As this outstanding article on Salon.com points out, President Obama is pushing the limits of Executive Power with his decision to begin bombing Libyan military targets. This raises serious concerns about Presidential Power and reflects the divisions within Congress (and especially the Republican Party) when it comes to supporting Presidential emergency actions.
One of the most troubling aspects of American involvement in the UN military action in Libya is that there is no clear and present danger to American national security. What is going on in Libya might have some broad systemic impact on our security interests in the region of North Africa, but there is absolutely no immediate threat to Americans or to America.
But until someone in Congress tells Obama to stop (or to start, for that matter), it appears that this is the new normal.
Michael Lind notes that the authorization from the United Nations by no means creates any authorization under the American Constitution.
In other words, there are two distinct systems of authorization, one international and one national. Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere “consultation” with the president.
That makes the Obama Administration's actions fundamentally unconstitutional, and in deeply troubling ways. After all, who is going to pay for the fuel costs and the missiles and other military equipment that is being used in the region? Where does this end? What will be done in the future? And if Congress is unable or unwilling to act in this crisis, what does that say about our ability to trust in the Legislative Branch of our US government?
While I support the moral reasons behind the action, and understand that there is a serious humanitarian crisis in Libya, I also believe that Congress has a duty to act immediately, and on an emergency basis, to decide whether and how our military actions in Libya will be funded.
The problem with the Republican-led House of Representatives is that they're focusing their spending cuts and fiscal responsibility almost entirely on social programs and non-military discretionary spending. This is such a tiny portion of the overall budget that it makes no difference in terms of the 800 lb. gorilla of our "national security" budget. It leaves in place the neoconservative, imperialist parts of our government that threaten freedom and self-determination for the American people and the entire world. They held an emergency session in the House last week to de-fund NPR, but did nothing about the emergency in Libya.
Congress is so totally and completely broken right now, it's scary. Lives are being lost at home and around the world. Our freedom is being threatened by the government itself, and it appears that John Boehner is completely unable to pull together enough votes in his caucus to do anything other than meaningless symbolic legislation. And with a Democratic-led Senate and a Republican-led House, the ability of both parties to work across the aisle is more important now than ever.
It's easy to see President Obama's action in Libya as a reflection of his own core values. He wants power to be used ethically to defend the vulnerable. He believes in universal human rights of free assembly. He believes that there should be a time and place for grievances to be heard by governments. He believes that there is a time and place for military action. He believes that promises should be kept, and that threats should not be made idly.
There is something noble and heroic and good about this. Obama's decisive action certainly puts to rest any concerns that he's the "weakest President in history," which is what some have tried to claim recently because of his "inaction" in Egypt. And it is clear that the Libyan people are being attacked by their own government in a way that is completely unacceptable.
That being said, what do we do about the attacks by Republicans against citizens in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, and elsewhere? What are the American people supposed to do when the government systematically dismantles the social safety net and the labor rights that have been earned by the blood, sweat, toil, and tears of past generations? Is Obama supportive of an insurrection by the American people against a government they oppose? What are the limits of people power?
My greatest concern about the Obama Administration's actions in Libya is that they reflect a "might makes right" mentality, with the UN imposing its will against a Libyan dictator who is imposing his will against his own people, who are trying to impose their will. We may be the good cop in this situation, but it's very unclear how Executive Power will be checked if there's a bad cop in the Oval Office.
For other perspectives on this, see:
Josh Marshall
Atrios
Balloon Juice
Andrew Sullivan
Update 11:33 AM CDT: I think you should be sure to read this comment which provides a foil to Michael Lind's constitutional claims. In particular, note that what's going on here is that Congress can provide (after 60 days) a check on Presidential power by requiring a declaration of war from Congress. But that assumes that we spend more than 60 days in Libya, which remains to be seen. For now, it appears that Lind might be overstating his case about the need for Congressional approval.