I don’t think Congress has approved any money for the Libyan Kinetic Action, have they? AFAIK, Obama is just using the general funding of for the DoD.
Right, but doesn’t that mean that the only way (outside the WPA) for Congress to cut it off would be to pass a law explicitly forbidding it? Rather than declining to fund it in the next defense appropriations bill, which was my understanding of what “power of the purse” refers to.
Maybe I’m parsing too closely.
I was assuming they could pass a bill forbidding expenditures for this military action, even if the funding comes from the already approved budget. But I could be wrong about that…
That is, each general defense appropriations bill includes a pile of funds which Congress has already approved for unspecified military operations, with the implication or assumption that these will be conducted, at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, in accordance with the Constitution, established law. The “power of the purse” has already been exercised; the debate would then be whether Obama’s (or any President’s) particular CinC orders were in accordance with the Constitution and established law. The purse-power, per se, would only come into play if there were a special supplementary appropriations bill, as there have been for Iraq.
No, I think that’s correct. It may be a fine point to some, but it’s a somewhat different prospect politically for Congressfolk to take a stand explicitly against an operation in progress–putting them “on record,” as you say–as opposed to simply contending that the President is misusing powers and funds already granted.
Well, if Congress was serious about asserting their authority, they could pass a bill cutting off Libyan funding until the President gets authorization under the War Powers Act. Obama would veto, but if Congresspeople are serious about their own power, they could get 2/3 support…
I would like to see that confrontation. The constitutionality of WPA and related questions should be a serious matter, exactly the kind of thing we should want all parties to take a stand on before an election.
And presumably that’s exactly why it won’t happen.
I agree on all accounts. Unfortunately, Weiner’s wiener gets more air play than war. Maybe if we could get Ghadafi to tweet his wiener, we could focus on this war.
No, no but. Exactly what I was asking. I certainly am not claiming that the bombing runs by the UK for example do not count as “hostilities”; I am asking if the current American actions constitute such.
-
Intelligence and logistic support. Is supporting other countries’ military actions being part of the war? To draw the line there seems absurd. We, and many other countries, sell weapons and share intelligence with many countries without having to declare ourselves part of every conflict they may influence. Has the US been in war against Lebanon because US weapons and intelligence one presumes was used when Israel went in there? And the amount of dollars involved is immaterial even though some pundits mention it as if it is.
-
The role of the aircraft to suppress and destroy air defenses in support of the no-fly zone is past tense. Yes, if that was still extant it would count, but it is over before that clocked clicked.
-
Occasional drone strikes. Well that is the issue I think. Yet I cannot find any information about the drones since late April. How heavy is the drone attack (rather than surveillance) involvement? If they are ongoing then I do think that such weaponry would meet any reasonable definition of hostilities and that we are left with Obama merely following established precedent among Presidents even while explicitly giving the WPA credence.
As far as Sitnam’s comment goes … did Bush get Congress to declare an open ended War on Terror that allowed the US to attack any target labelled as a terror target (based on information that cannot be shared as it is classified) anywhere, for as long as we want, for the rest of time? I’m not so sure.
According to the War Powers Act:
Its hard to see where planes bombing targets in Libya don’t fall under 2).
Also, I don’t think Congress even has to pass a new law over a veto to contest the current action if they want to. Again, from the WPA:
A resolution doesn’t require Presidential consent, so if Congress really wanted to contest the Presidents authority to do this, they could pass such a resolution.
Of course, as others have pointed out, Congress doesn’t really want to have to take a stand on this after the Iraq kurfuffle, which is why they’re not being asked to.
If you look at his speech in March, it sounds a bit like Bush’s speeches.
He made it sound like genocide, when it in fact was not.
This is a civil war in which the religionists and militants are armed by the US.
but he says,
Spread democracy. They hate our freedoms.
If you don’t understand what I mean, then I doubt you’ve been paying attention.
I don’t understand the relevance to the question of whether or not Libya has been handled better or worse than Iraq. Seems like you’re making the assumption that I did not support the goals or the strategy of the Iraq war, but do so with Libya.
And if they do and Obama tells them to piss off, what are they going to do? Impeach him?
Are US planes currently bombing targets in Libya? No. It’s therefore hard to see how that is at all relevant to the question.
Dude, we got Reapers bombing stuff there, yes.
Conservatives virtually never do anything that isn’t motivated by greed, malice, or the desire to subjugate others. That’s the point of conservatism. And Bush isn’t the sort who’d care in the slightest about freeing or supporting anyone who wasn’t scum themselves.
This is why I asked why you supported it. Was it because you <3 Obama or because you support the Obama and Bush doctrines in general?
I’m a Dem, but I don’t support our weird obsession with ‘spreading democracy’.
E-Sabbath,
A.) Reapers are drones, not planes. The comment was specific to the claim that planes count under
(Bolding mine.) Drones do not carry forces. Dude. We do not currently have planes carrying forces into the airspace equipped for combat.
B.) I’ve asked, and am waiting for someone who knows, what the current status of drones being used for attack purposes is. My search could find nothing about them since April. Simplico’s link would imply that they would not count as they do not carry forces. (And that support functions are explicitly excluded under the Act.) That said I would certainly agree, have already stated, that common sense would consider routine and ongoing current use of attack drones as acts of hostility. But laws are based on how terms are defined within the law, not by common sense.
Of course by that legal logic, eventually we’ll be able to send in entire robot/drone armies and claim that “no U.S. forces are in that country”.
Contrary to what you think conservatives are not characters of Marquis de Sade’s novels. :rolleyes: And in that case Bush must have failed spectalularly considering any politician doing for money or power would withdraw from Iraq once it got unpopular.
God but I love your caricatures. You live to say things like this, don’t you? It’s one of the few things you ever contribute, if I may use that term loosely. I think I’ll cut and paste this to a Word document and post it immediately to every thread to save you the trouble.