Reps. Kucinich, Jones to File Suit on Libya

[SparrowHawk]

Reps. Kucinich, Jones to File Suit on Libya
Wednesday, 15 Jun 2011 01:29 PM
By Dan Weil

Various members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have complained that President Barack Obama has failed to seek congressional authority for our attacks on Libya as required by the War Powers Resolution. And Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C., are slated to file a lawsuit Wednesday related to that complaint, The Hill reports.

esday night saying that other congressmen would join the legal action. The bipartisan duo has argued that Obama has violated the War Powers Resolution.

Earlier this month, the House approved a resolution asking for details of the military attack in Libya by the end of this week. Many in Congress maintain that is the deadline by which U.S. troops must withdraw if the administration hasn’t obtained congressional approval.

Commentary:

By my last count we have now engaged our Empire in a total of four active military actions that we as citizens are aware of:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Yemen

What is even more frightening is that at least once in almost every decade, not counting World Wars we've been involved in as many as four separate military actions almost once every decade for the last 100 years. What is different and this has been true since our involvement in the Korean Conflict is that US Presidents have placed our men and women in harms way without the advice and consent of Congress.

In the period from 1950 to present there had been approximately 125 military actions. Ranging from a few hundred Marines to protect and evacuate embassy's to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the fraudulent pretext used to inject the US into Viet Nam. In fact President Lyndon Johnson seems to lead the league with 14 incursions not counting the escalation in Viet Nam on his 5 year resumes as POTUS. Since 1950 there have been no formal Declarations of War coming from the US Congress which has often chosen to abdicate it's powers, ceding then to the POTUS which has the bone chilling, liberty robbing effect of creating "The Kings Army" used at the discretion of the POTUS. This was why the Founding Fathers insisted on the Congress having a clearly defined roll in the use of military force.

Further if we agree with the Declaration of Independence that "The Creator" confers rights to ALL MEN then doesn't that extend to those who live in other countries? Isn't it their right to live as they see fit? under Sharia Law if they so desire? Frankly what business is of ours how the Afghans decide to apply those rights conferred upon them by their Creator? This is where the Empire building, imperialistic and interventionist policy's of the last 100 years have gotten us to where we are today.

We are now at a point where we have a Nobel Peace Prize winning President embroiled in at least 4 wars we know about and a fiscal policy that will soon make our imperialism impossible. So now after 100 years of Empire Building Interventionist Foreign Policy, the US Congress is finally waking up and asking the hard questions. However the real question is will it be to little, to late to keep the USA from following in the footsteps of other great empires that ran out of the ability to support their Empire?

 

[SparrowHawk]

LIBYA BOMBSHELL: Obama Overruled Two Top Lawyers, Who Told Him War Must Be Terminated
Joe Weisenthal | Jun. 17, 2011, 9:42 PM

This week several members of Congress challenged Obama on the legality of the Libya war, given that actions have exceeded the 90 60 day period during which The White House doesn't need Congressional authority for military action under the War Powers Act, after which troops have 30 days to get out.

The White House response: We don't need Congressional approval because this is not technically a hostile action (because we don't have ground troops in Libya).

Tonight the NYT has a major bombshell: Two top lawyers -- Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel -- told The White House otherwise.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder sided with Krass.

But Rather than heed their advice, he instead went with two lawyers with views more favorable to him: Bob Bauer (who is internal at The White House), and State Department advisor Harold Koh.

More Here

10 Congressmen And A Law Professor Just Sued To Stop The War In Libya

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and a handful of students filed a legal challenge today on behalf of 10 members of Congress protesting America's involvement in Libya.

According to a press release today, Turley filed the litigation on behalf of:

John Conyers, Jr (D., Mich)
Dan Burton (R., Ind.)
Mike Capuano (D., Mass.)
Howard Coble, (R., N.C.)
John Conyers, (D. Mich.)
John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.)
Tim Johnson (R., Ill.)
Walter Jones (R., N.C.)
Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio)
Ron Paul (R. Tex.)

The bi-partisan group are basing their argument on the War Powers Act of 1973 which states the president may not send troops into combat for more than 90 days total, without the express consent of Congress.

Hurley has handled many high-profile cases including the representation of five former Attorneys General

Once again the arrogance of the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is displayed in bold relief for all to see. Another shining example of the morally bankrupt Left with their don't do as I do, Do as I say attitude.

 

[Ms Tree]

I think they are suing the wrong people. They need to be going after Congress for agreeing to a treaty that obligated us to supply troops for a UN action. Unless you are arguing that the treaty violates the COTUS I do not think that the Congress people have a case. Just some grand standing for the brain dead electorate.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I think they are suing the wrong people. They need to be going after Congress for agreeing to a treaty that obligated us to supply troops for a UN action. Unless you are arguing that the treaty violates the COTUS I do not think that the Congress people have a case. Just some grand standing for the brain dead electorate.

