Congressman Kucinich (D-Ohio): Libya Air Strikes Could Be 'Impeachable Offense'

[Area52]

Link to interview:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/225483/the...2F1726%2Fclips

[Bill Roy]

I do not think so. My understanding is that as the C-in-C the President can utilise military forces as he sees fit for a period not exceeding 60 days without the approval of Congress, at least that was what it used to be, please correct me if I am wrong - which in this instance I may well be.

[draggar]

Nope.

The UN approved the no-fly zone (and the enforcement).

France started with the enforcement on their own. Due to a treaty signed last year this gave the UK the open door to jump in with the enforcement (shared usage of aircraft carriers for an integrated strike force for use with jointly approved operations).

The UK involvement gave the US the open door to jump in due to NATO policies.

Now we know why France was the first to enforce the no fly zone, while not a NATO member (anymore) it allowed NATO to be brought into it without the usual politics.

[Bill Roy]

Dragger thank you for the clarification on the legal side of US involvement. My '60 Day Rule' was indeed based on my understanding of the situation during the Carter administration, I assumed this still held but why I put the proviso at the end of my post.

[draggar]

Billbo - you're tralking about thw "War Powers Act" (a.k.a. "War Powers Resolution") of 1973. It gives the president use of the military for 60 days (plus another 30 for withdrawal) w/o congressional approval if the US is attacked or under a serious threat - but the president needs to give congress a 48 hour warning.

NATO policies - (generalized) "an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members" - all Libya had to do was fire one bullet at a UK military asset and that would draw the US into it.

Honestly the setup was brilliant. The politics of war.

[Bill Roy]

Again Dragger this info is much appreciated. When you get to my age (cough, 50+, cough) remembering details such as little used acts, etc., becomes a little blurred.

Seriously though perhaps your explanation would explain the 'delay' in the US acting faster - indeed all credance to the Obama administration for making sure their actions would seem water tight. (I must admit we were a little concerned over on this side of the pond about the apparent lack of leadership publicly shown from the US and Obama, but getting the pieces of the puzzle in place first clearly was a top priority, and rightly so IMO now you have explained it.)

[south]

What an angry little man.

[Donald Aquilano]

UN or NATO policy doe not trump the Constitution of the U.S.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war not the President.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President to send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress, or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

What serious threat does the nation of Libya pose to the U.S.?

Answer - NONE

Has Libya attacked the U.S.?

Answer - NO

The question should be why are we attacking Libya?

The say its because he is murdering civilians but if that's the case then we should attack Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain as they kill their civilians too.

No matter how you slice it Obama's foreign policy is no different than George W. Bush's. Nothing ever changes.

[Gerry]

Oh. Wait!

He's not the first president to do such a thing.

Reagan bombed Tripoli killing one of Khadafi's sons.

Was there a debate on the floor? Was congress consulted? Was there a no-fly zone in place? Was there a UN backed multinational force?

The answer to all the above is ... NO!

[draggar]

The 1986 bombings were in retaliation from a terrorist bombing of a discotheque frequented by US troops in West Berlin- US troops were deliberately targetted. Technically, that's an attack on the US military. Politics at work.

Didn't Clinton lob some missles into Afghanistan and another country in response to an Al-Qaeda attack w/o congressional approval?

Edit: It was in response to the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Cruise missles were fired into Afghanistan and Sudan (Operation Infinite Reach).

[Gerry]

I am well aware of why Reagan did it. Fact remains, he did not get the approval of congress, there was no debate on the floor, and there was no pre-attack press conference.

[Area52]

Anyone that believes that the United States founders formed a Constitution that gives the President the authority to wage war at will, without actually declaring war or especially, without the consent of Congress, is a dam fool. Obviously, the people that wrote the War Powers Act and/or made it law didn't think a President has that authority either or they wouldn't have felt the act was necessary. Like the Patriot Act, The War Powers Act can not supercede or amend the Constitution witihout being ratiified by the states as mandated in the same. This is why many, including myself, believe that both acts are unconstitutional. Consider that Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional law expert, he might have some explaining to do.

Above all, Obama's allegiance is required to American citizens, not the U.N. nor foreign citizens.

Regardless of the obnoxiously rosy picture some of you always paint of Obama, he has proven to be indecisive, disingenuine and just plain quirky in this matter. It's like he's always trying to pull a fast one. His latest silly maneuver, an attempt to soften political damage, is the same as if a person strikes another with a weapon and then hands the weapon to another in an attempt to escape blame. It's quite immature. Judging by his history, I'm waiting for his administration to blame someone else for this U.S. attack.

[Gerry]

This is why many, including myself, believe that both acts are unconstitutional.

Seems to me you feel like many things are unconstitutional.

