Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[BeAChooser]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...ot-libyan-warplane-qaddafi-violates-fly-zone/

NATO will take command of the military operation in Libya, a Turkish foreign minister was quoted as saying Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

Now how does that work?

One can justify NATO's involvement in Afghanistan.

But how does one justify it's involvement in Libya?

No NATO member was attacked by Libya.

No NATO country was even threatened by Libya.

NATO's involvment in Kosovo was bad enough.

(And look how well that turned out?)

This makes a complete mockery of NATO and it's charter.

 

[TraneWreck]

No no no no.

The UN Charter has nothing to say about requirements for Congressional authorization of the use of force by the U.S. president.

Look, I've quoted some (maybe not all) relevant passages from the UN Charter. They essentially say that member states have a duty to execute the decisions of the Security Council. If one of those decisions is to use force, explain why that is any different than a NATO treaty mandating the use of force.

You're avoiding the substantive issue and refusing to refer to the relvant texts. It's one thing to declare "this is what the Charter says," but it's fairly easy to just quote the section you need.

If anything, the UN Charter is an additional requirement for authorization* to use military force beyond the requirements I've described several times that the War Powers Act lays out.

I think you are still trying to construe UN authorization to use force as a requirement to use force.

There are two questions:

1) Does the Libya resolution demand member states use force to establish the no-fly zone?
2) Can the UN Securtiy Council approve a resolution that requires member states to use force?

*ETA: For example, suppose Congress decided to declare war against Canada because we want to expand our borders. The UN Security Council would not authorize that use of force, even though the U.S. may have fulfilled the constitutional requirements for the president to order the use of military force.

Ok. I don't see how that's relevant. If Congress gives approval, Congress gives approval, the questions is whether Congress can pre-approve a military action by signing a treaty with automatic triggers.

ETA: Ditto with NATO. NATO does not and cannot change the requirements laid out in U.S. law, but it can add another layer of authorization that is needed to use force. So when NATO says that if someone attacks the UK, the U.S. is authorized to defend the UK, this does not take the place of the requirements for Congressional authorization called for by the War Powers Act. If the situation presents an immediate threat to the US though, the War Powers Act already allows the president to act without going to Congress first.

Again, you're trying to sneak around the relevant issue:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

One such "specific statutory authorization" is North Atlantic Treaty. Ratification of the treaty established the conditions set forth therein as the law of the land.

Another such "specific statutory authorization" is the UN Charter. And if not, please explain why NATO operates to obviate the need for Congressional approval but the UN Charter does not. Both treaties that set forth conditions for the use of force that Congress ratified in anticipation of the need to perform such.

 

[BeAChooser]

you're trying to sneak around the relevant issue

LOL! You and Obama are the ones doing the *sneaking*.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not true, The UN Charter places many demands on the US, many of which never appear before the Security Council for decision.

But even when it places demand on "the US" it does not run contrary to the War Powers Act. If there is any obligation to act (in the context of ordering the use of military force), that obligation to act falls to Congress.

And I don't see anything in the UN Charter that is the requirement of a member nation to use military force. I see language that says member states "undertake to make available" based on and in accordance with "a special agreement or agreements".

The UN Charter specifically states that those agreements, made between the Security Council and Members or groups of Members, "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1) Does the Libya resolution demand member states use force to establish the no-fly zone?

No. It authorizes member states to do so.

2) Can the UN Securtiy Council approve a resolution that requires member states to use force?

Can the UN Security Council require member states to use force without going through the authorization process required by the constitution of those member states?

Another such "specific statutory authorization" is the UN Charter.

No, it is not. The UN Charter makes no mention whatsoever of military intervention in Libya.

The War Powers Act is clear. Have you read it yet? I've posted links to the appropriate section of the US Code several times.

It is quite clear that the president cannot order the use of military force without congressional authorization except in cases where there is an emergency caused by an attack on the U.S. If there is a conflict between the War Powers Act and the UN Charter (which I don't believe to be the case), the law passed in 1973 would beat a 1945 statute anyway.

 

[sarge]

I seem to be answering the same questions over and over again as if the answer I provide somehow becomes wrong the more often the question is asked.

If treaties are law, then any treated ratified by Congress that requires the US to commit forces would satisfy the war powers act.

So - two questions must be answered. Are treaties law, and do any treaties require the US to supply forces to the actions in Libya?

The answer to the first is obvious - treaties are "statute" for the purposes of the WPA. So, it is established that the President may commit war without prior approval from Congress if a treaty that we have signed requires it of us. There need be no immediate danger to the US.

Does the UN Charter bind us in the same way that a Treaty does? Yes. Does the UN Charter bind us to comply with the UNs resolutions? Yes. Does the UN Resolution Libya require us to commit war? That is the only question left to be answered. I believe that the President could reasonably argue that it does.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why would you assume the UN Charter places a demand on the president to act rather than Congress, when the former would be unconstitutional and contrary to U.S. law?

