We had this discussion for seven years - and Libya is no where near as big of a problem as Iran or North Korea or Syria or Nigeria, or Sudan or Somalia or Yemen or Congo or Uganda or ... and yet, we have become embroiled in a war that truly, with no question, is so unimportant as to be unworthy of mention but for the fact we have spent a billion dollars dealing with this wholly contrived event that is not relevant to anyone on earth but for some Libyans - and they managed pretty well for 30 years.
Unlike Iraq - who had nuclear materials and had tried to assassinate a US president and was a threat to its neighbors and a majority of the population within its borders.
Unlike Afghanistan - where a sunni sect decided it would interpret the Koran and sharia law as strictly as possible, including when necessary shooting women on the streets if they had fingernail polish on, or were not covered completely. A group of pedophiles barbarians who abused little boys as earnestly as they abused little girls and older women - all in the name of their religion. Stopping men on the street to measure their beards, and beating anyone who did not have a beard the correct length. A group of barbaric men who decided to destroy 5,000 year old monuments because they somehow offended their sensibilities (probably just before they all jumped back in their trucks and went back to town to molest little boys). An extremist sect who gave refuge, support, aid, and comfort to the world's most sought after terrorist, and in the process brought ruin upon what was left in Afghanistan - often shooting children or teachers if they were in a school, burning down schools, killing anyone and everyone who opposed them. A group who provided a state for any and all terrorists from which they might plan and carry out attacks against the United States or Germany, or England, or ... any country.
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is a model student. In 2003, when George W Bush said we would go after anyone and everyone who had WMDs and otherwise anyone who aided terrorism - Kaddafhi called up Bush and asked him to come to Libya and take away his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons because he no longer wanted them. Kadaffi has always been a pain but it never bothered Bush, Clinton, Bush enough to act. Reagan tried to dissuade him from the dark side, only to push him over the edge, and we were not there to ensure he didn't climb back up because by then it was H. Bush and he was not Reagan.
Suddenly Libya is worth a billion dollars. No. They are not. Egypt is not worth $3 billion. Pakistan is not worth $5 billion. No. Not any amount.
Shame on Obama.
2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The New York Times
June 17, 2011
WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.
“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”
Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”
The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.
“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”
A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.
As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.
In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.
A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.
[to read the rest of the article, click on the link]
obama
Unlike Iraq - who had nuclear materials and had tried to assassinate a US president and was a threat to its neighbors and a majority of the population within its borders.
Unlike Afghanistan - where a sunni sect decided it would interpret the Koran and sharia law as strictly as possible, including when necessary shooting women on the streets if they had fingernail polish on, or were not covered completely. A group of pedophiles barbarians who abused little boys as earnestly as they abused little girls and older women - all in the name of their religion. Stopping men on the street to measure their beards, and beating anyone who did not have a beard the correct length. A group of barbaric men who decided to destroy 5,000 year old monuments because they somehow offended their sensibilities (probably just before they all jumped back in their trucks and went back to town to molest little boys). An extremist sect who gave refuge, support, aid, and comfort to the world's most sought after terrorist, and in the process brought ruin upon what was left in Afghanistan - often shooting children or teachers if they were in a school, burning down schools, killing anyone and everyone who opposed them. A group who provided a state for any and all terrorists from which they might plan and carry out attacks against the United States or Germany, or England, or ... any country.
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is a model student. In 2003, when George W Bush said we would go after anyone and everyone who had WMDs and otherwise anyone who aided terrorism - Kaddafhi called up Bush and asked him to come to Libya and take away his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons because he no longer wanted them. Kadaffi has always been a pain but it never bothered Bush, Clinton, Bush enough to act. Reagan tried to dissuade him from the dark side, only to push him over the edge, and we were not there to ensure he didn't climb back up because by then it was H. Bush and he was not Reagan.
Suddenly Libya is worth a billion dollars. No. They are not. Egypt is not worth $3 billion. Pakistan is not worth $5 billion. No. Not any amount.
Shame on Obama.
2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The New York Times
June 17, 2011
WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.
“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”
Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”
The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.
“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”
A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.
As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.
In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.
A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.
[to read the rest of the article, click on the link]
obama
Posts
