Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement responding the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion regarding the President's authority to use military force in Libya: In the legal memo provided by the Presidents Office of Legal Counsel, the Administration argues that the President had the authority to attack Libya absent Congressional authorization because he determined it was in the national interest and because the US is engaged in limited military operations that do not constitute a war.
![Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 04/01/11. (image: Democracy Now!)]](/images/stories/article_imgs4/2774-rep-dennis-kucinich040111.jpg "Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 04/01/11. (image: Democracy Now!)]")
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 04/01/11. (image: Democracy Now!)]
Mr. President the Word Is War
08 April 11
�
Kucinich Responds to Office of Legal Counsel's Twisted Rationale for Libyan War: "Positively Orwellian"
ongressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement responding the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion regarding the President's authority to use military force in Libya:
In the legal memo provided by the President's Office of Legal Counsel, the Administration argues that the President had the authority to attack Libya absent Congressional authorization because he determined it was in the national interest and because the US is engaged in limited military operations that do not constitute a war.
The war in Libya is not in our national interest. The claim that the US had to act in Libya in order to maintain stability in the region - "a vital US interest" - runs contrary to the history of US military intervention in the region. As evidenced by US intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and drone bombing campaigns in Pakistan, rather than maintain stability, US military action in the region has unfortunately served to further instability. Occupations fuel insurgencies and close a circle of never-ending violence. Additionally, the doctrine that the US has a responsibility to act militarily, without prior authorization from Congress, in the event of a threat to any of our friends in the world puts us on a path to permanent war and has no legal basis in the Constitution or the War Powers Act.
The Obama Administration has prosecuted a war that is "not a war." The assertion that US military actions in Libya do not constitute war belies the significant use of military force in Libya. The Administration's own Secretary of Defense, while testifying before Congress last month, admitted that enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya was an act of war: "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." [1] The United States, thus far, has spent well over $550 million on the war in Libya, using at least 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, estimated to cost up to $1.5 million each, in the first day alone. The US also used Joint Direct Attack Munitions - 2,000 pound bombs - to bomb Libya. The characterization of the use of force in Libya solely as a humanitarian intervention cannot hide the reality of what war is. The attempt to assert that this is not a war does violence to cognition and violence to the English language. It is positively Orwellian.
The Administration also claims that authority to use US military force abroad was provided by United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, which authorized member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians and to enforce a no-fly zone. The Constitution does not provide an exception for the President to unilaterally decide to use military force abroad if an international body, such as the United Nations, provides him with one. It is unequivocally clear, in Article 1, Section 8, that the power to authorize the use of military force or to declare war lies solely with Congress.
The law provides the President with the authority to use military force absent prior Congressional authorization only to repel sudden or imminent attack. There was no threat of sudden or imminent attack to the United States from Libya. President Obama himself recognized the constitutional limitations imposed on any US President when, in an October 2008 interview, he stated that "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." [2]
In the sophistry of the Office of Legal Counsel's memo, the Obama administration fails to justify what cannot be justified. While the President has argued that the credibility of the United Nations (UN) was at stake if members of the Security Council did not act, it is actually the credibility of his administration and of our own democracy that is at stake. Preserving the credibility of the UN has never been a reason to go to war. A plain reading of the US Constitution explicitly places war powers in the hands of Congress.
In this flimsy attempt to justify military action in Libya, it appears as though the administration is taking scissors and scotch tape to the Constitution, cutting out sections they do not like, and replacing them with legal theory that is reminiscent of the now discredited theories (of a former administration) which were used to justify torture.
[1] Sanger, David E. and Shanker, Tom. (2011, March 2). "Gates Warns of Risks of No-Fly Zone." The New York Times, online.
Accessible: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03military.html.
[2] Savage, Charlie. (2007, December 20). "Barack Obama's Q&A." The Boston Globe, online.
Accessible: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Now, if we can just bring charges against the bankers and Wall Streeters who both caused and profited from the financial crash...
Don't have the power to encourage or force actual prosecution of them (YET), but we did quit doing business with them (withdrawing our accounts) after going to an OWS General Assembly in Riverside California. We had been dumped into BoA years earlier when they took over Security Pacific.
And for those of you in California, you can create your own opportunity any time you want. It's called RECALL.
You mean the one Darrell Issa bankrolled, after the Republican machine primaried the electable Republican (Riordan) for a sufficiently conservative one? Try my little bet winner sometime, where you ask the most Republican person you know (and I knew former Presidents of Republican political organizations in California) who that candidate was. His "unexpected" loss, despite heavy spending, led them to the "do over."
I considered running, myself, in the circus that didn't require massive numbers of signatures to qualify, just paying a $3,500 registration fee to get your name on the ballot (I gave it much more thought and came closer to doing it than many other things in my life).