The UN Charter explicitly states that it is not doing that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If treaties are law, then any treated ratified by Congress that requires the US to commit forces would satisfy the war powers act.

No. The War Powers Act requires specific authorization. There is no way that a treaty ratified by Congress some 60 years ago is specific authorization for this use of force.

Are treaties law, and do any treaties require the US to supply forces to the actions in Libya?

Cut the crap. No one is arguing that ratified treaties are not law. There is no ratified treaty that requires the U.S. to supply forces to the actions in Libya.

Does the UN Charter bind us to comply with the UNs resolutions? Yes.

No. Even if it did (which it doesn't), it explicitly states that member states compliance has to be in accordance with their own constitution. So even if it did bind "us" to comply, under U.S. law, the obligation to act falls to Congress. The president cannot use military force without specific authorization of Congress.

The idea you keep using, that the UN Charter is somehow constructively Congressional authorization for any and all uses of military force that the Security Council authorizes would be tantamount to a constitutional amendment [rather than requiring an act of Congress, it requires the vote of one ambassador to the UN], and tantamount to a repeal of the War Powers Act. So even if the UN intended it to mean what you claim (and I don't think they do), any conflict between the UN Charter (ratified in 1945) and the War Powers Act (passed in 1973) would be decided in favor of the War Powers Act. (In other words, the War Powers Act could be seen as amending U.S. ratification of the UN Charter, but not the other way around.)

Please, read the War Powers Act. It is actually the law that governs this issue. The UN Charter is the law that governs how the UN authorizes use of military force, and it says nothing at all about what authority the POTUS has.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

ECongress ratifies treaties, and the President is required to honor those treaties.

Says who? The UN Charter says nothing about obliging the POTUS to do anything.

Under U.S. law, if there is a duty or requirement to act, that duty falls to Congress. There is an explicit black letter law that prohibits what you are suggesting (the War Powers Act).

There is explicit language in the UN Charter that says that Security Council agreements are to be ratified in accordance with the constitutions of the member states (in the U.S. absent an emergency caused by an attack on the US, that means by an act of Congress, not an act of the President without congressional authorization).

 

[TraneWreck]

Let's suppose that Congress can satisfy constitutional requirements ahead of time through treaty ratification. In other words, by ratifying the NATO treaty, Congress is basically saying we will go to war if the conditions of the treaty call for it. If they can do that for NATO, then they can do that with other treaties. If the treaty demands that we go to war under a set of conditions, then Congress' ratification should be taken as prior approval of war should those conditions materialize.

[...]

In other words, if a treaty only permits military action under a given set of conditions, does ratification of the treaty indicate congressional authorization of military action if those conditions are met? I would say no, in such a case we cannot construe Congressional approval, we can only construe the possibility of congressional approval. We would still need the actual approval. This isn't a unique legal situation either. Plenty of actions fall under the scope of multiple statutes, and they generally must all be satisfied (unless the law itself clarifies some hierarchy).

Sure, I don't disagree with that interpretation. They used the word "Authorize" for the no fly zone:

8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819

I think that's the stronger interpretation. Here's what I'd argue if I were defending Obama:

The next paragraph is a request by the UN for member nations to support the effort:

9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;

That's vague, so I don't really think it's sufficient, but if the UN says they need assistance and its our legal obligation to provide it, does Congress have to approve it? Do we have an obligation to provide what we can to satisfy a UN Security Council request?

And more puzzling would be our obligations if they used this phrasing:

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

If it said, "Demands that member states support the no-fly zone with any military assistance they can provide," what then?

The facts of this particular situation may make the issue moot (or not ripe at this point), but I'm not convinced that Congress should be able pre-approve action in the case of the UN or NATO.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's vague, so I don't really think it's sufficient, but if the UN says they need assistance and its [sic] our legal obligation to provide it, does Congress have to approve it?

Yes. Under the War Powers Act, Congressional authorization is required.

So even if the UN did demand action of all member states (which they're not), the obligation to act would fall to Congress, since it is explicitly against U.S. law for the president to order the use of military force without specific congressional authorization.

 

[TraneWreck]

Can the UN Security Council require member states to use force without going through the authorization process required by the constitution of those member states?

NATO can, why not the UN?

No, it is not. The UN Charter makes no mention whatsoever of military intervention in Libya.

Is that a joke? The UN Charter lays out the obligations and rights of its members. It explains what we are supposed to do when the Security Council approves a resolution. Specific resolutions need not be part of the charter.

The Constitution makes no mention of the EPA, therefore it doesn't exist? I'm not even sure what point you think you're making here.

The War Powers Act is clear. Have you read it yet? I've posted links to the appropriate section of the US Code several times.

I just quoted and highlighted a section of it in my previous post. You must not have read it all that closely or you would have recognized it.

