Congress v. the President on war powers (Greenwald)

[EFerrari]

Saturday, Jun 25, 2011 07:26 ET

Congress v. the President on war powers
By Glenn Greenwald

"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake" -- President Barack Obama, March 28, 2011, describing to the nation the U.S's role in the War in Libya (more than a week after he began it).

"The White House strongly denied Tuesday that regime change is part of its mission in Libya . . . . Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change. 'We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change,' Rhodes said" -- The Hill, March 22, 2011.

"The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls" -- Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, yesterday.

________

Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war? Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began? Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/25/libya/index.html

[tekisui]

1. Rec to zero!

[EFerrari]

3. The hinge: "Congress does not need to de-fund a war to render it illegal."

The significance of yesterday's vote is substantial and should not be minimized. Congress does not need to de-fund a war to render it illegal. Under the law (and the Constitution), military actions are illegal if Congress does not affirmatively authorize them (either within 60 days or at the start, depending on one's view). The fact that the President has failed to obtain that authorization renders his ongoing war-waging illegal -- period. And the fact that the House has now affirmatively voted against authorizing a war that is underway is a very rare and strong step to oppose a sitting President's war policy. That the vote was so bipartisan only elevates its significance.

[SidDithers]

2. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[scarletwoman]

4. Another rec to zero! I was thinking about this same thing just the other day.

I remember when everyone from NATO to Gates was emphatically denying that the Lybia action had anything to do with "regime change". Oh no, how shocking and declasse for anyone to think such a thing!

Yet, over the past couple of weeks I couldn't help but notice that all the spokespersons for the war machine now blithely toss off statements to the effect that "Gaddafi must go!", with nary a blush.

Like, maybe they figured we wouldn't notice.

Thanks for posting this.
sw

[EFerrari]

5. This is a good clarification of the vote yesterday.

I didn't know, for example, how the Clinton administration claimed the House implicitly authorized the continuation of the bombing of Kosovo because they had made some appropriation, let alone considered that anti-war Dems didn't want to find themselves in the same position with a yes vote on the partial defunding bill.

[fascisthunter]

6. I Don't Trust him at all

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Well, it's a good thing that Obama sees "light" in his wars. The people and the congress don't.

[slipslidingaway]

8. knr nt

[Gregorian]

9. The Pentagon is feeding Obama.

It takes an older more mature president, perhaps in an era which existed in days gone by, to know and to battle the forces that exist in Washington.

It appears obvious to me that this one man is unable to pull all of the strings that control military, economy, and a broad combination of other things. One man cannot do it. Even his aids are being fed.

He could do what is right. But what is right? Half the country supports war, half of Congress is insane. The economy appears to depend upon it.

I just want to fault Obama. Yet I have to be realistic. He is no FDR. But it's not 1935.

Who knows? It seems so simple. Decrease the military. Don't throw money at those who caused the economic meltdown. Create productive jobs. It seems simple.

[azul]

10. Simple, but the military and multinationals have entrenched positions.

And they would rather go down fighting rather than switch to a more rational course.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Then they must be fought and defeated, it is ever that way with cancers.

[Kurovski]

11. K&R. (nt)