Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has just inadvertently made the case for President Obama's impeachment. On ABC's This Week, Jake Tapper asked Gates, "Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?" Gates responded, "No, no. It was not, it was not a vital national interest to the United States."
Now let us recall what Obama said back in 2007, when he was running for president: "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." Obama's words in 2007 and his actions in 2011 seem rather contradictory, don't they? And in fact, noted constitutional scholar Barack Obama was correct back in 2007. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the president can only send the armed forces into military action abroad when the Congress has authorized it or if the United States is under attack, or at serious threat of attack.
Libya was not attacking us, and was not threatening to attack us. The Congress has not declared war on Libya, nor authorized military action against Libya. Therefore, this is an illegal and unconstitutional war. Violating the Constitution by launching an illegal war surely rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is an impeachable offense.
QED.
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are right. This isn't a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It isn't a conservative issue or a liberal issue. This is a constitutional issue. Impeach Obama.
A final thought: It would be nice to see all those principled anti-war protesters demonstrating against an illegal war launched against an oil-rich Muslim country. Has anyone seen them lately? Maybe we should put them on the side of a milk carton, because they seem to be curiously missing.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - R
"A final thought: It would be nice to see all those principled anti-war protesters demonstrating against an illegal war launched against an oil-rich Muslim country. Has anyone seen them lately? Maybe we should put them on the side of a milk carton, because they seem to be curiously missing."
You're implying democrats are fine with what the president has done. Get a clue. Unlike Mindless conservatives we actually have somewhat of a brain.
2 - RJ
51% of Democrats support the illegal war in Libya, according to Gallup.
HERE
3 - stephen michael slee
its a bit deep for me i used to serve 20 years or so ago my comments!yes maybe we had no right invading/no fly zone/un passed/ but at the end of the day dont you think an oppressive regime to be supressed and democracy to prevail.
4 - Doug Hunter
#3
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the country will split in half, maybe a weak central government will allow Libya to become a breeding ground for terrorists. Who knows.
In answer to the article, no, it's not an impeachable offense because as with many constitutional issues lawyers will weasel their way out of the definitions by parsing each word into meaninglessness. Yes, they publicly admit it's not an imminent threat. Yes, they publicly admit if not war, it's at least a kinetic military action. Yes, the president authorized it. Yes, the war powers act says a president can't authorize military action unless there is imminent threat. If it seems airtight that's just because aren't educated enough, a few years of law school would have you asking what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
5 - zingzing
now congress hasn't authorized a war since 1942, yet nearly every (or is it every?) president since that time has taken some sort of military action (with and without nato/un involvement) that did not fit the criteria of imminent threat or actual attack.
are all those guys impeachable? i guess they are, by your reasoning.
does nato/un involvement count for nothing? i guess not. clinton is impeachable for that thing in yugoslavia as well as fucking around and being a typical lying male about it.
btw--nato took over command operations just a few minutes ago.
6 - Dr Dreadful
No, the President hasn't done anything impeachable. Because the United States is acting against Libya as a member of NATO, Article VI of the Constitution applies.
Now, whether the operation is a violation of the NATO Treaty is another matter entirely...
7 - Dr Dreadful
"It would be nice to see all those principled anti-war protesters demonstrating against an illegal war launched against an oil-rich Muslim country. Has anyone seen them lately?"
Yes, here they are.
Oh, and here.
Glad to be of assistance, RJ. I could tell you were worried.
8 - Clavos
...Or a trashing of our own sovereignty by submissively putting ourselves under the command of NATO?
I now stand with Obama (biting tongue) -- he's right, America is NOT exceptional [anymore].
Bah.
9 - Confused
Why are we fighting with Al Quada in Libya and against Al Quada in Afghanistan?
Why are we supporting a corrupt government in Afghanistan and fighting a corrupt government in Libya?
Why are we supporting King Faisal killing his citizens and fighting Moammar Ghadaffi when he kills his citizens?
10 - zingzing
clavos: "...Or a trashing of our own sovereignty by submissively putting ourselves under the command of NATO?"
come on, clavos. do you want the us to take full command and responsibility for this action, war, whatever it is? and what exactly is our sovereignty in libya? is it just because our army is over there that we suddenly have every right to call all the shots of all those who sent their armies? or should we all just be doing our own thing?
what's the point in having these kinds of organizations if we're supposed to lead them all the time? and why should we be in charge? other nations seem quite happy to help out in a manner that has been democratically agreed upon by representatives of their nations.
you make the us out to be some bully who can't stand it if he's not in charge of the sandbox. even if that's pretty much the true state of affairs, it's not a bad thing to defer leadership on something you'd rather not be doing in the first place.
sounds to me like someone just wants to criticize obama. first it was why is he dilly-dallying around about libya? then it was impeach the man for going into libya unilaterally! now it's what? he's giving up total control of the situation? what about-face will happen next? stay tuned.
11 - RJ
6:
The US did not begin its involvement in Libya under the umbrella of NATO. If you recall, Germany did not support the UN resolution that called for a no-fly zone. It only became a NATO deal after the fact.
5:
There hasn't been a DECLARED war since WWII, but the Congress has certainly authorized military action numerous times since then. For example, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed both houses of the Congress by rather wide margins. And the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (which authorized the use of force in Afghanistan) passed almost unanimously in 2001. And etc.
7:
Thanks. I'm not sure if a few dozen communists holding up signs denouncing the US is comparable to tens of thousands of screaming protesters comparing the President to Hitler, but at least it's good to know that they haven't ALL mysteriously disappeared.
12 - zingzing
"For example, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed both houses of the Congress by rather wide margins."
on trumped-up nonsense, you must admit...
