Obama, Libya, deadlines..

[Deleted]

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA WILLINGLY VIOLATE THE WAR POWERS ACT?
Posted on May 21, 2011 at 6:49am
Is President Obama about to violate federal law? It’s possible, though the administration is currently exploring several options that would enable a continued presence in Libya without superseding executive powers.

It’s been two months since the president sent Congress a letter announcing the U.S.-led mission in Libya. And now, 60 days later, Obama’s time frame for securing Congressional approval has expired. The 1973 War Powers Act requires that the president get congressional authorization at the end of the two-month mark. If permission isn’t granted, the mission must conclude within 30 days.

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently testified that the president has operated under the War Powers Resolution since the beginning of the Libya mission and that he will continue to do so. But, unless the president has plans to make major changes to U.S. involvement in the mission or find another work-around plan today, he will find himself violating federal law.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are less than pleased with the lack of protocol being employed.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, tells CNN he believes Obama is trying to “bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States.”
“He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law,” Sherman said…
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, concurs.
“You could say, ‘Well, we have a good president, he’ll do the right thing.’ Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that’s why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people,” Paul told CNN.

While there are certainly lawmakers who are displeased with Obama’s handling of the matter, Congressional leaders have remained relatively quiet — a point of frustration for critics on both sides of the aisle. With an impending presidential campaign, both sides are likely weighing the political risks of taking a more definitive stance.

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.
By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.
Another idea is for the United States to order a complete — but temporary — halt to all of its efforts in the Libya mission. Some lawyers make the case that, after a complete pause, the United States could rejoin the mission with a new 60-day clock.
It will be interesting to see if Obama’s handling of Libya sets a new precedent for presidential behaviors, or if Congress will stand up and be vocal.

Videos in link.
www.theblaze.com/stories/will-president-obama-willingly-violate-the-war-powers-act/

[Deleted]

blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization
May 20, 2011 7:14 PM


In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”

“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”

The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”

Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.”

[Deleted]

SO-- Obama has found some sneaky way to keep us involved in another war?? Wonder what the anti-war folks think about this? You can BET this will be watched closely. Obama cannot just do whatever the heck he pleases, fleets of liberal lawyers or not.

[Deleted]

The other thread beat mine by 3 minutes. I'm fine with it being moved.

[cereb]

May 21, 2011 14:29:33 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

SO-- Obama has found some sneaky way to keep us involved in another war?? Wonder what the anti-war folks think about this? You can BET this will be watched closely. Obama cannot just do whatever the heck he pleases, fleets of liberal lawyers or not.

LOL, just curious, what do you think would be his motive for deliberately keeping us at war?

[Deleted]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/congress-returns-town-demand-obama-ok-libya/

House of Representatives
Congress Returns to Town With Demand Obama Get OK on Libya
Published May 22, 2011
| FoxNews.com

President Obama could be impeached for violating U.S. Constitution and law by going into Libya without congressional consent, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he doesn't want to cause that kind of havoc on the Republic, he just wants the United States to get out of Libya's civil war.
While many lawmakers in general support the U.S. role in Libya, even if they want the final say on approving military action, Kucinich, D-Ohio, will introduce a joint resolution when Congress returns this week that he says "hopefully will lead us out of this mess that we've waded into in Libya."
The eight-term congressman and former presidential candidate said Obama "moved to attack Libya without constitutional authority" and violated U.S. law by not complying with the War Powers Act, which requires a president to get authorization from Congress within 60 days of launching a military action.
He told Fox News on Sunday that absent an imminent threat, the president is not allowed to usurp the role of Congress in determining whether or not to declare war. Kucinich added that the president is aware of that separation of powers authority because he used the argument in 2007 to protest President George W. Bush's troop surge.
"He knows better and we have to call him on that," Kucinich said.

MORE

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

President Obama could be impeached for violating U.S. Constitution and law by going into Libya without congressional consent

S.Res.85 - A resolution strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.

...

3/1/2011--Passed Senate without amendment.
www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr85/show

I posted this the last time the "without consent" question was raised. Oh you Conservatives and your selective amnesia.

I saw even Rachel Maddow is getting in on the action by showing some clips of rockets blowing shit up.

Did you see the link or is this another installment of "Ratchet Time Story Hour"?

And Conservatives had their chance to "get on the action," but I guess fatcat contracts in Iraq were more important or something. Maybe someday, you can actually say "Mission Accomplished" and it be true at the same time. Until then, I guess it's sour grapes whine-ing.