Doesn't change the fact that Obama feels he's above the law, the arrogant prick.

The proper avenue for Congress would be to de-fund the Imperial Empire and force the troops home or failing that impeach the POTUS.

 

[Ms Tree]

What law is he violating? If we have treaty obligations that bypass the WPA then there is no violation of the law. This is why there is a law suit to determine if the law is being violated.

The fact that they have not defunded the war speaks volumes. The case is grand standing. My guess it the court will rule in Obama favor.

Since you have already determined that the law is being violated by all means contact the proper authorities and save them all some time. I am sure they will be very appreciative of your assistance.

Talk about arrogance.

 

[SparrowHawk]

What law is he violating? If we have treaty obligations that bypass the WPA then there is no violation of the law. This is why there is a law suit to determine if the law is being violated.

The fact that they have not defunded the war speaks volumes. The case is grand standing. My guess it the court will rule in Obama favor.

Since you have already determined that the law is being violated by all means contact the proper authorities and save them all some time. I am sure they will be very appreciative of your assistance.

Talk about arrogance.

The War Powers Act has been violated in the opinions of many. Problem is, at least for me is the War Powers act is unconstitutional in and of itself. This is what happens when a nation Empire Builds, Thomas Jefferson warned us and we didn't listen. Now here we are with an Imperial President since at least 1913 and we act surprised why half the world hates us and the other half we give money to for them to engage in proxy wars on our behalf. (Hint: Think NATO, SEATO, United Nations etc etc) Then we all sit round wringing our hands as to why they come to kill us now?

I mean really!!! Thinks the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor because they were bored and had nothing to do on December 7th, or was it because we tried to dry up their oil supply? Hmmm now let me see.

Cut off Jap oil = Pearl Harbor
14 Military bases on the Arabian Peninsula = 9/11
Support Batista = Castro
Support Somoza = Sandinista
Destabilize Allende = Pinochet
Attack Libya = ????
Bomb Yemen = ????
Invade Iraq = Jury still out
Afghanistan Incursion = ????

• Anyone seeing a pattern of the misuse of our military?
• Of a failed Foreign Policy that essentially says "My way or the highway" to other countries?
• Have ANY of the above incursions, with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor improved the average citizens Freedom & Liberty in a measurable way?
• Have these efforts led to a decrease of essential Liberty (Patriot Act, TSA, RICO, FISA Courts, etc etc)

If you answered "YES" to all but question #3 then you should IMO declare as a Libertarian.

 

[Ms Tree]

I do not know if the WPA is in violation of the COTUS or not. As of right now no one has ruled on that. Opinions are like butts. Everyone has one. In this case the courts opinion is the only one that matters.

The president needs to have the ability to act quickly. Congress can be far to slow in some circumstances. That was the idea behind the WPA as I recall.

 

[delldude]

What law is he violating? If we have treaty obligations that bypass the WPA then there is no violation of the law. This is why there is a law suit to determine if the law is being violated.

The fact that they have not defunded the war speaks volumes. The case is grand standing. My guess it the court will rule in Obama favor.

Since you have already determined that the law is being violated by all means contact the proper authorities and save them all some time. I am sure they will be very appreciative of your assistance.

Talk about arrogance.

I wonder, you ever contact Thomas Merton Law Center and tell them they were wrong on that other thread?

Obama overruled two of his lawyers advice which was contrary to what he did regarding Libyia.

Disregarding the Wars Powers Act is a violation of US law, and he is the chief law enforcement officer for the country if you weren't aware.

So who wrong here?

 

[Ms Tree]

It has not been determined if he violated the WPA. That is why a law suit is being filed and why Congress has not defunded the action. Obama is arguing that the NATO agreement nullifies the need to notify Congress as per the WPA. Interesting argument and if true, shame on Congress for passing it.

We have treaty agreements with various nations that stipulate if they are attacked, we will come to their aid with what ever force is necessary. Does Congress need to OK that or is it already implied that Congress has agreed to the use of force by the fact that they ratified the treaty? Does Congress need to OK the use of force via NATO or have they already authorized that use of force by mere fact that we are a member of NATO?

What thread are you referring to that I need to notify someone that they are wrong? I am pretty sure I stated the view as my opinion not as fact as Sparrow is doing in this case.

 

[delldude]

It has not been determined if he violated the WPA. That is why a law suit is being filed and why Congress has not defunded the action. Obama is arguing that the NATO agreement nullifies the need to notify Congress as per the WPA. Interesting argument and if true, shame on Congress for passing it.

We have treaty agreements with various nations that stipulate if they are attacked, we will come to their aid with what ever force is necessary. Does Congress need to OK that or is it already implied that Congress has agreed to the use of force by the fact that they ratified the treaty? Does Congress need to OK the use of force via NATO or have they already authorized that use of force by mere fact that we are a member of NATO?