13 - Ruvy
Nice job, RJ. Oh, lawyers like to weasel out of everything. That's what G-d invented them to do. But every now and then you get these "facts on the ground" that all the smoke-blowing and bullshitting by lawyers just can't hide or get around.
14 - Socrates
Actually, the president can order the troops to go anywhere he wants them to, because he's commander in chief. All the legislative branch does is fund the troops.
Anyway, the US has to stop trying to be the world police. Americans are so stupid.
15 - Logan Beirne
Our Founding Fathers would be shocked by President Obama's actions. Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson indeed engaged in undeclared wars. However, they certainly had Congressional approval.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
No, they would not be shocked - except by the fact that we can do what we are able to do in the modern world.
There's many liberals who are up in arms about Obama's bombing of Libya....but I'll believe that Republicans are serious about the need to get Congress' approval first when THEY protest their own president's military actions taken without Congressional approval as many Democrats are doing now with Obama.
17 - R.J. Moore II
"its a bit deep for me i used to serve 20 years or so ago my comments!yes maybe we had no right invading/no fly zone/un passed/ but at the end of the day dont you think an oppressive regime to be supressed and democracy to prevail."
You mean, like Iraq?
18 - stephen michael slee
A number of things first terrorists flew planes into the two the twin towwers i remember the day then kings cross and the bus and others around the world for me thats where it started i dont know what the west done to prevoke the attacks but Mr bush said something like we will leave no stone unturned and hunt them down its not over yet as for the impeachment thats for the big wigs of congress to sort out we cant live our lives with the threat of terrorism over us and also america taking the lead roll that some are ranting and raving about america is the worlds super power that i personaly look up to but china is seconed and india is third these where communist states i dont even want to think about it swings and round abouts the tables will turn democracy and jobs jobs jobs.
19 - Baronius
I've never seen a decent argument in support of the War Powers Act. It seems to be a usurpation of the powers of the President by Congress. It would take a president and a congress of great courage to repeal it or amend it into something appropriate; for the most part, presidents just ignore it. I could never support the impeachment of a president on the basis of a violation of the War Powers Act.
20 - pablo
6 - Dr Dreadful
Mar 27, 2011 at 2:04 pm
No, the President hasn't done anything impeachable. Because the United States is acting against Libya as a member of NATO, Article VI of the Constitution applies.
Dread, you are just plain wrong that a treaty once ratified by the congress and signed by the President either trumps or ammends the constitution as per the supreme law of the land. Perhaps you can (you can't because it does not exist) a supreme court decision which rules as you claim.
ANY act of congress, and a treaty is an act of congress must from its inception comply with the constitution, if it does not it is null and void.
This was made quite clear in REID V. COVERT, 354 U. S. 1 (1956).
Your assumption and claim is absurd on its face. Suppose the congress passed with a 2/3 majority a treaty with another country on as in the case of NATO a group of other countries that in one way or another made it a crime to express oneself freely as guaranteed the the 1st amendment. Are you actually suggesting as per Article 6 of the US constitution that this would now be the law of the land?
You are just plain wrong Dread, and perhaps you should stick to the lovely nuances of British Law as your field of expertise pal.
pg 317 - "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution."
Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994.
"Dear Mr. Neely:
"Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. ... I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies]
"... Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country... "
So how about it Dread? Show me some case law. I am all eyes.
Baronius I am surpised at you, you freely admit that the president is violatiing overtly the supreme rule of law on a an issue of major importance, concerning the power to kill other human beings unlawfully, yet you would not impeach for this breach. Amazing.
21 - Anon
The same mainstream media that televised the uprising in Egypt should provide the same coverage of the people in the US protesting.
22 - Baronius
Pablo, I'm actually making the same point you are - a law that doesn't square with the Constitution is invalid. I don't see how the War Powers Act can be constitutional. It's hardly fair to insist that the President uphold both the Constitution and a law that's unconstitutional.
23 - handyguy
This article is not about RJ being in favor of or opposed to military action in Libya. It is about his [and many others'] reflexive disdain and even hatred for anything and everything Barack Obama does or says. The proper name for this sort of disingenuous accusation is 'propaganda.'
The president's speech tonight effectively answered many/most legitimate concerns.
24 - RJ
Excellent post, handyman. Ignore the facts presented and simply call me a hater and a propagandist.
Still getting your talking points from MMFA, I see.
25 - Baritone
I have no doubt that no matter what Obama did or didn't do as regards Libya - or anything else for that matter - would have been lambasted here and by everyone who aligns against him.
He has been accused of "dithering" and at the same time of acting too rashly - often by the same people. He would have been damned to hell and back had he okayed unilateral American military involvement. He would have been equally damned had he chosen to do nothing.
Many of you believe that we lefties were too harsh on W. So, now that the shoe is on the other foot, you just can't help yourselves. The radical right is joyously spreading their wings in triumph and are now going full bore to dismantle anything and everything that Obama says or does or thinks. You are all hell bent in taking this country back to some supposed "golden era" that never existed - perhaps something like the world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best."
The actions of the UN, NATO and Obama may well have saved the lives of thousands of people. Yet all that matters here is the possible opportunity to GET Obama. The hell with any other consideration.
And all the "constitutional" geniuses here - You prattle on about how sacred it is, how the very letter of it must be adhered to religiously - oh, excepting for those things you don't like. "Those things, well either they've got to go, or we'll just ignore them. And that's okay cause we're god fearin' 'mericans - we ain't no pinko commie faggot, fascist, muslim, atheist, half breed Mau Maus."
Someone here at BC on another thread recently said that we should go back to the original constitution before any ammendments were dragged in. Well, that would have to include the Bill of Rights would it not? And that would, therefore, include the sacrosanct Second, wouldn't it? I know that is rather an aside in all this, but, as I see it, it's all of a piece.