Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers

[Polk]

They seem to forget that BUSH went to the Congress directly and got their blessing. Obama did not.

Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act...and it's that simple. he's trying to weasel his way out of it with lawyers.

You are correct that Bush asked Congress for permission, but the administration also clearly stated they did not require congressional approval.

Bush says he doesn't believe the WPA is constitutional, but follows it.

Obama says it clearly is, and ignores it.

Which of those positions is more reprehensible?

That's a false dilemma.

 

[Google]

Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

That is one way of looking at it.

Another way is that he made up his mind, then went out and told his lawyers that they should go out and give him the gist of the arguments for and against that position, but not actually offer him any advice about what the law actually means.

Do you support this administration's claim that the strategic military campaign being waged by the United States and NATO does not meet the criteria of being considered 'hostilities'?

Again you can spin this anyway you want, the fact of the matter is Congress can trump this administration's policy simply by denying funding; a very real possibility considering the bi-partisan sentiment against this 'military kinetic action'. Obama can claim that he is above the Wars Powers Act, but do you not see the blatant hypocrisy of the left calling Bush a dictator?

America is more divided now then any time since the Civil War, which has been this president's goal since the beginning.

 

[Jack Fate]

Yes, they can see the hypocrisy, but don't expect any response or honesty. It's not in them.

 

[Salt Jones]

well, saw this on Memorandum.....I saw it at hot air as well and, frankly, I would be just robing their words so I will let them tell it...

first the Times;

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch…

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

more at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all


comment-
The Times is treating it as the major story that it is, but under a Republican president (especially one named, say, George Bush) it would be a scandal of nuclear proportions. What they’re basically saying here, without actually saying it, is that the president’s own lawyers told him that the Libya war is illegal and he responded by looking around for other lawyers who’d tell him what he wanted to hear.

See what he did here? The OLC is typically called “the president’s law firm” because it’s tasked with advising him on what he can and can’t legally do with his office. They study the law and consult with relevant agencies, and then they make a formal determination to guide his actions. That’s what should have happened here — they likely would have determined that he was violating the War Powers Act, which in turn would have forced him to go to Congress and finally request formal authorization of the mission. (In fact, Johnson, the Pentagon’s counsel, reportedly told Obama he’d be on firmer ground if he stopped the drone strikes, at least. Obama refused.) This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the OLC as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t. Disgraceful.

NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers « Hot Air

In other words? Obama still thinks he's a King, and can do what the Hell he likes as long as he gets bolstering of the appropriate 'yesmen' despite the fact he knows he's wrong.

I don't think he 'knows he's wrong', I think that he's made the classic mistake of believing his own hype.... he think he's above the law.

It's called a Unitary Executive.

 

[Salt Jones]

Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

That is one way of looking at it.

Another way is that he made up his mind, then went out and told his lawyers that they should go out and give him the gist of the arguments for and against that position, but not actually offer him any advice about what the law actually means.

Do you support this administration's claim that the strategic military campaign being waged by the United States and NATO does not meet the criteria of being considered 'hostilities'?

Again you can spin this anyway you want, the fact of the matter is Congress can trump this administration's policy simply by denying funding; a very real possibility considering the bi-partisan sentiment against this 'military kinetic action'. Obama can claim that he is above the Wars Powers Act, but do you not see the blatant hypocrisy of the left calling Bush a dictator?

America is more divided now then any time since the Civil War, which has been this president's goal since the beginning.

Yep, that's his goal. Watch out you just may end up in Obama's version of Andersonville.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Good for Obama he did the right thing.

Obamaturd hasn't done the right thing yet. He should be impeached for being an embarrassing disappointment.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Lets see, you dimwits blasted Bush when he did the right thing, with the dimwits in congresses support by the way, and now support obamaturd when he couldn't do the right thing to impress his wife. What a bunch of idiots.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'm saying that the left are not doing the same thing now to Obama like they did with Bush.
On this so called non war in Libya,the left should be screaming to impeach Obama.
If Bush had done this very same thing, all of the mainstream media would be screaming about how illegal it is.

They seem to forget that BUSH went to the Congress directly and got their blessing. Obama did not.

Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act...and it's that simple. he's trying to weasel his way out of it with lawyers.

After his CIA lied about the threat. he he he the

Still the "blessing" is the blessing even though the intel was cherry picked

Its funny how you guys are bitching about Obama's use of the military when this intervention in Libya involves so little blood and treasure compared to Ambush Alley. Wish the partisan hacks on both sides could be honest for a change.

