance.

He didn't promise to keep Congress or the American people informed with future updates.

It was one of those moments that was a reminder that in the Obama presidency is a reaction to that of his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush.

(Quote from the President's speach:)

"Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gadhafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/29/134937078/obama-libya-speech-striking-for-what-was-unsaid-as-much-as-said?du

[HankyDubs]

16. this is why criminals need to be prosecuted

Bush got away with his shit, and Obama knows he will get away with this shit.

[Distant Observer]

55. Justice system is designed to protect a certain "society" not to do the right thing

[MNBrewer]

5. Imperial Presidency/Unitary Executive

We should have intervened in Libya for humanitarian reasons, AND the President should obey the law. There is no conflict! OBEY THE LAW, MR. PRESIDENT!

[alc]

7. there are some things Obama can learn from Bush

Tell the lawyers what answer you want before asking them for the answer. Then you won't get into situations like this and you can blame the lawyers.

[joshcryer]

8. Authority To Use Military Force In Libya - Caroline D. Krass

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/authority-military-use-in-libya.pdf

[Octafish]

11. Thanks! Ms. Krass follwed precedent, too.

From the PDF:

As we explained in 1992, Attorneys General and this Office “have concluded that the President has the power to commit United States troops abroad,” as well as to “take military action,” “for the purpose of protecting important national interests,” even without specific prior authorization from Congress.

Gee. That was when Poppy Bush lost the election and left a lame-duck flaming turd of war in Somalia on the White House porch for the incoming Bill "Blackhawk Down" Clinton. And we're still making war in the Horn of Africa, almost 20 years later.

[joshcryer]

13. I agree with the article that the US should withdraw drones, though I've seen no reports of strikes.

NATO would report it in their daily reports but they have not done so. In my opinion Obama wants to keep the drones there in the event they get good intel about Gaddafi's location, as to end the thing quickly.

[sad sally]

18. You think the Pentagon wasn't telling the truth here?

By MARTHA RADDATZ (@martharaddatz) and KIRIT RADIA (@KiritRadia_ABC)
April 23, 2011
A U.S. Air Force Predator drone took out a rocket launcher used to attack civilians in the battle between Qadhafi forces and civilians in Misrata, Libya, NATO said today.

The strike, which was also confirmed by the Pentagon, is the first use of the unmanned aircraft in Libya since President Obama gave his approval two days ago.

"The first Predator strike in Libya occurred today in the early afternoon local time," Pentagon spokesman Capt. Darryn James said. "Per common practice we are not providing any details."

NATO, however, released a statement saying the strike had destroyed a Qadhafi regime Multiple Rocket Launcher near Misrata.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/pentagon-confirms-predator-drone-strike-libya/story?id=13442570?du

[joshcryer]

19. That happened in the first 60 days, I meant after the 60 day period was up and we were to withdraw..

...hostilities.

[Tejas]

21. “for the purpose of protecting important national interests,”

For the life of me, I can't recall what "national interests" we have in Libya.

[sabrina 1]

23. They have OIL!

What other interests do we ever have when we go to war?

Why eg, are we not in Syria? They tried to explain that today, but who do they think they are kidding. I just wish they'd tell the truth and stop pretending we care about the people of Lybia.

[joshcryer]

25. China and Russia are blocking Syria like they did Burma in 2007. 22k people died in Burma.

As will likely happen in Syria, if not worse.

[Distant Observer]

42. ERROR! Constitutional FOR 60-90 DAYS at MAX -- that is the positiong of the article.

The problem is that the time allowed under the War Powers Act has passed.

[CelticThunder]

9. Absolutely fucking disgusting.

[Zax2me]

12. We haven't heard the administrations side of this

I doubt this is as bad as it first appears.

[ladjf]

14. "Well, OK, Mr. President, if that's what you say. But, don't let us

catch you smoking any dope. " nt

[PoliticAverse]

17. Bombing someone isn't "hostile"?! n/t

[QC]

20. If the president does it, it's not illegal.

[Bluebear]

32. He's not a dictator!!1

He can't just do stuff without Congress sending stuff to him! :cry:

[QC]

51. Look, we all know you never really, well, you know. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

22. And it has come to this.

I find that I must agree with Boehner.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

I feel queezy.

[tcaudilllg]

26. We need to press Nancy for her opinion. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

27. I'm afraid to.

What if she supports the President's postion? And what if she doesn't?

[eilen]

28. I know, life is so crazy these days. nt

[Tejas]

31. I would like to think Boehner agrees with me.

Feels better knowing he/they are on record as such, would now be very hard now for them to do an about face and persue a war for oil in Libya. Not saying they're coming around but one can hope eh?

[tcaudilllg]

24. This seems to be the act of a dictator, I must say. n/t

[provis99]

29. and Obama says "Fuck you" to the Constitution.

has there been another President fighting five wars simultaneously? And what a joke that he got the Peace Prize.

[ProgressIn2008]

30. Meh, they all think they're goddamn emperors. Plenty of room at the Hague for the lot. nt

[readmoreoften]

34. +1

[readmoreoften]

33. Yeah but all the people here will vote for him anyway, so who cares right?

The blood is on their hands this time.

[Better Believe It]

35. If Dubya had done this what kind of reaction would we see on DU?

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. Hotter than the current tepidness. nt

[Karmadillo]

36. Please don't make the tyrant mad. He might have you executed.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/10/hbc-90007665

The President’s Power to Order the Extra-Judicial Execution of an American Citizen
By Scott Horton

<edit>

A number of commentators have questioned the president’s claim of authority to assassinate, some calling it “tyrannical.” As a wise observer wrote of the suspension of the habeas corpus right of Americans in 1777, tyranny comes “when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts…. Now a line is drawn, which may be advanced further and further at pleasure, on the same arguments of mere expedience on which it was first described.” This process of steady erosion has long been under way in our country. When the executive claims the power to take the life of a citizen without recourse to law and legal process, and seeks to sustain that under vague claims of commander-in-chief authority, that claim is in its essence tyrannical.

[smiley_glad_hands]

37. Some folks in this thread are way over the top.

We're using drones to aid the rebellion against an oppressive regime. Yes, they have oil, but if you haven't noticed, instability causes prices to go up. Assume the worst in the republicans.....not this President.

[Distant Observer]

39. The Libya SCAM is being run out of the State Dept. Defence and Intel had refused to justify action

[treestar]

40. Lawyers opinions that he did not listen to?

:rofl: Where's the outrage every day when clients don't listen to their lawyers?

I have clients who want to do all sorts of things I don't advise! How dare they? :rofl:

[tekisui]

43. You go to great lengths to find some very bizarre logic.

[treestar]

44. So your logic is that if one lawyer says something, that's it?

Okey dokey. No need for courts then.

Just let your lawyer tell you what to do.

[tekisui]

45. When the President is acting in his official capacity, he should

heed the lawyers who are telling him what he is doing may be unconstitutional. It is not the same as a lawyer giving a private person advice.

[former9thward]

49. It was not just one lawyer.

Do you think Obama got these lawyers from the yellow pages? They are the senior lawyers in their agencies and I guarantee they themselves got advice on the subject from an office building full of lawyers who work for them.

[bvar22]

46. "When the President does it,

that means it is not illegal."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Distant Observer]

47. He has little choice. Defence and Intel declined to give a strong argument for Libya action

[somone]

48. Obama knows best and decides what is best

[H2O Man]

53. Disturbing article.

That office changes people.

[MadHound]

56. Disappointing, but not surprising

There has been a bipartisan hard-on for war for the past sixty plus years, ever since the end of WWII.