This is what the man said in December of 2007:
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA: 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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
http://www.boston.com/...
And this is what his White House is saying now:
WASHINGTON — The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.
[ snip ]
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
This is a real mess. Why is he taking this approach? It is trouble, legally and politically and financially and morally, and from a number of other standpoints. It is egregiously wrong.
Obama has crossed the line on Libya. Personally, I think he crossed the line the day that he took us to war with absolutely no approval from Congress.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
http://www.usconstitution.net/...
Greenwald, back in March:
The one point I want to underscore is that the constitutional requirement for Congressional approval is not some legalistic or technical barrier; it's vital. The Founders emphasized that war is the most serious matter upon which a nation can embark, that it is the citizenry that bears the risks and costs, and it is thus imperative that they first consent through their representatives in Congress. John Jay explained in Federalist 4 that Presidents will start wars that are unnecessary and unjust -- i.e., for their own self-serving benefit -- but the people are much less likely to do so.
http://www.salon.com/...
And the War Powers Act has nothing to do with this. It is a smokescreen. The War Powers Act says that the President can take us to war in self defense. The situation in Libya was not self defense in any way, shape or form. So all this talk about sixty-day or ninety-day deadlines? Nonsense. It is illegal for a President to commit this country to war without the consent of the people via our representatives. He is not a king and he is not a dictator and he cannot commit our blood and treasure without going to Congress.
What more serious action is there than for a President to take our nation to war? When we go to war, the people have to be committed. We have to be ready and willing to send our children into harm's way and willing to divert scarce tax dollars from important domestic priorities.
No President can just decide to start bombing another country without going to the people and laying out his reasoning and getting buy in. No President. And it is a travesty to see this President who basically promised that he would do no such thing, a President who is a Constitutional scholar, so cavalierly take us into yet another war and so defiantly tell Congress that he doesn't need their damned approval. It is infuriating to see this President blatantly lie and say that it isn't a war.
When you are flying armed drones over a country and firing missiles from them, it's a goddamned war. Can you imagine another country doing this to us and our President saying "Oh it's not an act of war"?
When you launch Tomahawk missiles at a country, it's a goddamned war.
When you are providing intelligence and refueling for fighter jets who are bombing a country (and when you flew a large number of those sorties yourself), it's a goddamned war.
What makes it even more insulting is that he is fooling exactly no one.
A Democratic Congressman, Brad Sherman of California, brought an amendment to the floor this week demanding that Obama comply with the War Powers Resolution and in that crazy House, it passed! By a big margin!
Rep. Brad Sherman on the illegality of the Libyan War
And most significantly, on Tuesday night, an amendment sponsored by the Democratic hawk and AIPAC loyalist Rep. Brad Sherman of California -- to cut off funds for the war in Libya unless and until the President complies with the War Powers Resolution -- passed the House by a substantial majority, with roughly equal support from both parties, though with the leadership of both parties (Pelosi, Boehner, Hoyer, Cantor) in opposition.
Today, a bipartisan group of Congressmen filed a complaint in federal court
“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated,” Kucinich said in a statement. “We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies.”
The House members argue that the Obama administration overstepped its constitutional authority by authorizing the use of U.S. military force abroad without first receiving approval from Congress. U.S. forces have been involved in the campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi for 88 days.
Kucinich is right. It is Orwellian.
"The White House claim that the war is not war is not a legal argument. It is a political argument," Kucinich said in a statement. "The legal argument will hopefully be addressed by the courts. Today, I, along with 9 of my colleagues, filed suit in federal court challenging the rationale that has brought our nation to an Orwellian war that is not war."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
This is a travesty. More than a travesty. This is an overreach and it is an overreach of the worst kind. This is our blood and treasure and there is a good reason why the framers required the executive to get buy in from Congress before committing us to war. No man, no one man, can take this country to war. And that is exactly what he has done. And even given a generous read of the situation, saying that the War Powers Resolution applies (which it does not) he decided to defy that too.
It was bad enough that Obama just plunged us into this war with no approval from anyone. At the time, he claimed that time was of the essence, that a genocide was about to occur. But then month after month, he still did not go to Congress for the proper authority. Why? He has had plenty of time to do so. We have been there for three months. Nobody has signed off on the war. Nobody has signed off on the hundreds of millions (probably more) spent. And now, today, he basically told Congress that he can do whatever he wants and needs no approval from them.
So his reasoning for not going to Congress, it seems, had nothing to do with the fact that they had to act fast to prevent a genocide. It was a ploy to get us into a war, a crisis exploited. Not long afterward it was reported that the White House was considering several different devious plans for avoiding going to Congress: "pausing" their war activity and restarting to reset the War Powers clock; saying they didn't need authority because NATO was in charge, etc. And "American planes and drones continued their bombing long after the April turnover — and the drones are still flying over Libya".
How much difference is there between what Obama is doing now and what Bush did when he lied us into a war?
A couple of weeks ago Reese Schonfeld said this:
The Libyan conflict seems headed in the same direction as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the truth is supplanted by lies and half-lies and we sink once again into a sea of obfuscation. We know we'll never get the real truth.
At the time, I thought it was a bit over the top. Today, I am changing my mind on that.
If the problem is that Obama does not think that Congress will give him the authority and the money to wage this war, then he has to get out. If the problem is that he really believes that he doesn't need their approval, that is an even worse scenario. And it certainly looks like we are in the latter scenario.
All those things he said when running for office about a president's authority with respect to wars? Lies.
The last thing in the world that any of us would want is to have another Democratic President impeached. But we would have called for impeachment of a Republican President for less than this. And surely, it is grounds for impeachment and we all know that the GOP needs little encouragement to start down that path.
And if you still have any doubts, consider this, the bottom line: If this war is legal and justifiable, why doesn't the President go to Congress and get the proper authority? Answer me that.
UPDATE:
This
response diary relies upon the opinion of a Bush admin. lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, and says that he does not find Obama's actions on the Libya war unconstitutional.
The problem is that Goldsmith gave that opinion back in March, and he has since backtracked, and on 6/9/11 he posted the article below which I have excerpted.
Is the Obama Administration’s Original Legal Rationale for the Libya Intervention Still Valid?
But as the days drag on, and as our deep involvement persists, it becomes harder and harder to represent that this mission is limited in nature, duration, and scope.
The legal tensions in the Obama administration’s war policy thus concern not just the War Powers Resolution, but also the original legal rationale for the intervention. As the facts continue to develop, it may be not just the WPR, but also the arguments of the original OLC opinion supporting the intervention, that counsel a legal duty to seek congressional authorization.
Also, there have been many, many other lawyers and law professors who have weighed in on this topic over the past three months and found the war illegal.