« Special Pleading Quote of the Day | Main
Obama on Presidential War Powers
Posted on: March 21, 2011 11:34 AM, by Ed Brayton
The indispensable Glenn Greenwald digs up this quote from an interview with Obama during the 2008 campaign:
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.
No one could possibly suggest that the bombing of Libya is in response to any kind of imminent threat to the United States or is in self-defense. Muammar Ghadafi did not attack us, nor does he pose even the most remote threat to us. Oh, and Hillary Clinton was on board with this too:
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action -- including any kind of strategic bombing -- against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation [GG: also supported by Obama] to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.Isn't that convenient? When Bush was in office, both Obama and Clinton were totally opposed to the president initiating military actions without the authorization of Congress except in self-defense. Now that they are in power, that no longer applies. Greenwald points out how both parties play this dishonest game:
Leading Democrats constantly argued the same thing during the Bush years: that Presidents lack the power to order military actions in non-emergency, non-self-defense situations without Congressional approval; indeed, they insisted that even the attack on Iraq, which (unlike Libya) was justified as necessary for self-defense, required Congressional approval [and, needless to say, the always-principled Republicans routinely argue that Presidents do possess unilateral war-making power whenever there is a GOP President, but argue the exact opposite when there is a Democratic President].As the song goes: My country tis of thee, sweet land of irony.
And setting aside this question, for Obama to have so suddenly changed his position on the intervention of Libya is disturbing. We're now engaged in bombing a country with no planning at all, no clear understanding or statement of our objectives, and with the president overruling his own defense secretary -- and himself from, quite literally, just hours before the decision to start bombing. That can't be a good thing.
Find more posts in:Politics
Comments
1United Nations "lead" this invasion... loophole...
Posted by: Smackydoodle | March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
2Smackydoodle (@1) How does the UN offer a loophole at all? The question was whether the president could order a military strike without congressional approval. The UN does not have the ability to override congress's constitutional war declaration authority.
Posted by: penn | March 21, 2011 11:54 AM
3Oh, but the president is operating in defense of the US. He's trying to remove Qaddafi from power as a part of stabilizing the worlds' oil production, as the mad man currently running Libya is a loose cannon. Any loss in production over an extended period of time would jeopardize the economic recovery and hence President Obamas' reelection chances. End snark.
Posted by: SLC | March 21, 2011 11:54 AM
4I won't defend Obama's hypocrisy or anything, but if Congress has a problem with what he's doing, they're free to hold a vote and bar him from doing it. Obviously, they prefer not to vote one way or the other, because it lets them duck responsibility for however things turn out. So in the end, the President has broad war-making authority precisely because Congress prefers it that way.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 21, 2011 11:55 AM
5I think by "loophole," Smackydoodle meant "convenient opportunity to weasel out of responsibility using obfuscating rhetoric."
Posted by: lofgren | March 21, 2011 11:57 AM
6Having power changes everything for most politicians. The amusing thing is that if he had asked Congress for approval they probably would have given it to him.
Posted by: Tom | March 21, 2011 11:58 AM
7Also, Steve Reuland is 100% correct, and the implications extend far beyond warmongering. The last thing anybody in congress wants is to take a stand on something as unpredictable as a war. Hell, part of the reason Obama won the election was because he was able to take a rhetorical stand against the war in Iraq, but never had to actually vote on it.
Posted by: lofgren | March 21, 2011 12:01 PM
8"We're now engaged in bombing a country with no planning at all, no clear understanding or statement of our objectives, and with the president overruling his own defense secretary"
I was researching the plinking tanks controversy recently (did it work/not work in Kosovo) when I found this interview, which sadly seems quite applicable to today:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/krulak.html
Posted by: plutosdad | March 21, 2011 12:02 PM
9I once heard Gerald Ford give a talk. (He actually turned out to be a much better speaker than I'd expected.) He was asked about the War Powers Act, which he had supported when he was in Congress, but ignored once he was in the White House. I was surprised he didn't try and weasel his way out of it at all, but said basically: The War Powers Act sounded like a really good idea on paper, but is completely impractical for the modern era, Congress takes months to decide anything and is incapable of keeping anything secret for 5 minutes. I thought it was an interesting perspective.
Posted by: WScott | March 21, 2011 12:04 PM
10Shorter Gerald Ford: Congress might have stopped me from doing what I wanted.