I've often wondered how much "Candidate for Governor of California" would have added to my resume, but, then, how much did it add to the machine picked candidate that lost to Gray Davis? Go ahead and have some fun seeing if even the most die hard California Republican you know has as much trouble as you might, in remembering or finding out who that was.
But I am really, really angry with all those Americans who still continue to bank with BoA.
Too big to fail? Let's make 'em smaller. Thank you, Mr. Olson for your service.
The American "justice" system just sickens me with its wild-eyed injustice and harsh cruelty to all but the powerful.
"But I am really, really angry with all those Americans who still continue to bank with BoA."
That's why Credit Unions were invented- there's one in your area you're eligible to join- a few minutes research will produce several possibilities. The nice part is YOU can vote for the Board of Directors- if they get pissy, you can vote them out.
AND, a credit union doesn't have to make a profit for the shareholders, so they can afford to give you good service.
For some other interesting history, take a look at how John Reed (and Sandy Weill) have had changes of heart.
See John Reed's change at http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-reed-on-big-banks-power-and-influence/
"I, too am angry at Bank of America." To misquote Robert Kennedy, "Don't get mad, get out (of the system.) Besides ranting on RSN (which I support) what have you actually done to reduce your support, direct and indirect, of the banksters?
Wells Fargo which is using fraudulent means to force foreclosure on property. the method is claiming "incomplete paperwork" and refusing to accept payment, and then foreclosing for non payment.
Bank of America is still doing this too, and neither the Federal Government nor the State will do anything about it.
maybe we need more chalk.
Frontline's "Money, Power, and Wall Street" seemed to match our street view of the relative judgements of the various entities.
I like your comments "Vegan_Girl".
They SAID they paid 6000$. Take that with a BIG grain of salt
"The powerful are beginning to overstep and more people are taking notice" ??????
You MUST be kidding. The powerful have been overstepping for a long time, but NOW more and more people are getting fed up and refuse to take it.
Much of the fault can be blamed on American voters for voting in many of these political ideologues into office. And if they weren't voted into office, but selected by political-ideol ogue people who were ultimately voted into office, then again the voters must take full responsibility, and that was before the use of e-voting machines & extreme gerrymandering efforts.
San Diego I thought is supposed to be an extremely liberal and progressive city. So how did assholes like this get into positions of power? And if San Diego is what I believed it to be, then one has to wonder how much worse things are in states like Texas and Mississippi.
Short of a 1776-style revolution, the only solution to this mess would be massive recall elections (and right now without any delay) to rid ourselves of these assholes and to tell the next (hopefully much better) batch that we vote in that if they screw up in any major way by acting like tyrants just once, that they will also be run out on the rail like their former counterparts.
The only problem we have now, and it's a big one, is that the American people have lost the power to have their vote counted honestly. HAVA now mandates that all elections use e-voting machines manufactured & programmed by private companies that have their own political agenda. No hand-counted ballots allowed anymore!
So, now what?
To do this you would need the so called Lame Stream Media to actually print the news and accurate information.
Could you please tell me where this story appeared in the Lame Stream Media? And appeared with ALL the information.
What we have here is the need for PAID advertising and the submission of the Lame Stream Media to those that pay for the advertising.
The American Public is secondary to the corporate dollar when it comes to our major information source.
With some luck and if we can hold out long enough . . . .
Well you get the picture . . . . . Will we last long enough???
This was a criminal trial, so the state bears its costs and
the defendant bears his.
In a civil trial, the winning side might be able to get
his costs covered by the loser, but it's not typical.
www.moveyourmoneyproject.org
Also he didn't back down, he stood his ground, not knowing if he was going to get a big fine and maybe some time in the slammer.
I also applaud the jury for being smart enough to to find him not guilty.
Bank of America's claim that they paid 6000$ to clean the side walk is ballony.
Or they are stupid. Hosing down a side walk could not possibly cost 6000$
thanks
Up north here in Lake County, California, the voters tossed out their incumbent and corrupt district attorney and sheriff after the equally ridiculous and now infamous Bismarck Dinius case, involving an inappropriately prosecuted case of manslaughter. The crime was actually committed by a ranking member of the sheriff's department. Mr. Dinius was acquitted by the jury prior to the election.
WorldWideChildrenChalkProtestMovement
WWCCPM !
Go Go Go !
I'm so interested to know what will happen to him in the media (both tv and newspapers) in the coming election. Obviously, he won't be getting big contributions from any big corporations, notably not Bank of America or any of its brother banks. Let's see what the media does with him. I hope he wins re-election.
San Diego. A circus is where clowns should be seen, not in the courtrooms of the city.
Iceland or Ecuador? Will American homes have to be converted to safe houses? Watch or participate in the fight for democracy!