Should Congress Approve No-fly Zone?

abcnews.go.com ^ | March 18, 2011 | JONATHAN KARL

[DannyTN]

Does President Obama need Congressional authorization before taking military action against Libya? Is a no-fly zone a good idea? Congressional opinion on those questions has been divided -- and not along the usual party lines.

[DannyTN]

I think he has to get it. The War Powers act only allows exceptions if America is under attack or under "serious threat". This doesn't qualify.

To my knowledge, Congress has never given the President authority to engage American troops at UN request for any reason. There were specific congressional resolutions authorizing Kosovo and both gulf wars and Afghanistan.

[GeronL]

The UN does not override Congress, and the UN has zero Constitutional authority

[mlocher]

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," the memo quotes then-Senator Obama saying on Dec. 20, 2007.

But, that was then. This is now!

[Christian Engineer Mass]

I expected a poll with this story but there is no poll. In fact I have seen no polls

[steveab]

No

[Lysandru]

I think that you are wrong on Kosovo. But that was Bill Clinton, wans't it?

I believe the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional.

All that having been said, the voters can take out their ire at Obama in 2012 if this thing turns to crap.

[dforest]

Why bother? People do whatever they want these days.

[calcowgirl]

Does President Obama need Congressional authorization before taking military action against Libya? Is a no-fly zone a good idea?

Yes. No.

[newzjunkey]

I don’t know if Fox News Radio can be trusted but they reported we may only be providing logistical support with France & UK enforcing the no-fly zone. Does refueling constitute military action that requires congressional approval?

[mrsmith]

Politically... if we don’t give it to him we’ll be blamed for ALL the failures from his weak leadership in the world.
And we would be cementing the world’s view of American futility in the world.

Though he is the one responsible for it- we get the blame.

Legally, he needs congressional authorization first.
Though the urgency to act to defend civilians may give him cover under existing law. There may be some law or treaty wording about acting in a case like this.

“On March 23, 1999, the day before President Clinton approved
the use of force in Kosovo, the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing
“air operations and missile strikes” in cooperation with NATO
against Yugoslavia.20 On March 24, the same day the President
acted, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting
U.S. armed forces “engaged in military operations against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.”21”

[mrsmith]

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v34-issue1/sofaer.pdf

[DannyTN]

"Politically... if we don’t give it to him we’ll be blamed for ALL the failures from his weak leadership in the world. And we would be cementing the world’s view of American futility in the world."

You're probably right. But we should insist before he does it that he seek the proper approval. When he does it without the proper approval, the House should pass a resolution reprimanding him for failing to obide by the law. That keeps the precedent and puts him on notice without a full impeachment that would backfire and fail.

[JSDude1]

I’d say no, I don’t really think we have an interest in Libya.