Posted by: Tom | March 21, 2011 12:06 PM
11I feel Obama is doing the right thing. It's bad that he's reversed his position on warfare, but I'd rather see a breach of principle than a massacre of civilians and rebel fighters. Massimo Pigliucci sums up the justification for intervention much better than I can:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/03/bombing-libya.html
Posted by: Roy | March 21, 2011 12:07 PM
12It seems to me there's lingering guilt over the UN/"civilized world"s inaction in Rwanda (and there ought to be) so there's this sort of silly "next time one of those comes along, we're going to DO SOMETHING" -- this has all the hallmarks of a "DO SOMETHING" operation: they are doing something but they have no idea what that something is.
If the "civilized world"s political leaders wanted to actually make the world a better place, they'd start trying to crack the problem of how to prevent multi-generational dictatorships from surviving (e.g.: N Korea) and prevent new dictatorships from forming. Of course that's a ridiculously hard problem (though there are actually a few possible suggestions...) instead we get trading one war crime for another. Let me see if I have this right: the reason "we"'re bombing Quaddafi is because he was bombing his people. Is the idea that two bombs make a right?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 21, 2011 12:07 PM
13It seems to me there's lingering guilt over the UN/"civilized world"s inaction in Rwanda (and there ought to be) so there's this sort of silly "next time one of those comes along, we're going to DO SOMETHING" -- this has all the hallmarks of a "DO SOMETHING" operation: they are doing something but they have no idea what that something is.
If the "civilized world"s political leaders wanted to actually make the world a better place, they'd start trying to crack the problem of how to prevent multi-generational dictatorships from surviving (e.g.: N Korea) and prevent new dictatorships from forming. Of course that's a ridiculously hard problem (though there are actually a few possible suggestions...) instead we get trading one war crime for another. Let me see if I have this right: the reason "we"'re bombing Quaddafi is because he was bombing his people. Is the idea that two bombs make a right?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 21, 2011 12:10 PM
14Steve Reuland is absolutely right. Every president is going to be aggressive about executive branch power. Its up to Congress first an the courts second to rein him in. Obama may be being a hypocrite, but Congress is standing by and pointedly NOT defending their constitutional obligations or rights.
When it comes to war, they love the ability to ride on his coattails when it goes right and point fingers when it goes wrong.
Posted by: eric | March 21, 2011 12:11 PM
15Ed stated:
No one could possibly suggest that the bombing of Libya is in response to any kind of imminent threat to the United States or is in self-defense. Muammar Ghadafi did not attack us, nor does he pose even the most remote threat to us.An argument I've encountered is that the revolt in Libya creates a couple of different scenarios which present an opportunity for al Qaeda to gain control of Gaddafi's WMDs. That in turn would create a new threat against American interests. If true, this could justify quick action on our part though I think it's important enough to over-communicate this justification rather than trot off on a family trip to Brazil.
I'm currently very skeptical of the wisdom of our engaging Libya militarily, primarily because my skepticism doesn't include the above threat which I just encountered yesterday and have seen little evidence supporting it as valid. I do think our arguments should subsequently consider the validity of this threat, and hopefully compellingly discard it as highly unlikely. The President should be in D.C. over-communicating on his actions, instead we encounter justifications like this with no follow-through by the President.
In fact the President's own rhetoric about the U.N. resolution has us seeking to take out Gaddafi's regime when the resolution itself and Obama's own spokespeople like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs claim far more modest objectives, i.e., stop the onslaught of violence against Libyan insurgents and innocents. So right now it's hard to discern why we're even taking actions against Libya.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 21, 2011 12:12 PM
16Tom @ 10:
Shorter Gerald Ford: Congress might have stopped me from doing what I wanted.I disagree. President Ford's observation that Congress generally can't make timely decisions even on matters of urgency has history on his side.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 21, 2011 12:16 PM
17I disagree. President Ford's observation that Congress generally can't make timely decisions even on matters of urgency has history on his side.Congress managed to declare war on the Japanese fairly quickly in 1941. I think a justified claim from the president of the need for a quick response will get back a quick response. Requesting the bombing of a country because the president likes the idea without any real justification might take a little longer.
Posted by: Tom | March 21, 2011 12:28 PM
19I'm kinda surprised he didn't take it to Congress. I've yet to see them fail to quickly rubberstamp any military action.
Posted by: Nemo | March 21, 2011 12:52 PM
I realized this morning that I was against this when Bush did it in Iraq, so how can I be for it in Libya? I do want Gaddafi gone, but seems like it should be with an international effort and UN sanction.
No comments:
Post a Comment