What a crock of total SHIT. It's one thing for you leftist zombies to walk lockstep with DingleBarry but when you lie your damn ass off, it's altogether another.. Have the fuckin guts to tell the truth!

From your OWN NYT:
100,000 Libyan Casualties? - NYTimes.com

More Libyan casualties than an entire 8 yr conflict in Iraq. YOU SAID NOT MUCH TREASURE???


Libya war costs US taxpayers $2m a day and still no Gaddafi | Mail Online

2 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY! Oh, that's not much, right?? YOU IDIOT HACK!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So here's the real question.

Why hasn't Congress voted on Libya?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Getting conflicting advice from counsel is an impeachment offense?

Brilliant.

Focus on the idiotic response and ignore the abuse of power by the person who runs the country, partisanship at its finest.

His response was no more idiotic than your OP.

I know, you never have a problem with abuse of power, as long as you agree with the intent. That is because you, like many idiots, think intent matters more than results, or the fact that someone else can come along later and do the exact same thing with a bad intent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Getting conflicting advice from counsel is an impeachment offense?

I guess you can it "conflicting advice from counsel" when your counsel advises you not to break the law...after all, it conflicts with your own desire...

You may want to go back and read the article before you embarrass yourself any further.

What about Obama not seeking formal advice from his lawyers conflicts with what Allie said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't, I have a killer headache, lol.

Then I'll give you the summary.

OLC and Defense said it was violation.
State and the WH Counsel said it was not.

Your summary sucks.

Here is a summary of the actual article.

Obama told the OLC not to submit a formal recommendation., he just asked them to gather opinions from various departments and pass them on. For those who might not understand how this works, the Office of Legal Counsel is tasked with giving the president advice about the law. It is considered to be the president's law firm. By telling them he did not want a formal recommendation he was essentially telling them not to do their job in advising him on the law.

That tells me that he had already made up his mind and was looking for legal opinions that helped him do what he wanted to do.

That actually reminds me of J.P. Morgan and why he hired lawyers. "Well, I don't know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell how to do what I want to do."

I thought you opposed robber barons, I guess I was wrong.

 

[Trajan]

Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

That is one way of looking at it.

Another way is that he made up his mind, then went out and told his lawyers that they should go out and give him the gist of the arguments for and against that position, but not actually offer him any advice about what the law actually means.

Do you support this administration's claim that the strategic military campaign being waged by the United States and NATO does not meet the criteria of being considered 'hostilities'?

Again you can spin this anyway you want, the fact of the matter is Congress can trump this administration's policy simply by denying funding; a very real possibility considering the bi-partisan sentiment against this 'military kinetic action'. Obama can claim that he is above the Wars Powers Act, but do you not see the blatant hypocrisy of the left calling Bush a dictator?

America is more divided now then any time since the Civil War, which has been this president's goal since the beginning.

heres, the exec. order he issued where in claimed that libya fit the mold for action was, well, nonsense, the msm by and large didn't huff very loudly.

We are here and it is now, IF we were to pull funding right now, nato would vaporize bringing even further discredit on an org. that has begun ( rightfully) to appear as foolish, misguided and inept as as its native gov. inaction and lack of support deserve.

We have hold of the proverbial tigers tail, and if we let go, nato may just come apart, to say nothing of our embarrassment, leading from behind notwithstanding.


interesting piece....

Libya and the Potemkin alliance

G. Will

America’s intervention in Libya’s civil war, the most protracted and least surreptitious assassination attempt in history, was supposed to last “days, not weeks,” but is in its fourth month and has revealed NATO to be an increasingly fictitious military organization. Although this war has no discernible connection with U.S. national security, it serves the national interest, in three ways. It is awakening some legislators to their responsibilities. It is refuting the pretense that the United Nations sets meaningful parameters to wars it authorizes — or endorses, which is quite different. And it is igniting a reassessment of NATO, a Potemkin alliance whose primary use these days is perverse: It provides a patina of multilateralism to U.S. military interventions on which Europe is essentially a free rider.


Recently, one-third of the House of Representatives — 87 Republicans and 61 Democrats — unavailingly but honorably voted to end American involvement in Libya in 15 days. Were Barack Obama not taking a Nixonian approach to the law — the War Powers Resolution — his intervention would have ended last month. The WPR requires interventions to end after 60 days, absent congressional approval.

more at-
Libya and the Potemkin alliance - The Washington Post

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are correct that Bush asked Congress for permission, but the administration also clearly stated they did not require congressional approval.

Bush says he doesn't believe the WPA is constitutional, but follows it.

Obama says it clearly is, and ignores it.

