So the UNSC has authorized member states to use military forces to enforce the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 (text here).
By any reasonable historical standard, in theory and in practice, any nation that carries out military actions in accordance with UNSCR 1973 is waging war upon Libya, or minimally against the Qaddafi-led part of Libya.
In addition to imposing the long-discussed "no fly zone," the resolution authorizes member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." This is so open ended that it means that any military action against Qaddafi is authorized, including landing the entire 2nd Marine Division on the shores of Tripoli.
Despite the way the commentati (and I, above) say that resolution "authorizes" the use of military forces against Qaddafi, in fact the UNSC has "authorized" nothing at all. The United Nations has no authority to authorize any kind of use of United States forces. As a matter of legality, this resolution is worth less than the paper it is printed on. At best, it offers political cover only. But the UNSCR has no legal authority regarding employment of US forces.
What I want to know is this: Where is the United States Congress on waging war against Libya?
Only the Congress has the authority to declare war by the United States against Libya. And don't try the old dodge that use of US forces against Qaddafi is somehow not a war. It won't be a "police action," as Truman characterized his illegal war in Korea (36,500 US dead). Even LBJ had the weak cover the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but the Congress failed to carry out its Constitutional responsibilities in the ensuing years, so 58,151 Americans lost their lives in the Vietnam War.
I am not ignoring that US presidents have ordered many military expeditions with no prior Congressional authorization - in some cases not even Congressional knowledge. President G.H.W Bush ordered a sizable force into Panama in 1989 (lived history for me) with no express Congressional authorization, but the proximate cause was the killing of an American officer by Panamanian troops plus other acts of violence against Americans, including American civilians. And the action lasted only about four days.
This same President Bush did gain explicit Congressional authorization for war against Iraq before ordering the military to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. In 2001, President G.W. Bush gained Congressional authorization for attacking both Afghanistan that year and invading Iraq in 2003. Some of Bush's opponents claimed that the Congress has never actually "declared war" against Iraq, even bringing suit in federal court. The court rejected the suit altogether, holding that the Constitution doesn't specify how the Congress must declare war and that if the Congress authorizes the use of military force, the Constitution's requirement has been met. As then-Senator Joe Biden said at the time, the Congress has declared war whenever the Congress thinks it has. And he added that clearly it had declared war against Iraq even though the Congressional resolution did not use those words (see here).
Belatedly, some Congressional leaders are awakening to the fact the President Obama seems to think the UNSC has given him all the authorization he needs to start bombing Libya. And the Weekly Standard asks, "Does Obama Think His Oath Is to the United Nations?"
After weeks of failing to provide even strong rhetorical support for the uprising in Libya — an uprising in pursuit of liberty and against a United States adversary — President Obama has now apparently decided that he has sufficient international authorization to act. This begs two questions: Where is Congress on Libya? And does President Obama think he took an oath to the United States Constitution, or to the United Nations Charter?
Obama said today that the United States has moved “swiftly” on Libya (one would hate to see “not swiftly”) and that the United Nations Security Council has now authorized military action. Obama seems to view such U.N. authorization as both necessary and sufficient. In truth, however, it is neither.
In 2007, then-Senator Obama said,
"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."Two questions:
1. Will President Obama live up to his own words?
2. Will Congress do its duty and authorize (or not) the use of force against Qaddafi, or will it defer once again to an increasingly imperial executive (a trend that far predates Obama's inauguration)?
I predict no on the former and same-old, same-old on the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment