Posted by Bob Janova at 5:40pm Aug 23 '11... regarding it not being legal under the UN charter. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but surely all those people who do high powered things at the UN and vote on these resolutions are. If a resolution is passed authorising force (which didn't happen in 2003) then using force is legal under international law. (As if the US cares about that anyway ...)
But assuming your facts are in order over US law, there seems to be no doubt in that part. (The US military is engaged in Libya, right, not just supporting us or doing humanitarian stuff that isn't 'hostile'?) It is quite strange not to go to Congress, surely he could have got at least post facto approval for what is a far more obvious humanitarian mission than Iraq or Afghanistan.
What is 'specific statutory authorisation'? That sounds like a UN resolution should count.
But assuming your facts are in order over US law, there seems to be no doubt in that part. (The US military is engaged in Libya, right, not just supporting us or doing humanitarian stuff that isn't 'hostile'?) It is quite strange not to go to Congress, surely he could have got at least post facto approval for what is a far more obvious humanitarian mission than Iraq or Afghanistan.
What is 'specific statutory authorisation'? That sounds like a UN resolution should count.
I don't really agree ... - Bob Janova