Which of those positions is more reprehensible?

That's a false dilemma.

You have no idea how to debate at all do you?

A false dilemma is offering you two choices and insisting that they are the only two possible choices. That is not what I did.

I presented the actions of two different people and asked for a comparative ranking. Feel free to offer as many alternatives as you like if you think it adds something germane to the discussion, or even ignore the question. Don't try to look intelligent and dismiss the question as a logical fallacy, it makes you look even stupider than normal.

 

[Trajan]

You may want to go back and read the article before you embarrass yourself any further.

What about Obama not seeking formal advice from his lawyers conflicts with what Allie said?

but he did?

read the NY TIMES article ....again. sloooooowly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nato operation, not American.
NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949
Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

We are enforcing a no fly zone.

White House: We are not violating the War Powers Resolution because we are not at war - By Josh Rogin | The Cable

but then again there is the fact that this whole thing comes to a disagreement with no Ruling body passing offical Judgement on the matter of: " the Us is in a supporting roll and therefore not breaking the WPA"

Till you actually have a ruling, all you have is an opinion.

The United States Military is conducting operations in Libya, and firing missiles at Libyan positions. Twist that any way you want, it is a war, we are involved, and it violates the law.

I'm not twisting it, I am just reporting what NATO considers it and what this Admin considers it.
You consider it a war, but that is only your opinion, not a fact

Define war in such a way that multiple countries attacking another country is excluded. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Sallow]

well, saw this on Memorandum.....I saw it at hot air as well and, frankly, I would be just robing their words so I will let them tell it...

first the Times;

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch…

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

more at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all


comment-
The Times is treating it as the major story that it is, but under a Republican president (especially one named, say, George Bush) it would be a scandal of nuclear proportions. What they’re basically saying here, without actually saying it, is that the president’s own lawyers told him that the Libya war is illegal and he responded by looking around for other lawyers who’d tell him what he wanted to hear.

See what he did here? The OLC is typically called “the president’s law firm” because it’s tasked with advising him on what he can and can’t legally do with his office. They study the law and consult with relevant agencies, and then they make a formal determination to guide his actions. That’s what should have happened here — they likely would have determined that he was violating the War Powers Act, which in turn would have forced him to go to Congress and finally request formal authorization of the mission. (In fact, Johnson, the Pentagon’s counsel, reportedly told Obama he’d be on firmer ground if he stopped the drone strikes, at least. Obama refused.) This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the OLC as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t. Disgraceful.

NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers « Hot Air

Heavens to betsy..the President "over ruling" the Military???

What's this world coming to!!!!

Congress should defund this.

Lets see if they do!

 

[Sallow]

So here's the real question.

Why hasn't Congress voted on Libya?

The Tea Party is just full of surprises!!

 

[Intense]

well, saw this on Memorandum.....I saw it at hot air as well and, frankly, I would be just robing their words so I will let them tell it...

first the Times;

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch…

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

more at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all


comment-
The Times is treating it as the major story that it is, but under a Republican president (especially one named, say, George Bush) it would be a scandal of nuclear proportions. What they’re basically saying here, without actually saying it, is that the president’s own lawyers told him that the Libya war is illegal and he responded by looking around for other lawyers who’d tell him what he wanted to hear.

See what he did here? The OLC is typically called “the president’s law firm” because it’s tasked with advising him on what he can and can’t legally do with his office. They study the law and consult with relevant agencies, and then they make a formal determination to guide his actions. That’s what should have happened here — they likely would have determined that he was violating the War Powers Act, which in turn would have forced him to go to Congress and finally request formal authorization of the mission. (In fact, Johnson, the Pentagon’s counsel, reportedly told Obama he’d be on firmer ground if he stopped the drone strikes, at least. Obama refused.) This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the OLC as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t. Disgraceful.

NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers « Hot Air

Heavens to betsy..the President "over ruling" the Military???

What's this world coming to!!!!

Congress should defund this.

Lets see if they do!

Sounds like you two may need a room.

Ricky Nelson ~ I Will Follow You (MV)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8NOj_Ld4jg]YouTube - ‪Ricky Nelson ~ I Will Follow You (MV)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Salt Jones]

It's funny watching the right cry about war, when they called anyone who opposed Bush's Iraq plan unpatriotic and its' funny watching the left twist to defend Obama on Libya, when if Bush did this they would be howling. Hypocrites all!

I make my living off of war, it educated my children and it provides my income. Without conflict this nation's defense industry would sink. We have a volunteer military and all who serve do so of their own free will. If they don't want to go to war, get out of the military.