l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By Jack Curtis
Obama's being hassled because he's dropping bombs and bullets on Libyan
targets without Congressional permission, a clear violation of the War
Powers Resolution per some Republicans and Democrats. Some estimates say
that a year of it will cost $160 B. Obama says it's within his powers
because, though he can't declare war, this isn't war; it's a "kinetic
military action," whatever that means.
He goes on to say that ground troops aren't exchanging fire, which adds to
the non-warishness. But Libyans bombed or rocketed to death from the sky
are still dead. It's not clear that the dead Libyans would appreciate the
neat distinction. The Libyans themselves are pretty clearly having a civil
war; Obama is killing more of the folks on one side than he is those on the
other, though he hasn't discriminated entirely. Apparently, it can be hard
to tell which side he's shooting at from the air. That they are having a
war seems to be clear to the Libyans even if it isn't clear to Obama.
Many would say that blowing up and killing via your military is making war
and that's the end of it. However, sending the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marines against North Koreans plus 2 million Chinese troops wasn't a war; it
was a "police action." And all those folks killed, wounded, and tortured
by the North Vietnamese weren't war heroes since they weren't in a war,
either. Obviously, this whole thing can be confusing.
Shakespeare said: "A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet." He
doesn't seem to be much help, but then he wasn't talking politics at the
time. Not exactly. So, let's go to the sources: The Constitution says the
President commands the armed forces and Congress declares war. Simple, and
pretty clear. The Prez does the job but he doesn't issue the contract.
Congress said in the 1973 War Powers Resolution that the Prez could act in
emergencies when the U.S. was attacked; he didn't have to wait for
Congressional permission to defend the country. Some say Congress lacked
authority to pass the Resolution; it amounts to a backdoor Constitutional
amendment, so it's moot. For us now, that's irrelevant; the Resolution
provides a president 60 days from his use of hostilities to get Congress on
board but more than that has passed for Libya and Libya hadn't attacked the
U.S. anyway. The Resolution also provides an added 30 days to get things
stopped when Congress won't sign on. That seems irrelevant too; Obama's
made it pretty clear he intends to continue. And anyway, that doesn't
include his time to get permission.
Lately, some House members have spoken of cutting off Obama's funding for
Libya. That's interesting; the Prez has been using generic Pentagon funds,
diverting the money to his Libyan activities since there has been no
official Libyan program to fund things done there. (A bit like Congress has
done for years with Social Security receipts.) If Congress cuts off money
spent on Libya, it will in fact be cutting the amount it has approved for
the military.
Libya hasn't attacked the U.S. that I've heard, so that's no help there.
What Truman got away with in Korea and Johnson in Vietnam are history, not
law; they don't help either. The bottom line appears to be that Obama has
used his authority as Commander in Chief to intervene in another country's
civil war by using the U.S. military to attack that country's property and
people. Where I come from, that's making war. He can call it "kinetic
military action" or he can call it making love if he wants to, but that
doesn't resurrect any dead Libyans.
Sadly, it could all easily be a waste of lives and treasure since the
intervention is so half-hearted; so far it is not only likely illegal but
worse, incompetent. It has made dead Libyans without changing the results
on the ground.
The most important part of this is what is says about our leading
politicians. Congressfolk no less than presidents are sworn to uphold the
Constitution. Republicans and Democrats in charge are so far, posturing;
giving the Constitution lip service just as much as their President is doing
. The inescapable conclusion: the Constitution doesn't matter to them. If
they are returned to Congress in the next election, it will be equally
inescapable that the Constitution doesn't matter to the voters anymore,
either. What then? |
|
