Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement responding the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion regarding the President's authority to use military force in Libya: In the legal memo provided by the Presidents Office of Legal Counsel, the Administration argues that the President had the authority to attack Libya absent Congressional authorization because he determined it was in the national interest and because the US is engaged in limited military operations that do not constitute a war.
![Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 04/01/11. (image: Democracy Now!)]](/images/stories/article_imgs4/2774-rep-dennis-kucinich040111.jpg "Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 04/01/11. (image: Democracy Now!)]")
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 04/01/11. (image: Democracy Now!)]
Mr. President the Word Is War
08 April 11
Kucinich Responds to Office of Legal Counsel's Twisted Rationale for Libyan War: "Positively Orwellian"
ongressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement responding the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion regarding the President's authority to use military force in Libya:
In the legal memo provided by the President's Office of Legal Counsel, the Administration argues that the President had the authority to attack Libya absent Congressional authorization because he determined it was in the national interest and because the US is engaged in limited military operations that do not constitute a war.
The war in Libya is not in our national interest. The claim that the US had to act in Libya in order to maintain stability in the region - "a vital US interest" - runs contrary to the history of US military intervention in the region. As evidenced by US intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and drone bombing campaigns in Pakistan, rather than maintain stability, US military action in the region has unfortunately served to further instability. Occupations fuel insurgencies and close a circle of never-ending violence. Additionally, the doctrine that the US has a responsibility to act militarily, without prior authorization from Congress, in the event of a threat to any of our friends in the world puts us on a path to permanent war and has no legal basis in the Constitution or the War Powers Act.
The Obama Administration has prosecuted a war that is "not a war." The assertion that US military actions in Libya do not constitute war belies the significant use of military force in Libya. The Administration's own Secretary of Defense, while testifying before Congress last month, admitted that enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya was an act of war: "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." [1] The United States, thus far, has spent well over $550 million on the war in Libya, using at least 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, estimated to cost up to $1.5 million each, in the first day alone. The US also used Joint Direct Attack Munitions - 2,000 pound bombs - to bomb Libya. The characterization of the use of force in Libya solely as a humanitarian intervention cannot hide the reality of what war is. The attempt to assert that this is not a war does violence to cognition and violence to the English language. It is positively Orwellian.
The Administration also claims that authority to use US military force abroad was provided by United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, which authorized member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians and to enforce a no-fly zone. The Constitution does not provide an exception for the President to unilaterally decide to use military force abroad if an international body, such as the United Nations, provides him with one. It is unequivocally clear, in Article 1, Section 8, that the power to authorize the use of military force or to declare war lies solely with Congress.
The law provides the President with the authority to use military force absent prior Congressional authorization only to repel sudden or imminent attack. There was no threat of sudden or imminent attack to the United States from Libya. President Obama himself recognized the constitutional limitations imposed on any US President when, in an October 2008 interview, he stated that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." [2]
In the sophistry of the Office of Legal Counsel's memo, the Obama administration fails to justify what cannot be justified. While the President has argued that the credibility of the United Nations (UN) was at stake if members of the Security Council did not act, it is actually the credibility of his administration and of our own democracy that is at stake. Preserving the credibility of the UN has never been a reason to go to war. A plain reading of the US Constitution explicitly places war powers in the hands of Congress.
In this flimsy attempt to justify military action in Libya, it appears as though the administration is taking scissors and scotch tape to the Constitution, cutting out sections they do not like, and replacing them with legal theory that is reminiscent of the now discredited theories (of a former administration) which were used to justify torture.
[1] Sanger, David E. and Shanker, Tom. (2011, March 2). "Gates Warns of Risks of No-Fly Zone." The New York Times, online.
Accessible: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03military.html.
[2] Savage, Charlie. (2007, December 20). "Barack Obama's Q&A." The Boston Globe, online.
Accessible: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
So, it's, ugh, Obama in 2012.
In other words, it's Bush in 2012.
However, we'll get whatever the true powers want us to have. Our losing streak began about 30 years ago.
Don't tell me my vote will be wasted, because in 2008 I voted for Obama and that has turned out to be a wasted vote!
everyone thinks like this. The only way American politics will change is if American citizens step up to the plate and hold both the Republicans and Democrats accountable. Putting an Independent in that is not so easily bought and paid for is a scary move for a dumbed downed, mind numbed, fear ridden
populace. If we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we're getting. We just keep going around the board, passing "go" and getting the same betrayal. They have run our country into the ground. It's time to think outside the box.
