The War in Libya Growing More Illegal by the Day by Glenn Greenwald

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/02-5

To the extent that the War Powers Resolution (WPR) authorized President Obama to fight a war in Libya for 60 days without Congressional approval -- and, for reasons I described here, it did not -- that 60-day period expired 12 days ago. Since that date, the war has been unquestionably illegal even under the original justifications of Obama defenders, though I realize that objecting to "illegal wars" -- or wars generally -- is so very 2005. After making clear that they intended to contrive "some plausible theory" to justify this illegal war, the White House finally settled on the claim that the war in Libya -- despite featuring substantial U.S. military action with the goal of destroying a foreign army and removing that nation's leader -- is too small and limited to be a real "war" under the Constitution and the WPR.

Even the White House seemed to recognize the absurdity of that excuse -- the WRP explicitly applies "in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced (1) into hostilities" -- and the President thus subsequently requested a Resolution from Congress approving the war. That authorization, however, never came, and now it seems that Congress is closer to doing the opposite: approving a bipartisan bill opposing the war:


On Wednesday, 74 days after U.S. forces joined the military operation in Libya, President Obama seemed to run out of goodwill on Capitol Hill.

A group of both liberals and conservatives -- defying the leaders of both parties --- threw their support behind a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation. That prospect led GOP leaders to shelve the bill before it came to a vote. . . .

More at the link --

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Vincardog]

2. recommend

[EFerrari]

3. K&R

[Distant Observer]

13. k&r

[frylock]

4. knr

[gratuitous]

5. Don't look for Congress to do anything about it

Nobody wants to find out if the War Powers Act really means what they think it means, either in the legislative or the executive branch. The law is meaningless without a court interpretation, and the executive branch does whatever it wants, unconstrained by any language in the law. Kucinich introduced a non-binding resolution that was scheduled for a vote today, but it got pulled by a nervous John Boehner. It appeared that through an unlikely combination of concerned Democrats and monkey-wrenching Republicans, the resolution (toothless as it was) might pass, and that couldn't be allowed to happen.

I've heard of representative government; maybe it's time to give it a try in the U.S.A.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Yes and no

The real truth is that the Republicans LOVE imperial executives and are firmly convinced that they'll dominate the office, so they're happy to see Bill Clinton and Barack Obama flagrantly disobey it.

As for the law being meaningless unless interpreted by courts, that's just crap: it's the binding, standing law and has been for almost 38 years now. Nobody's challenged it seriously, because they're scared stiff that it's a truly valid codification of the constitution's wording and intent. It's truly a beautifully crafted bit of legislation, and leaves no real loopholes that I can see.

You're very much right though: there's a collusion in government to rule by dictate and disregard the will of the people, and the Citizens United decision may very well polish off whatever hopes we may have for any reasonable representation.

Meanwhile, egocentric Obama partisans virulently attack anyone who tries to bring some reason and circumspection to bear, refusing ANY criticism of his actions.

Not a good time.

[Distant Observer]

11. After all the complaints re Bush criminality, it is so sad to see our Pres skirt the law

[leftstreet]

6. K&R

[Luminous Animal]

7. K & R

[WatsonT]

8. But he was killing his own people!

Also probably building WMDs.

Whatever, don't think so much.

[Distant Observer]

12. So much worse that killing in another country like we do.

[sad sally]

14. And if we can't kill them outright, the stuff left by the bombs will eventually.

Since the start of the war against Gadhafi, speculation by critics on the likelihood or risk that Western powers use the discredited weaponry in Libya has primarily focused on the potential inclusion of depleted uranium in two types of weapons; as warhead or armor enhancing material in cruise missiles; and as part of the shells fired by A-10 military planes. In view of the past, inclusion in the shells fired by the A-10 Thunderbolt is more than likely.

Although Western officials routinely deny that they have used depleted uranium in the war on Libya, they have not excluded its possibility either. There are ample reasons to suspect that the denials are a war tactic, as was the initial denial stating that Western powers do not target bringing down Gadhafi’s government. The fear is justified that the Libyan civilian population will face long-lasting radiation effects from depleted uranium weapons used over their territory.

(Inter Press Service)

[Distant Observer]

9. The War is a SCAM. Just have to look to Bahrain, Syria, Yemen etc to know there's a special agenda

behind the peculiar pattern of response to Libya.