Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

where has there been a declaration of War? There hasn't been. Nato's on website states they are there to protect people.

again officially its not a war. Unofficially your opinion says it is. Your opinion means squat.

In other words, you cannot. All you can do is repeat the spin of the people who want you to believe that war is peace.

 

[Annie]

It seems even the Washington Post finds it necessary to draw lines, whether with the nonsense in auto bailout:

President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post

Or the war powers act:

The action in Libya looks like war to us - The Washington Post

 

[Trajan]

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!

you still have not registered or done the course work...

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

 

[Trajan]

So here's the real question.

Why hasn't Congress voted on Libya?

The Tea Party is just full of surprises!!

you don't read links it appears....



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.

Libya and the Potemkin alliance - The Washington Post

 

[Trajan]

It seems even the Washington Post finds it necessary to draw lines, whether with the nonsense in auto bailout:

President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post

Or the war powers act:

The action in Libya looks like war to us - The Washington Post

the post is a right wing hate site......

 

[Trajan]

where has there been a declaration of War? There hasn't been. Nato's on website states they are there to protect people.

again officially its not a war. Unofficially your opinion says it is. Your opinion means squat.

In other words, you cannot. All you can do is repeat the spin of the people who want you to believe that war is peace.

and nothing i would state would change your mind.
So....that leaves us at a stalemate basically.

Its not a war, you think it is. The U.N resolution states its not, but you do.

so we are down to 'police action' ...oh wait 'kinetic military action'...

 

[oreo]

So here's the real question.

Why hasn't Congress voted on Libya?

The Tea Party is just full of surprises!!

The TEA PARTY congress has addressed this issue--try and keep up will ya--

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday evening delivered his strongest criticism yet of President Obama’s decision three months ago to intervene militarily in Libya, saying in a statement that the White House has not sufficiently answered lawmakers’ questions about the mission and that the House may take action as soon as next week aimed at halting the U.S. involvement.

“The American people and members on both sides of the aisle have concerns about the mission in Libya and questions that have gone unanswered by this White House,” Boehner said in a statement late Friday, two weeks after the House passed a resolution rebuking Obama and giving the president 14 days to respond to lawmakers’ questions. “While the President responded to some questions earlier this week, it is unfortunate that he specifically chose not to respond to an important question about whether the Office of Legal Counsel supports the White House’s extraordinary legal basis for ongoing military operations in Libya.”

“Despite the constitutional concerns anyone may have with the statute, the War Powers Resolution is the law of the land and cannot be simply ignored, Boehner added. “The White House’s suggestion that there are no ‘hostilities’ taking place in Libya defies rational thought. Now, its decision to conceal the opinion of the OLC raises even more concerns.”

Boehner earlier this week had sent Obama a letter requesting information on the OLC’s position on whether U.S. involvement in Libya is constitutional. The letter followed several weeks of escalation between some members of Congress who have questioned the constitutionality of Obama’s action on Libya and the White House, which has repeatedly defended its actions. Administration officials have argued that Obama sufficiently consulted with congressional leaders both before taking action and throughout the 90-day mission.

Boehner said Friday he was responding to a letter sent by Obama in response to the speaker’s concerns.

That letter, Boehner said, was insufficient -- and the House may respond by taking legislative action as soon as next week.

“The House of Representatives will not allow the White House to continue skirting its obligations to the American people, this Congress, and the laws of this nation,” Boehner said. “Over the coming week, our members will review all options available to hold the administration to account.”

Among the options available are a measure to defund the U.S. mission -- as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said he plans to do with an amendment introduced Friday to a defense appropriations bill. Boehner, too, has suggested that Congress’ leverage in the Libya debate rests in its control over the executive pursestrings.

Further action by the House will likely have to wait until Tuesday, when the lower chamber returns to Washington.

Boehner: Obama has not sufficiently answered questions on Libya - 2chambers - The Washington Post

 

[Quantum Windbag]

where has there been a declaration of War? There hasn't been. Nato's on website states they are there to protect people.

again officially its not a war. Unofficially your opinion says it is. Your opinion means squat.

In other words, you cannot. All you can do is repeat the spin of the people who want you to believe that war is peace.

and nothing i would state would change your mind.
So....that leaves us at a stalemate basically.

Its not a war, you think it is. The U.N resolution states its not, but you do.

It is easier to assume that than to actually do what I asked, isn't it?

For the record, I asked you to define war in a way that it excludes what is happening in Libya. You replied by saying NATO says it is not a war. In case you have difficulty understanding my incomprehension here, pointing to someone saying something you agree with is not providing a definition, it is actually a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and nothing i would state would change your mind.
So....that leaves us at a stalemate basically.

Its not a war, you think it is. The U.N resolution states its not, but you do.

It is easier to assume that than to actually do what I asked, isn't it?

For the record, I asked you to define war in a way that it excludes what is happening in Libya. You replied by saying NATO says it is not a war. In case you have difficulty understanding my incomprehension here, pointing to someone saying something you agree with is not providing a definition, it is actually a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.

Assume? you stated outright it was a war. I dont like to assume, therefore i typically dont. Nice try though.