We need someone like Kucinich to run against Obama in the primary to give him at least a fight so Obama knows people on the left care that he is running over the Constitution. It would be interesting to see his response. He doesn't seem to take to criticism well. He might just blow us off or he might be very beligerant. But he might take the criticism to heart (I know that is hoping for too much) but then at least people would see once and for all what he is made of instead of dealing in self delusion about him.
Please read "Dennis Kucinich" on Wikipedia, and make up your own mind. Personally, I think we need him as president. It would need an intense internet campaign, as the traditional media will misrepresent him, and the Democratic leadership will try to sideline him, as they did in 2008, when they refused to allow him to debate the other Democratic candidates.
But, there is aleays the option of starting a movement for say a "green party" or working-folks-party at the state or congressional district level, and slowly build up. The winner take all lottery is a long shot approach - no looking for magic, start building by district.
How can I vote for Obama?
STOP believing the LIE that if you don't vote for these mass-murderous scum, you supposedly have no right(s) to criticize, etc.! There are MANY ways to "vote"! Vote with your voice, your pen and your feet! NO ONE is EVER going to be chosen to "win" who isn't a corporate-fascist; or who wasn't, upon inauguration and assuming the White House, told the way things are going to be, and that they better do as they're told (by the globalists and corporate-fascists), or to remember JFK and what happened to him, because that's what will happen to them if they don't do what they're told!
Who destroyed him were NEOCONS and AIPAC Clintons/Obama NYT crowd.
This is other democratic party - the next president should get Carter support - and there is good solid base to start. Moore should make documentary of the US before Reagan - 60 optimism.
And the same people from California Silicon Valley who help Obama could make new president.
Sleazo Trump has 50%+ - let's look OUTSIDE the congress - young, energetic, environmentally conscious, global - educated (not lawyers).
Google Larry Page?
Where is the rest of the Congress on this issue of a blatant violation of the rule of our laws?
War is war no matter what kind of spin the President wants to use as an excuse.
War happens when a State or Nation attacks another one by using arms of any kind to force this to a surrender or annihilation.
Another definition is bullshit...
In true words, Obama is attempting against US Constitution and trying to overpass any obstacles to lead country to war
Mr. Kucinich might have carried his argument a little further. Where did Kaddafy, (and Mubarak, and the Saudi Royals, and Saddam Hussein, etc., ad infinitum,) get the tools and training he's using to oppress his people? In the old Cold War days, tin-horn dictators could play the USSR against the USA to get their military toys. Today, there is really only one arms merchant on the planet; the peace-loving, oil-addicted US of A.
George McGovern didn't win, but the war against Viet Nam did end, within one presidential term.
There were complicated dynamics then, to be sure, but the struggle to extract us from the Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Libya quagmire may take several years.
Having a voice for peace (such as Sanders, or Kucinich), is an important step.
Sanders has an interesting voice, but does not represent anything more than a small fringe minority view in the US. He's free to continue to express his views and to seek to legislate, as long as he can get elected.
On March 1, 2011 the US Senate passed, with Unanimous Consent S. Resolution 85 which, among other things stated,
"S. Res 85 - (3/1/11 passed with unanimous consent)
The US Senate ... (7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;"
8. 17 days later - March 18, 2011 President Obama and the UN vote to impose a No-Fly Zone over Libya
- 17 days PRIOR to President Obama agreeing to aid the UN on imposing a No-Fly Zone, every single US Senator gave "consent" to and urged the UN to impose a No-Fly Zone.
"The principle that States shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations
Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law."
On March 1, 2011 the US Senate passed S. Res 85 with "Unanimous Consent"
"S. Res 85 - (Again, 3/1/11 passed with unanimous consent)
The US Senate ... (7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;"
Meaning; Pres Obama DID have "Consent" from Congress for No-Fly Zone 17 days Prior to going in.
Perhaps Rand Paul and the other Senators complaining & falsely claiming that "President Obama unilaterally started a war without any consent from Congress" forgot they voted YEA? -Call and remind them that they did, in fact, vote Yea.
The War Powers Act of 1975 gives Obama the authority regardless of whether Dennis likes it or not. It was passed by Congress and has never been repealed. This is NOT an impeachable offense because he is following the actual law. He could have done it without even notifying Congressional leadership and could have managed things for 60 days (as of the 2006 amendment rather than the 90 days in 1975) without any authorization. This is a humanitarian mission and the combat portion has already been passed off. As much as I hate war after actually having been in one I respect the fact that as Commander-In-Chief he can use the law as it has been written and passed by Congress. Sorry folks, but when the Arab League actually asks for a no fly zone it's time to act. Dennis is just pissed that the War Powers Act was passed before he got in. If he hates it so much either repeal it or shut the hell up. I guess this is the only way he can get attention right now being in the minority in the House.