Perhaps start your own political party....the Herbal Tea Party to accompany your never ended rosy picture of your beliefs.

[whitebark]

UN or NATO policy doe not trump the Constitution of the U.S.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war not the President.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President to send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress, or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

What serious threat does the nation of Libya pose to the U.S.?

Answer - NONE

Has Libya attacked the U.S.?

Answer - NO

The question should be why are we attacking Libya?

The say its because he is murdering civilians but if that's the case then we should attack Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain as they kill their civilians too.

No matter how you slice it Obama's foreign policy is no different than George W. Bush's. Nothing ever changes.

In full agreement. If they do this everywhere - than fine. But since they(Western powers) pick and choose which civilians to help based on some formula which is never seen...

I don't have a problem with the UN sanctioning actions to preserve life but as BD77 says - why not Syria, Bahrain, Ivory Coast etc?

Dare I say Rwanda would have turned out different had they been an oil exporter to Europe?

---------- Post added at 08:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

Didn't Clinton lob some missles into Afghanistan and another country in response to an Al-Qaeda attack w/o congressional approval?

Edit: It was in response to the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Cruise missles were fired into Afghanistan and Sudan (Operation Infinite Reach).

Clinton managed to get a bunch of factory workers killed for no reason other than they showed up to work that day to make medicine. He and his government were never held to account as it should have been.

[Area52]

Seems to me me me me me me me me

Portapotty's about right. Just laid another stinker.

[Bill Roy]

Can I just point out please that neither President Obama or the United States have declared 'war'. As 'Dragger' so carefully pointed out, for those that missed it, is that America has to all intense and purposes upheld its international treaty obligations, and further more has done so under authority of a UN mandate. As the NATO treaty (and others I am sure) have been debated by congress and passed by them then the President will have acted lawfully in implementing them. What is more I would ask the Repugs how many US citizens died in the Lockerbie bombing? I wonder how many of their relatives now do not support this action against Gadaffi's regime?

Perhaps we should ask the 'Lady' from Alaska, after all according to the Repugs she is an expert on Foreign Affairs because she can see Russia from her kitchen window (not)! Mind you we will undoubtedly be told soon by Repugs that they agree with Putin & Co. (Mind you the Russian stance on this may have something to do with the $4billion existing arms deal with Gaddafi and the $2billion arms deal being negotiated with him by them.)

The latest from the Gaddafi camp (via a government spokeman this morning) is that their armed forces have not killed any civilians, all the civilians have been killed by the rebels! Now why is it I somehow have great difficulty taking that statement seriously?

Whitebark to your point about 'why we are attacking Libya' now. Libya is indeed not being attacked. What is being attacked are those that would harm the civilians of Libya, and to facilitate this the defensive infrastructure capable of causing harm to those that are there to defend the civilians of Libya.

Now the question is why are we not doing the same elsewhere? The simple fact is that there is not a UN mandate to do the same elsewhere, now that also brings the point of who would support such action against other countries and vote for it or abstain at the UN. As Prince Hassein said at the weekend 'let us hope other dictators learn from the actions in Libya' (paraphrased).

[Gerry]

To many on the right, everything the man says or does not say or anything the man does or does not do is an impeachable offense.

Filling in the NCAA brackets is an impeachable offense.

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

Libya is indeed not being attacked. What is being attacked are those that would harm the civilians of Libya, and to facilitate this the defensive infrastructure capable of causing harm to those that are there to defend the civilians of Libya.

A no fly zone has been established and is being enforced.

The Libyan whacko announced a cease fire while he continued to shell, bomb, kill in the city of Benghazi.

Some people need to become aware of strategy. If you want to enforce a no fly zone, you take out radar, missile launchers, and bomb runways so aircraft can not take off. Plus, Whacko's forces played well into the hands of NATO strike forces...had his tanks, armor, troops all clustered together to create one hell of a target.

As for other countries, their civil war, their strife...I agree on principle that this is horrible. Often times these are rogue groups doing the horrible acts. It is hard to pinpoint with accuracy who and where the enemy is.

In Libya' case, you have a nutcase telling the Folks of Benghazi to leave because he is going to attack it, does not give time for people to leave, attacks it, says a cease fire is in place while still shelling it and bombing it. You have a leader of a nation thinking all the attention is on Japan so now he is free to do what ever he wants to. Not so fast.

In Libya's case, you have a well defined enemy and targets to take out while providing little risk to civilians. Anyone manning anti-aircraft missiles, radar stations, driving tanks, or flying Libyan jets and helicopters are not civilians.

[ilovedomains]

[amcdonald]

oh please, he will not be impeached. gotta love party politics!

[elius]

Don't know how to spell and don't know the basic features of socialism? Go back to school is the answer!