We are in a support role and not actually at war with Libya. We are basically upholding a no flyzone.
It is not a war. thats my answer, after this i could careless what you think.

Yes, and I am still waiting for you to try to convince me I am wrong by providing a definition of any type that makes what is happening in Libya not a war. You keep choosing to assume that nothing you say will change my mind rather than actually trying to change it.

Our "support role" includes us fueling combat aircraft, picking targets, and firing missiles from our aircraft at Libyan targets.Libya no longer has any aircraft, so we are shooting down their flying tanks to enforce a no fly zone. Even rdean doesn't believe that claptrap, so I know you don't.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

George Tenet was appointed in 1997 by Bill Clinton and served until the end of Bush's first term, so call it his CIA if you like, but the intel was the same when Clinton was President. Most high ranking Democrats agreed with Bush and the CIA that Saddam had WMD's.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

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.

Are those bunker buster bombs being dropped on underground aircraft to keep them from flying? Were all 112 of those Tomahawk Cruise missiles targeting aircraft? And all this time from my military experience I thought these weapons were meant to destroy ground targets.

 

[The T]

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.

George Tenet was appointed in 1997 by Bill Clinton and served until the end of Bush's first term, so call it his CIA if you like, but the intel was the same when Clinton was President. Most high ranking Democrats agreed with Bush and the CIA that Saddam had WMD's.

Correct. They started disagreeing when the left started making loud noises.

Statists change their tune at the drop of a hat and have no morals/morays/principles to anchor themselves to in the first place.

So being a LIB is easy...don't like something? Hold on a few minutes,moisten your finger...stick it in the wind for a sample...and voila! Change with the political winds.

Being principled is an anethma to these creeps. They take the chickenshit path out.

 

[Google]

Definition of 'War'


noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations orbetween parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active militaryoperations: The two nations were at war with each other.

 

[Google]

mocrats agreed with Bush and the CIA that Saddam had WMD's.

Correct. They started disagreeing when the left started making loud noises.

Statists change their tune at the drop of a hat and have no morals/morays/principles to anchor themselves to in the first place.

So being a LIB is easy...don't like something? Hold on a few minutes,moisten your finger...stick it in the wind for a sample...and voila! Change with the political winds.

Being principled is an anethma to these creeps. They take the chickenshit path out.

Definition Morays:

noun, plural -rays.
any of numerous chiefly tropical eels of the family Muraenidae, having porelike gill openings and no pectoral fins.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Liberals are so fucked in the head they think they can redefine an entire definition because their messiah is and Americans are going to fall for it.. I never thought I would see the day when Americans turned in to total lemmings, LEFTIST AMERICANS. Rick Perry is so right on.. No one should give a damn what you insane sheep think.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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!

he was talking about US Military deaths.

And Now you use the NYtimes? Lol....yet i bet if we could go look you didnt believe them with the iraq numbers...

i love partisans

Casualties are casualties, PERIOD so don't throw this lame excuse my way Plas.. it won't fuckin wash. This war is costing plenty in both money and blood but you PARTISAN hacks don't have the fuckin ballz to call your boy on it or anything else for that matter.. you've all turned in to a bunch of braindead sheep.. Bahhhh.. I can't stand George Bush and NEVER agreed with much he did.. I didn't fawn all over him and lick his asshole just because he had an (R) by his name so the PARTISAN HACK is YOU.

 

[Intense]

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!

he was talking about US Military deaths.

And Now you use the NYtimes? Lol....yet i bet if we could go look you didnt believe them with the iraq numbers...

i love partisans

Casualties are casualties, PERIOD so don't throw this lame excuse my way Plas.. it won't fuckin wash. This war is costing plenty in both money and blood but you PARTISAN hacks don't have the fuckin ballz to call your boy on it or anything else for that matter.. you've all turned in to a bunch of braindead sheep.. Bahhhh.. I can't stand George Bush and NEVER agreed with much he did.. I didn't fawn all over him and lick his asshole just because he had an (R) by his name so the PARTISAN HACK is YOU.

ObimaNation Marionettes.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

he was talking about US Military deaths.

And Now you use the NYtimes? Lol....yet i bet if we could go look you didnt believe them with the iraq numbers...

i love partisans

Casualties are casualties, PERIOD so don't throw this lame excuse my way Plas.. it won't fuckin wash. This war is costing plenty in both money and blood but you PARTISAN hacks don't have the fuckin ballz to call your boy on it or anything else for that matter.. you've all turned in to a bunch of braindead sheep.. Bahhhh.. I can't stand George Bush and NEVER agreed with much he did.. I didn't fawn all over him and lick his asshole just because he had an (R) by his name so the PARTISAN HACK is YOU.

ObimaNation Marionettes.

That's a great name for them.. so true. It's like none of them have self thought any longer.. Mmm mmmMMmm MMmmm , Barack Hussein Obama

 

[Polk]

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.

You do insist those are the only two choices. Of course, it rests on the faulty premise that the act ignores the War Powers Resolution.

 

[Polk]

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.

You and Windbag are trying to be too clever by half. I responded to a claim about whether he asked for advice at all, to which Windbag wanted to make a claim about formal advice.