Skip to comments.Report: Obama overruled lawyers on Libya air war
Posted on 06/17/2011 9:37:22 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
NOW we can impeach him. Oh wait, we’ve got Boner in charge. Never mind.
Will they demand that nobel peace prize back?
Anyone for impeachment?
Let’s just defeat him. A total lack of leadership, a man who thinks he’s smarter than the smartest people they could find to head justice. A recipe for disaster.
its not a war. Its just kinetic killing of muamars friends.
He needs to go.
I'm loath to defend Obama, but he probably is smarter than Eric Holder. Not that that would be especially noteworthy.
If you are actively killing people and blowing people up and it is not "war", then it is murder.
To deny that we are engaged in "hostilities" is to admit that you have no legitimate basis for killing the people you are killing.
Frankly the Generals should immediately cease all activities that they would consider to be "hostilities" since neither congress nor Obama is currently authorizing them to engage in any such activities.
We have a lawless president. There will be repercussions from on high. God have mercy on us.
Well, to be honest any President who depends on lawyers to conduct his foreign policy should not be Presient. According to the Constitution of the United States the President has the authority to do in Libya what Obama has done.
No conservative should want any President to hide behind lawyers in conducting foreign policy or defending the country. Obama on this count is no different than every American President going back to Nixon. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional and any President worth a damn should ignore it. Congress wants to have it both ways, they don’t want the responsibility of going on the record by declaring war but do want the ability to criticize when things don’t go perfectly.
As a conservative I never want to be on the side of Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul when it comes to defending America. I’m with Obama on this one.
NNah! He didn't do this without George Soros' approval.(Wink!)
I nominate you for Freeper Quote of the Year. Short to the point and makes total sense. I wish more recognized the great mind.
He can’t just take it on himself to ignore it. We have procedures for challenging a law. But he prefers to ignore them.
This pattern of lawless behavior can be seen in every single thing he does, and it has been there since the very first days (with his end-runs around Congress, his czars, his way of dealing with law and custom by simply ignoring it).
Maybe your hero is the ubermensch who is not bound by petty things such as law, but I’m not sure that’s exactly a conservative position. Or an American one.
He is a traitor to the United States of America. Where in the sam hell is Congress???
We impeached Clinton, and what good did it do?
The Senate would never vote to remove Obama from office, and you can bet he’s not honorable enough to resign on his own if impeached.
Look you have a chief executive that is now in complete defiance of his own counsel and in the face of the entire 3rd branch of government. He is out of control and needs to be impeached. If it were a conservative I would be saying the same thing. This is an attack on the foundations of the republic.
He is worse than an asshole. He is the stinky turd twit
He can take it upon himself to ignore lawyers. No doubt. He should ignore them. I agree he should challenge the War Powers Act but other Presidents have ignored it as well. He should have Holder take it to court and get it thrown out, but like other Presidents he doesn’t want a fight with Congress he can avoid by just ignoring the law.
Give back your Nobel Peace Prize. You cowboy! We have laws.
A dictator of an illegal war on a sovereign country.
Where are all those peace-nik liberals?
He's proof that you are what you eat.
The president cannot, in the exercise of his oath of office, ignore it. It is the Law of the United States and his duty as president is to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States." If he believes that the law is unconstitutional he cannot unilaterally ignore it. Per his oath of office he must either obey it, or challenge it in court.
To claim that it does not apply because the United States is not engaged in "hostilities" when he is ordering our troops to drop bombs on people is to remove the legitimate basis for the actions. If our troops are not engaged in formal "hostilities" then they are engaged in acts of murder.
If Obama ignores this law, he should be impeached. His duty, if he believes it is unconstitutional is to direct the Solicitor General to file a suit before the Supreme Court and have them rule on it forthwith.
The little faggot does what he pleases, when he pleases.
Then we should have impeached every President since Nixon.
We have to wonder why Obama has taken this stand when so many other injustices are in our faces. Was it because he thought it would be easy and it would make him look great???
>>> Anyone for impeachment?
Nope. The election isn’t that far off with a fair chance of taking him down then. I’d rather let him first kill the War Powers Act. Have him and his defenders admit Nixon and Reagan were right and make it stick.
Besides, dems still control the senate. Impeachable offense or not there wouldn’t be the votes.
A bigger story might be who leaked this.
Black letter law means nothing to him. Look what happen to the GM Bondholders.
Forget the lawyers, do you like being lied to?
I know I don't.
Well, they did impeach Nixon and Clinton. Reagan never violated the War Powers act. Bush fully complied with it.
Does the constitution mean nothing to you either?
Is the presidential oath nothing but meaningless words?
Reagan ignored the War Powers Act in Grenada for example. Also, in the bombing of Libya.
Again, my point is that the Constitution gives the President the authority to do what Obama is doing. It is Congress that is not doing its job. You can’t conduct policy via lawyers.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States has no vital national interests in Libya.
Then Gates should run for President. The current President says we do, and has the authority under the Constitution to act on that belief. Not saying it is right or wrong but it is a fact that he does.
I’m with Obama on this, to hell with the lawyers.
What Obama relies on is the UN making a resolution. You don't like lawyers but you like the UN?
Obama is not making the case you are. Right there you should be against what Obama is doing. According to Obama, there is no war.
More drama. Just cut the dang funding. Game over.
Der New Fuhrer vill be in court on zis one zoon, hmmm? Ich believes dat der Fuhrer vill NOT be impeached vor zee zame reason az his lack of a valid birth certificate. Congress lacks zee schtomach to faze zee pozzibility of “Inner City Riots” Ja, for impeaching der first Black Prezident. Zo, are ve a NAZIon of Lawz or Notzi? I sink Notzi as der Fuhrer vill not run again because he haz no birth certificates and a few Statez will have ballot lawz for zuch a zing. Loozing a few ztats meanz no Fhurer.
(Too bad as an investigation would prove he is not a valid president and Obamacare is out the door with him; good bye to bad rubbish.)
Of course I don’t like the UN. My point is not that Libya is right or wrong. I’m just saying he has the authority to act regardless of what some lawyer thinks. No President should ever base the conduct of foreign policy on the opinion of laywers.
There are constitutional ways to stop the Obama policy if Congress disagrees with it. They can cut off funding or publicly vote against the actions. Though that can’t stop Obama from continuing. But Congress will do neither of these things because to them there is no political benefit.
The War Powers Act was passed as a result of the Vietnam War. It is designed to get Congress off the hook by assuming that every foreign policy action that involves military action is the same. Laughable, any lawyer could have told them that was nonsense and it also happens to be unconstitutional. Maybe a President Palin or Romney or whomever will challenge it in court.
That is not true. He was in and out of Grenada in less than 60 days.
Again, my point is that the Constitution gives the President the authority to do what Obama is doing.
Blowing up people in Libya and refusing to recognize that what he is engaged in is an act of war?
I'm sorry, but if he refuses to call it war, then he is directing the military to engage in acts of murder.
Reagan ignored the War Powers Act in Grenada for example. Also, in the bombing of Libya.
Both were less than 90 days (60 days combat 30 days withdrawal).
On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported on the use of 1900 U.S. forces to invade and occupy the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. All U.S. combat forces were withdrawn by December 15 (i.e., ten days before the time limit the War Powers Resolution might be thought to have imposed).
On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported that two U.S. AWACS and eight F-15 aircraft had been sent to Chad to assist that nation repel aggression from Libya.
If you really want to make the case for Obama and his authority then you need to convince that Obama would be at war with Libya without the UN resolution.
That just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Unless Obama at the very least specifically makes your claim, then he is a liar and a criminal. That is who you “are on the side of”.