Saturday, May 21, 2011

Obama to Constitution: Drop Dead

From the beginning of the US involvement in Libya, the Administration has cited the War Powers Act as the legal basis of our involvement there, saying that the President has up to sixty days to ask Congress for approval.  That sixty days is up.  What is President Obama saying now?  He doesn't need Congress in this matter at all.

The President has back-tracked, now saying in a letter to Congress that they should pass a resolution as fast as possible to support him.  However, if they don't, he writes, that he simply doesn't need it.
Obama: Believes he does not need the Constitution
In the letter, the President explains:
“Since April 4.  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.”
He continues:
“It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with congressional engagement, consultation and support. Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”
In other words, while Congress passing a Libya resolution would "underline" the mission, that is all it would do.

ABC further reports an Administration official as stating:
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 and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
In other words, while, yes, the President is now going against what he said and, yes, the US is supplying materials and logistical support to NATO and is blowing people up with "unmanned aerial vehicles," it's all legal.

Why?  The Administration does not go into detail, other than saying repeatedly that it is "limited."  They should also describe it as "illegal" and "frighteningly unconstitutional."

Please bookmark!

No comments:

Post a Comment