Obama haunted by past declarations about Iraq war

[Bluebear]

He now faces an angry group of supporters who feel bewildered and betrayed by a president they thought would exercise the powers of the office in a dramatically different manner from his predecessor. If the president now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to justify his actions to his loyalists, he has only himself to blame.

by Bruce Hicks, professor of American government at the University of the Cumberlands

Decisions by American presidents to initiate military action against foreign enemies without first obtaining congressional approval, though controversial, are not uncommon. But if you were startled by President Barack Obama's decision to engage the military in Libya, you are not alone.

Obama and many of the officials who now serve with him were vocal critics of the George W. Bush presidency for alleged abuses of presidential war power. Yet when Obama authorized the use of American military force against the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, he embraced an expansive view of presidential war power that he once denounced.

Prior to becoming president, then-Sen, Obama clearly left the impression that he considered the Bush presidency's anti-terrorism policies suspect. In a speech delivered in 2007, he attacked the administration for using the 9/11 attacks "as an excuse for unchecked presidential power." The time has come to "turn the page," he declared.

More relevant to Obama's Libya decision is one response he gave in 2007 to a series of questions on presidential power posed by The Boston Globe. Obama explained that the Constitution permitted the president to unilaterally authorize a military attack only in the case of an actual or imminent threat to the country.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/02/1693632/obama-haunted-by-past-declarations.html#ixzz1ILbo57ha

[ohheckyeah]

1. I'm not really surprised by

Obama's actions. One the office of the president gets a power it's almost impossible to take it away. Once a man becomes president all that silly election rhetoric is discarded.

[dipsydoodle]

2. and what exactly was

the actual or imminent threat to the USA in this instance ?

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[Safetykitten]

4. he's not "haunted" by anything. Please.

[Bluebear]

5. ...

good point.

[leftstreet]

6. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

And, that maxim doesn't just apply to dictators.

[PufPuf23]

8. There is an entrenched military,, Congress, career Feds, and

plans that pre-exist POTUS Obama.

Also many revolving door consultancies and "lobbyests".

POTUS Obama is between a rock and a hard place but his direction in appointments is clear - against liberty, life, and fraternity for all.

He is a neo-liberal at best and at the worst bought planned tool.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Hey, here's a hot one: he was even wrong about it THEN: "imminent threat" is not enough, it's ATTACK

The War Powers Act is a fabulous bit of legislation, but why the hell people have such trouble understanding what is VERY clearly written is beyond me. I can sort of understand the mistaking of the UN Participation Act: it's worded a bit confusingly.

Here for the barfteenth time is how the War Powers Act puts it:

Section 2(c) 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.

The word "imminent" ONLY appears in the definition of "war", not in the instances in which he may go it alone. The word "imminent" further restricts the President's actions, not broadens it. What is being done here is deliberately defining what constitutes "war", and Congress uses the word "imminent" to pull the laces of the strait-jacket even tighter: it's not just considered war if he/she introduces "armed forces" into "hostilities"; they're defining it to be war if those forces are merely put into a hot zone where hostilities look very likely.

To reiterate, the President may ONLY go it alone IF WE'RE ATTACKED. So Mr. Constitutional Scholar had it wrong even then. Let's not quibble about constitutionality either: by citing the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution as justification for the Statute, Congress asserts that this is the governing law for utilizing the ENUMERATED POWER that is in the Constitution. Disobeying this law is an act of unconstitutional behavior.

Part of the problem here is that Presidents have chipped away at the edges and sleazed by with mealy-mouthed justifications that have effectively lowered the understanding and acceptance of the terms of the law. That tilled the field for this ugly, flagrant, high-handed act of illegality.

This what you get when incorrect things are allowed to be repeated without getting corrected. It's simply not true, no matter how many supposedly "above reproach" people think and/or say it is.

The Treaty obligation with the UN Charter is NOT self-authorizing, as the Charter and the UN Participation Act make repeatedly obvious, so there's no "out" there, either.

Here's the full text of the War Powers Act.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[Bluebear]

11. Thank you.

Why people are Ok with it just because the President has a "D" by his name is beyond me.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[bobbolink]

13. You are wrong in at least one case. *I* have been soundly attacked for being unhappy (to say the

least) with Obama.

I followed the Libyans struggle from the first, and I was in support of their request for a no fly zone.

For that I was also soundly attacked.

So, stop claiming that it was a "cult of personality".

Maybe for some... but for many of us, it most certainly is NOT.

Now, do the DU thing and add to the attacks rather than to try to understand why someone may disagree. Have fun with it.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. That's really not my way, and I think you'll see some consistency

Even if one is for this intervention, that doesn't mean one is unaware of or fine with the illegality. My beef is with people of many stances, but actually not with those who hold yours, and I think my posts will bear that out. You actually have my sympathy in this situation, because as a contrarian, I'm used to being he odd one out.