Check the history of who the U.S. has bombed over the years and how many are oil nations, including Libya.
Arn't the folks there being bombed to balzes by U.S. built jets and bombs ?
Is there a limit on deaths in such a manner, before the U.S. calls it a humanitarioian action ?
one would hope that US learned after last 10 years - this principle is so basic.
Moment Obama bombed Libya - made Qaddafi strong again.
One consequence is that "rebels" in Libya are selling arms to "rebels" in Gaza.
We have no president at this time, and have not had a president since 2000. We have only had corporate champions.
I know the money machines that both grind out and threaten politicians rules now. Perhaps one day we will at least get a glimpse of a leader.
Our decade set of "wars" and kill squads makes lots of people lots of money. While America whiters in bitterness, anger, and--most disgraceful of all--fear.
Guess as long as President Obama runs, no Dem will challenge him . . . So I encourage all of you to vote for President Obama in 2012.
My only hope is without facing a re-election he will be a better President in his second term.
He also asked for help in passing stingent regulations to stop the out of control housing bubble - and got ripped to shreds by the left. Hmm.. How'd that turn out?
He also asked and got a Rx plan for seniors on Medicare - Well, could have been better - but they loved it, as they didn't have Rx drugs before Bush.
And as Clinton before, and Obama afterwards (though not nearly as much) he did a lot in secret - without transparency.
Bush was a true believer in "free markets" and unable to see a necessity for controlling them until it was too late, if at all.
The Rx plan was a nepotistic giveaway to the Big Pharma. Remember how the US gov't was prohibited from negotiating prices?
Here's but one: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." NY Times Sept. 10, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/11LEND.html?ei=5070&en=f31e9de1e37a3180&ex=1221969600&pagewanted=all&position=
Bush called for reform of Freddie/Fannie dozens of times. In the end, we expect F/F to cost taxpayers over $400 billion - unlike TARP - there will be no return of principal here.
Bush's Rx plan was $378 (over ten years) - The D's proposed a $1.2 Trillion plan, then came back with a $800 billion plan. I offered that Bush's plan could have been better.
The 2nd most important player in the housing bubble would have been Real Estate folks - who continued to push them into buying R/E, warning that it might be their last chance and that they could find the financing for them. Ethical? Hardly.
The process of packaging the mortgages up, and selling the portfolios - GSE's - to Wall Street was pushed by the HUD regulations - and as we all know - everyone jumped on the bandwagon - and as it got dicier - it got dangerous. Wall street played with the mess that Gov created.
I won't forget!!! I won't forget until the whole Bush family is safely in prison. In Oliver Stone's South of the Border, Bush told Nestor Kirchner that the way the US always gets out of a bad recession is war. He said, just start a war and your economy will pick up. The Bush family has been in the war profiteering business for four generations. They are one of the great crime families of all times. Their ties to the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia are much closer than any ties they have with the US.
"Give war a chance."
Ed Schultz, Well, why are we concerned with who gets arms?" That was on the US arming the rebels.
The national media continues to shrill for Obama - that's all that matters to them. Why? He's one of them - a Demcocrat. Party comes first.
Now that’s the real rip off.
For some reason we never question why something that is a disposable (one time use) product, in mass productions for decades still cost millions of $s each.
Anyone with a bit of sense know that production cost significantly reduce over time as manufacturing processes become more efficient & research cost have been recouped. For some reason the military industry doesn't follow the same production/profit model as manufactures of products for civilian use.
Could this be due to veil of secrecy under which weapons manufacturers operate? Due to "national security” weapons manufacturers are protected from public scrutiny of the manufacturing process, parts sourcing & cost/profit ratio.
The defense budget is the means to provide corporate donors & their privileged investors with keys to the USA treasury. They want more money use the "War on Terror" as an excuse to bomb, invade & occupy a sovereign nation. Every armament used must be replaced. Every soldier or mercenary must be clothed, armed, housed, fed, transported & paid. The military industrial complex profits, while programs to help the people, build the nation & protect the environment are cut or eliminated.
It's time for an economic policy that benefits the people not just the privileged.
America/the World needs you to stand for President of the United States-again.
RSS feed for comments to this post.