« First « Previous Comments 57 - 63 of 63 Search these comments
He won’t even explain why it doesn’t apply
They do, actually. Read your damn nyt article immediately above. They say that no Americans are being put in harm’s way, now that NATO is taking the lead and our efforts are RPV controlling and logistics.
You mean this bit:
The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities†as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.
The US has been harping on "NATO" but it's pretty obvious what nationality the bulk of "NATO forces" are. There was a hilarious exchange a few weeks back when a Pentagon shill who just mouthed the "Mostly just Support" line had to admit to a reporter (based on the very charts and graphs behind him) that the "NATO forces" assigned to the Libyan Theatre were mostly American. I can't find it, but I did find this:
The revelation came as Pentagon officials laid out U.S. participation in the Libya conflict over the past 10 days, including that Americans have flown 35 percent of all air missions.
Those missions, they said, include bombing attacks against Libyan surface-to-air missile launchers, as well as surveillance and refueling operations. It was the first time the Pentagon acknowledged that airstrikes continued after the U.S. handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO on April 4.
According to Pentagon officials, eleven U.S. fighter jets were assigned to NATO to look for and take out the air defense systems.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/libya--us-airstrikes-nato_n_848817.html
Now granted, the President said "Early April", and in lawyer speak April 13th can be construed as "Early April", however, let's review what the War Powers Resolutions states.
The War Powers Resolution says "Hostilities". The word "Servicemen" or the phrase "Placing Servicemen at risk" or any similar language, does not appear anywhere in the Resolution.
Hostilities don't require the commitment of land forces. Violating another country's airspace with military aircraft, not to mention actually launching missiles and bombs from them, is certainly an act of overt warfare and thus hostilities. Drone attacks launching explosive devices is hostilities, even if they are unmanned. Cruise Missile attacks are also hostilities. If one country drops cruise missiles on another, I doubt the recipient wouldn't hesitate to characterize the missile attacks as "Hostilities".
The President may stopped all US "direct" hostilities- which doesn't even seem to be the case - he still needs to advise, report, and get Congressional approval. He will no doubt try to get around using a Technical "Color of Law" strategy by claiming the USMC Harriers, Drones, etc. are in some kind of temprary ersatz "NATO" unit and thus not under his "Direct Control."
While the President can certainly disagree and disregard OLC opinions, it's unusual. And unusual drops of protocol, require unusually good explanations, IMHO.
But I’m not losing sleep over this since the political situation of this counter is completely and totally fucked at the moment.
Couldn't agree more. If Bush had bombed Libya, almost every Republican Politician, Faux News, and the majority of the Republican base would be in favor of it.
Ghaddafyi has been very helpful in the "GWOT". After all, he himself faces radical Islam in his own country.
However, any chance to restrain the Imperial Presidency should be pursued. My wish here is to have a precedent for restraining a President engaging in Hostilities without pre-authorization, and Hostilities that were not initiated by attacks or overwhelming evidence of impending attacks on the US. A precedent, and hope-against-hope a mindset change, to encumber future Presidents' de facto unilateral war-making powers.
Guys, do you think that Anheuser-Busch is complicit in the conspiracy?
Bap:
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear."
Best line ever? Quite possibly.
« First « Previous Comments 57 - 63 of 63 Search these comments
Kinda choice, right ?