What thread are you referring to that I need to notify someone that they are wrong? I am pretty sure I stated the view as my opinion not as fact as Sparrow is doing in this case.

So we or NATO were attacked by Libya?

Two White House lawyers advised him he couldn't do it.

Then Obama said he didn't have to because UN told him, then it was NATO.....so what is it.......he wrong on all counts.

You on here defending this clown who does end runs on the COTUS.

BTW, Congress moving this week to cut off funding......Duh.

 

[Ms Tree]

So we or NATO were attacked by Libya?

Two White House lawyers advised him he couldn't do it.

Then Obama said he didn't have to because UN told him, then it was NATO.....so what is it.......he wrong on all counts.

You on here defending this clown who does end runs on the COTUS.

BTW, Congress moving this week to cut off funding......Duh.

Not that I am aware of. Neither did Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq or Greneda. What's your point?

So they advised him not to. Do you know why they advised him not to? Was the reason legal or political?

Both the UN and NATO are involved in this are they not? Are you also saying he is in violation of the law? Based on what? Or are you just saying you don't like what he is doing? I would agree with the later, not the former as there has been no judgement by the courts to determine that.

Not defending anything. Just looking at the legal question as I understand it not the personal view points. Also, he did an end run around the WPA not the COTUS. From all accounts I have read so far, he is on firm legal ground. I do not agree with it ethically and I think it is a dumb idea to be in Libya but legally, it seems he is OK. Similar with Bush. Iraq and Afghan were the dumbest moves since "Dance Fever" but he did not technically violate the law. I believe he intentionally lied to Congress and the people (cannot be proven) and he got congressional approval for his unilateral war (unilateral war is why he needed Congressional approval and what makes it different from Libya) so legally it appears Bush got away with it.

They can move all they want to. Only thing that maters is if they actually do it. Personally I hope they do. I think the main issue will be is if the US does have treaty obligations that is is obligated to fill, that will put the POTUS and the US in a awkward situation regarding any treaties we are a part of.

 

[777 fixer]

I mean really!!! Thinks the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor because they were bored and had nothing to do on December 7th, or was it because we tried to dry up their oil supply? Hmmm now let me see.

Cut off Jap oil = Pearl Harbor

What does that have to do with the the WPA?

 

[SparrowHawk]

What does that have to do with the the WPA?

It has to do with our continued interventionist polices dating back to at least 1913.

I mean really??? Afghanistan?? We could BUY the entire country for what 10 Cruise Missles cost and have enough left over for an Ice Cream Party on the White House Lawn. Unless the US is getting into the opium trade there is little reason for us to still be there. There is no vital US interest in Libya, Yemen or Iraq. Bring'em home NOW!

 

[777 fixer]

It has to do with our continued interventionist polices dating back to at least 1913.

I mean really??? Afghanistan?? We could BUY the entire country for what 10 Cruise Missles cost and have enough left over for an Ice Party on the White House Lawn. Unless the US is getting into the opium trade there is little reason for us to still be there. There is no vital US interest in Libya, Yemen or Iraq. Bring'em home NOW!

It's interventionist that we placed an oil embargo on Japan? Please explain how that works. Would you have prefered that we continued to help fuel the Japanese war machine in China? If we had done that then people would have said that the US was getting blood money for oil.

You seem to think that the US can be invovled in trade, i.e. oil to Japan, and pretend they are not involved on the world stage. Obviously that is not the case. By cutting off oil to Japan we forced their hand. Unfortanetly for them they choose the wrong corse of action. And if we just continued supplying oil to Japan people would be saying we profited off mass murder. Is that what you would have prefered?

 

[SparrowHawk]

It's interventionist that we placed an oil embargo on Japan? Please explain how that works. Would you have prefered that we continued to help fuel the Japanese war machine in China? If we had done that then people would have said that the US was getting blood money for oil.

You seem to think that the US can be invovled in trade, i.e. oil to Japan, and pretend they are not involved on the world stage. Obviously that is not the case. By cutting off oil to Japan we forced their hand. Unfortunately for them they choose the wrong corse of action. And if we just continued supplying oil to Japan people would be saying we profited off mass murder. Is that what you would have prefered?

I think war was inevitable. It should also be noted that there was a formal Declaration of War voted on by Congress. The point was and remains that there is a cause & effect reaction to EVERY foreign intervention. CIA calls it "blow back".

Sometimes world politics is very similar to the neighborhood you live in. Some people are pretty open and laid back. Others stick there nose into everybody's business and then act shocked when they get punched in the nose or worse. The USA should just be a good neighbor. Basement flood Harry? Sure I can help you. Drain clogged Ethel? NO worries you can borrow my snake. NO Bill I won't go with and confront that a-hole Jim over the two new lawn jockeys. Beside he bought them for me and I got them from the little Chinese guy over on Elm, made a good buck too.

If we led by example perhaps they wouldn't come to kill us.