It is quite clear that the president cannot order the use of military force without congressional authorization except in cases where there is an emergency caused by an attack on the U.S. If there is a conflict between the War Powers Act and the UN Charter (which I don't believe to be the case), the law passed in 1973 would beat a 1945 statute anyway.

This is wrong. The War Powers Act clearly says that the president may use force without the approval of Congress when specifically given the statutory authority to do so. Here is the section again:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Treaties act as statutory authority. Once ratified, they become "the law of the land."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If it said, "Demands that member states support the no-fly zone with any military assistance they can provide," what then?

First, I'm glad you've read the resolution and realize that it does not make any such a demand.

However, if it did, why do you think the obligation to act would fall to the president (contrary to the War Powers Act) and not Congress (in accordance with the War Powers Act)?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes. Under the War Powers Act, Congressional authorization is required.

So even if the UN did demand action of all member states (which they're not), the obligation to act would fall to Congress, since it is explicitly against U.S. law for the president to order the use of military force without specific congressional authorization.

I find it amusing that you keep repeating this about the War Powers Act, but refuse to acknowledge the provision in said act that gives the president the ability to engage militarily with "specific statutory authorization." What do you think that means?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Treaties act as statutory authority. Once ratified, they become "the law of the land."

Yes, I know. If Congress ratified a treaty that gave specific authorization to use military force against Libya, it would satisfy the War Powers Act.

But that hasn't happened.

 

[TraneWreck]

First, I'm glad you've read the resolution and realize that it does not make any such a demand.

However, if it did, why do you think the obligation to act would fall to the president (contrary to the War Powers Act) and not Congress (in accordance with the War Powers Act)?

Because for the 55th time in the last 30sec., you are not reading the War Powers Act correctly. You are wrong about what it says, and your mistakes are all flowing from that oversight.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find it amusing that you keep repeating this about the War Powers Act, but refuse to acknowledge the provision in said act that gives the president the ability to engage militarily with "specific statutory authorization." What do you think that means?

Bullcrap. That's a flat out lie. I have not refused to acknowledge that provision. In fact, I have cited it (either in direct quote or paraphrase) at least 10 times on this thread.

Specific statutory authorization means just what it says. And there has been no specific statutory authorization (remember, if it's not ratified by Congress, it is not a statute) for military force to be used against Libya.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because for the 55th time in the last 30sec., you are not reading the War Powers Act correctly.

What? You've done all you can to resist even looking at the War Powers Act. That you have made this claim 55 times (or even twice) is a flat out lie.

You are wrong about what it says, and your mistakes are all flowing from that oversight.

Nonsense.

The problem is that you have misread the UN Charter, and have been wrongly trying to construe it as Congressional authorization that satisfies the War Powers Act.

ETA: And I noticed that you failed to answer my question. Even if the U.N. Security Council resolution made a demand on all member states (which it didn't), why would you think the obligation to act falls on the President (contrary to the War Powers Act) and not on Congress? Nothing in the resolution or the UN Charter talks about obligations to the POTUS. In fact, as I've pointed out, there is explicit language in the UN Charter saying that complying with Security Council agreements must be done by ratification in accordance with the constitution of member states, so it's clear that it was understood that the obligation to act would fall to Congress.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, I know. If Congress ratified a treaty that gave specific authorization to use military force against Libya, it would satisfy the War Powers Act.

But that hasn't happened.

They haven't given specific authority to retaliate against country X that attacks England in 2057. They've authorized automatic military action when the provisions of the treaty are exercised.

We ratified the UN Charter in the same way.

 

[TraneWreck]

What? You've done all you can to resist even looking at the War Powers Act. That you have made this claim 55 times (or even twice) is a flat out lie.

Are you joking? I've just quoted twice in the last few minutes. I think you need to slow down and read what I'm writing.

Nonsense.

The problem is that you have misread the UN Charter, and have been wrongly trying to construe it as Congressional authorization that satisfies the War Powers Act.

No, I really haven't. I've quoted the relevant sections of the Charter, you're making crap up or badly skipping through it, as you've done with the War Powers Act.

ETA: And I noticed that you failed to answer my question. Even if the U.N. Security Council resolution made a demand on all member states (which it didn't), why would you think the obligation to act falls on the President (contrary to the War Powers Act) and not on Congress? Nothing in the resolution or the UN Charter talks about obligations to the POTUS. In fact, as I've pointed out, there is explicit language in the UN Charter saying that complying with Security Council agreements must be done by ratification in accordance with the constitution of member states, so it's clear that it was understood that the obligation to act would fall to Congress.

A couple of things:

1) It need not be an obligation that the president act, it could be an option to act. The president is obligated to use force if America is attacked, he has the ability to do so.

2) The executive branch executes laws passed by Congress. Congress ratified the treaty, it's the president's job to enforce it.