Posted by Kromey at 6:44pm Aug 23 '11 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.
Just because they're in positions of power doesn't mean they don't violate the laws that put them there in the first place. See, for example, Bush's illegal wiretapping, which he himself de facto acknowledged as being illegal when he sought retroactive legalization of it from Congress after it became known.
However, I will acknowledge that I am no expert on the UN charter or international law; I'm just making the best statements I can based on my best understanding.
(As if the US cares about that anyway ...)
Under past presidents I'd have to agree; Obama, however, almost seems like he cares more about international law than about respecting US law.
(The US military is engaged in Libya, right, not just supporting us or doing humanitarian stuff that isn't 'hostile'?)
Correct -- I wasn't being metaphorical when I spoke of "launching cruise missiles" and "dropping bombs", although to be fair I think that was said elsewhere in the thread, I may not have said that in the OP.
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.
It could be argued that Obama was justified in going in with the military prior to getting Congressional approval, on the basis of US intervention being necessary and time-critical. I don't know how well that argument would hold up -- the War Powers Resolution seems pretty clear to me -- but the argument does have at least some validity to it, I think.
Which is what brings us to the 60- and 90-day deadlines; Obama had 60 days after beginning hostilities to get Congressional approval, and then 30 days after that (90 days after the start of hostilities) to withdraw US forces should approval not be won. Which means, yes, the law explicitly allows for post facto approval.
And while I've no doubt the Republicans would have made a good show about putting Obama through the wringer over it, the situation in Libya -- in my mind, at least -- definitely warranted (and still does, but recall we're talking here about a deadline that's already past) bi-partisan approval of US intervention.
Which makes Obama's deliberate run-around of Congress all the more heinous and shameful, in my mind.
What is 'specific statutory authorisation'? That sounds like a UN resolution should count.
The UN has no authority over the US military. So they cannot authorize its use (from the standpoint of US law, of course).
"Specific statutory authorization" means an Act or Resolution from Congress granting the President permission to engage in hostilities. You have to remember that under US law -- specifically, the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution -- only Congress has the authority to declare war, even though the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces; that's our whole "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" thing right there.
I didn't get around to mentioning it in the OP, but I think it's also quite telling that when the legal hotshots at the Department of Justice told the President that using the military to support the Libyan rebels would fall under the War Powers Resolution and require him to get authorization from Congress, he ignored them and went instead to the State Department's legal counsel -- exactly the same tactic Bush used to produce the now-infamous torture memo!
Just because they're in positions of power doesn't mean they don't violate the laws that put them there in the first place. See, for example, Bush's illegal wiretapping, which he himself de facto acknowledged as being illegal when he sought retroactive legalization of it from Congress after it became known.
However, I will acknowledge that I am no expert on the UN charter or international law; I'm just making the best statements I can based on my best understanding.
(As if the US cares about that anyway ...)
Under past presidents I'd have to agree; Obama, however, almost seems like he cares more about international law than about respecting US law.
(The US military is engaged in Libya, right, not just supporting us or doing humanitarian stuff that isn't 'hostile'?)
Correct -- I wasn't being metaphorical when I spoke of "launching cruise missiles" and "dropping bombs", although to be fair I think that was said elsewhere in the thread, I may not have said that in the OP.
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.
It could be argued that Obama was justified in going in with the military prior to getting Congressional approval, on the basis of US intervention being necessary and time-critical. I don't know how well that argument would hold up -- the War Powers Resolution seems pretty clear to me -- but the argument does have at least some validity to it, I think.
Which is what brings us to the 60- and 90-day deadlines; Obama had 60 days after beginning hostilities to get Congressional approval, and then 30 days after that (90 days after the start of hostilities) to withdraw US forces should approval not be won. Which means, yes, the law explicitly allows for post facto approval.
And while I've no doubt the Republicans would have made a good show about putting Obama through the wringer over it, the situation in Libya -- in my mind, at least -- definitely warranted (and still does, but recall we're talking here about a deadline that's already past) bi-partisan approval of US intervention.
Which makes Obama's deliberate run-around of Congress all the more heinous and shameful, in my mind.
What is 'specific statutory authorisation'? That sounds like a UN resolution should count.
The UN has no authority over the US military. So they cannot authorize its use (from the standpoint of US law, of course).
"Specific statutory authorization" means an Act or Resolution from Congress granting the President permission to engage in hostilities. You have to remember that under US law -- specifically, the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution -- only Congress has the authority to declare war, even though the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces; that's our whole "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" thing right there.
I didn't get around to mentioning it in the OP, but I think it's also quite telling that when the legal hotshots at the Department of Justice told the President that using the military to support the Libyan rebels would fall under the War Powers Resolution and require him to get authorization from Congress, he ignored them and went instead to the State Department's legal counsel -- exactly the same tactic Bush used to produce the now-infamous torture memo!
Re: I don't really agree ... - Kromey