Those who truly cannot see the illegality because of the glory of the President and his prima facie infallibility really have my dander up. The core issue for me is respect for and obedience of the law. A close second is the fairly straight-laced respect for national sovereignty. Much of my lifelong interest in history has shown me that things are very complicated in civil wars, and often not what they seem. Most wars of all types are about money, the subjugation of others for money and the desire to pillage for resources or just plain money.

The last thing I want to do is sustain your frustration that everyone is hell-bent on dominating others in this situation and being intractable in their statements. Although not my intent, it has probably come across that I attribute ALL support for this mistake to the blind obedience to a charismatic politician; those with whom I have argued have certainly skewed things that way, and in the thick of things, one often shadow-boxes with people as if they were interchangeable, when they decidedly are not.

Quite frankly, I think that any sober analysis of this should show that, even if there are legitimate grievances, the level of violence has simply not been that great. It's callous and cold to say that a couple incidents of 24 people being killed in demonstrations--that were not all completely unarmed, mind you--hardly rise to the level of the claimed-as-real potential "tens of thousands". If the revolt had the groundswell to tip the balance, I feel it would have, but it didn't. Now we have war, and who knows where that goes. That may very well consume MANY MANY lives.

Regardless, I do not dismiss those who sincerely feel for the protesters, but I truly feel that this does not justify (in human lives alone, with no monetary metric at all) blowing this into a real mess. My involvement in these tussles came from the way it was done, and is seriously affected by my troubles with this President. The back-and-forth has devolved into the predictable nastiness, and I'm sure I've overstepped some boundaries of communal comportment, but I've also conceded a couple of points when I was mistaken.

You're a rare bird in this set-to, so expect to be mistaken amid the standard human dynamic of granting oneself great nuances and characterizing others as mere cut-outs.

Still, I would like to ask you this: if you supported a "no-fly zone", did you also support the actual Resolution 1973 as it came about, with virtually limitless organized murderous violence in the name of protecting the innocent? The final call-up was much more than a mere bit of hall monitoring or suppression of air operations; it literally allows for any level of full-on ground war, as long as the troops don't stay for occupation. We got bait-and-switched there, and the misrepresentation is very disturbing, especially in the casual way it is done. The interchangeable use of "civilians" and "rebels" is truly disturbing. The skewed depictions of some of the protests as peaceful and unarmed is disturbing.

More than anything, the attempt to wrest the power to decide to wage war from the people and have it rest in the hand of a single would-be king is most terrifying, and that is the true bugaboo for me.

I think you're mistaken in the dynamic here. I think that the fever of revolution hit the people, and they had legitimate grievances, but western corporate interests seized on this and thought they could benefit from having other people do their dirty work for them, and when the revolution was failing, they knew they had to force the situation. Playing on the emotions of people for financial gain is a truly ugly thing, especially when it involves deliberate mechanized mass-killing. You should feel played by this too, and judging from the tenor of your post, I'd say you probably do.

Please read the posts about the financial underpinnings of this: nationalization is a recurrent theme, and far too suspicious.

Also think of the various forces at play within the rebellion: there are plenty of Islamists who had been severely suppressed by Qaddafi. Perhaps the disparate elements of the rebellion are more at odds than an effective common front needs. It's all very hard to say, and the feel of the whole thing seems classically exploited.

You are not the enemy, and I'm sorry if you feel I would lump you together with those of the other stances I dispute.

For a moment, though: you ARE aware that this is illegal, correct? Also, you ARE aware of the oil issues that have influenced this, right?

[bobbolink]

17. Actually, I see NO consistency, and a continuing need to judge.

And telling me to "expect" to be dragged over the coals... on a forum where there has been a lot of pleading by both the owner and posters for "civility" is just about as hypocritical as it gets.

The fact that *I* was paying attention to the deaths and KNOW the extent of the and you weren't, yet you castigate me for caring about the blood bath that was to happen..... No, I really don't see you as a "progressive", nor do I want the party or people in general to have that kind of denigrating attitude.

I also know that when people talk as you have, there is no hope of any conversation... it is only power, criticism, putdowns, and smears.

So, have at it.

There is no point, and if you want, declare victory. I really don't care.

Welcome to my ignore list. Good bye.

[BOG PERSON]

15. "+1"

i can't say what's going on inside obama's head but there is definitely a lot of uncritical, unprincipled support for him (as a person) trying to pass itself off as critical and principled support for his policy.

[joshcryer]

14. OMG, I'm so tired of this shit. I see it posted so many times. IT IS WRONG AND HERE IS WHY:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000287---d000-.html

§ 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

THIS INVOKES (2) specific statutory authorization

END.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Your very quote once again proves you wrong: he doesn't need authorization if he already has it.

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

Here's the Journal of American International Politics to explain it once again for you:

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

It's in Section IV:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

It's as plain as day, and it's settled law. Shouting down opponents does not make you correct.

[readmoreoften]

10. Another reason why I never listen to a word the man says. I just look at who he's affiliated with

and what he does. "By Their Actions You Shall Know Them"