As I've said before, the Obama administration is in clear violation of the War Powers Act. Now we find out that even the official White House legal counsel said so before we went into Libya. That's what this administration does when it hears advice and opinions different from its own agenda. They just ignore what they're told or what they're asked to do.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43447824/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
This administration's first denial on this which they tried using to defend not getting congress' okay was that this isn't a "war" so the War Powers Act doesn't apply. Well, if only the title of that law defined what he's restricted from doing that may be a reasonable argument. But the TEXT of that law defines it clearly ... it says this law applies anywhere we're engaged in "hostilities".
That first denial (ie, it isn't a war) was shot down so resoundingly that they had to come up with a different rationale. So their second take on this which their press secretary told the media is that these are not "hostilities" that we're engaged in. The reason this is an important distinction is that the War Powers Act applies wherever and whenever we're engaged in "hostilities". They argue that these aren't hostilities because we didn't and don't have "boots on the ground" there. First, that's an outright lie because we've had special forces on the ground there since before we started bombing their country. But even if we didn't have special forces on the ground there, how can any rational person think, much less declare, that these aren't "hostilities"?
Look up the word hostilities. The first def'n in Merriam-Webster is "an unfriendly state or action". Bombing the crap out of a sovereign nation certainly qualifies don't you think? The second def'n is "over ACT of war". While we haven't declared this to be an official war, that's not what this second def'n even talks about. That def'n says "ACT" of war. Again, bombing the crap out of a sovereign nation certainly qualifies as an act of war whether there is in fact an officially declared 'state' of war.
This administration's third defense was that, even if these are hostilities, we haven't picked sides. For one thing the War Powers Act MAKES NO SUCH EXCEPTION (regarding picking or not picking sides)! They're saying we're "ONLY keeping the government there from killing its own citizens". Problem is, a significant percentage of their citizens support Gadhafi and his war against the rebels there. What's gong on in Libya is a CIVIL WAR, period! And we're injecting ourselves into it. Why? Because the REBELS (only!) asked NATO to help. Therefore, we've chosen to protect the rebels. Of course we've picked sides. Don't you remember that Obama said at the beginning of this that Gadhafi had to go ... period. We do NOT simply want him to stop killing some of his citizens. All this means we HAVE taken the side of the rebels who are trying to get rid of him, not the citizens who want to keep him. The administration's defense in this regard is such a lame rationale! It completely defies logic.
NOW this administration is saying that because NATO authorized this action that, as NATO members, we must do what NATO agrees to do. Huh? Not only does the War Powers Act make NO SUCH EXCEPTION to its applicability, since when do we let other countries determine what we should do in the use of our military and in the interests of our national security? This argument is SO full of holes that it's hard to believe this adminstration has any smart people in it at all. Even IF NATO agrees to help a country in trouble does NOT mean the NATO member countries ALL have to contribute. Don't you recall the many times NATO has chosen to do something (like Afghanistan!!!) and one or more member countries chose NOT to participate?
If presidents don't like the restrictions in the War Powers Act they MUST find a way to get the law changed. Can YOU simply ignore laws you don't like? Of course not! And according to the constitution, EVEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MAY NOT(!!!) IGNORE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. If anyone, including the president, doesn't like a law they MUST change it OR follow the law. THOSE are the ONLY choices ANYONE has! NO ONE MAY SIMPLY IGNORE A LAW. Regardless whether any of us like that Act, it IS law and presidents are obliged under the constitution to implement, support and follow ALL laws created by congress. Laws are created in The People's House (of Representatives) and the executive branch's JOB is to implement them. Our founders set up our country this way for a reason. They did not want ONE MAN to be able to take our country to war in any way or to be able to disregard lawful laws created by congress. The People, by way of The People's House, have ALWAYS been who says what we do in such regards. Read the constitution if you don't believe me.
There's a reason why congress put this restriction on presidents. World Wars started over far more insignificant actions/circumstances between countries. And this is well beyond trivial. Bombing the crap out of a sovereign nation IS and "ACT" of war (whether actual war has been declared or not). C'mon folks! Do you REALLY want ANY one person in our country committing acts of war regardless what Congress says? History has PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that World Wars CAN start over less of an offense. Because ANY such action as this Libyan thing can lead to FAR WORSE problems for our country and outright DIRE consequences, it behooves us as a country for such decisions to be made involving all three branches, the House, Senate and Executive Branch. It doesn't mean we wouldn't have gone in there anyway but we would have gone in there having thought it out as thoroughly as we could. We very well might have done a better job too. After all congress is full of some pretty bright and knowledgeable people. Many have served in the military in real wars and understand the hazzards and risks better than an administration full of people who have never served or have been in a position of responsibility during a real war. Engaging congress in decisions to commit 'acts' of war is not only the law, it's simply smart to do.
Bottom Line: ours was created as a government of CHECKS AND BALANCES because HISTORY HAS PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that too much power in the hands of just one branch IS a very, very dangerous thing.
To me, the president's actions and disregard of a lawful law passed by congress that was specifically passed to apply to him and other presidents, is a technical violation of both that law and of his oath of office to uphold the constitution (which says he is to obey and execute all laws passed into law). That makes it an impeachable offense by the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment