l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Posted by Jay Tea
Published: June 18, 2011 - 9:30 AM
Well, we now know just went into President Obama's decision to wage UnWar on
Libya, and how he planned to deal with the implications of the War Powers
Resolution.
And the short answer is: because he said so.
When he was considering the move, he went to the two top experts on the
subject for their advice: the highest-ranking attorneys at the Department of
Defense and the Justice Departmant. And they agreed: what Obama planned was
covered by the War Powers Resolution.
So he did what a lot of people do when told that what they want to do is
illegal: he went lawyer-shopping until he found some who would tell him what
he wanted to hear.
It's almost fascinating to listen to the spin being presented on why the law
didn't apply here. It boils down to "it's not a war, because they're not
shooting back."
If this sounds familiar, it's because it's a version of the old story about
the parent asking who started the fight -- and one kid says "it started when
he hit me back."
Apparently, it's only "war-war" when both sides do the fighting. When it's
just us dropping bombs and missiles on a foreign nation that is incapable of
posing a credible threat in return, it's just a form of foreign aid. "What'
s the big deal? We give lots of countries bombs and missiles. This time,
they're just blowing up a bit sooner than they'd like."
I'm sure it's a great comfort to those people being blown up that they aren'
t dying in a war-war.
As I've said, there's a good debate to be had over the War Powers Resolution
. I have genuinely mixed feelings on the matter, but I recognize that both
sides have their points and it's a complicated issue.
Ever since it was passed, the War Powers Resolution has been a pain in the
backside for every president. And they've all (to various degrees) found a
way to deal with it. They comply with it, but don't acknowledge its
authority -- giving the necessary reports as "consistent with" the
Resolution, and not "pursuant to." They've also sought Congressional
approval for their warlike actions, again saying that they want the support
of Congress and the American people on such an important matter -- and not
saying they're doing it because the War Powers Resolution made them.
Any of them could have challenged it directly, and that would have been
interesting to resolve. All they had to say was that the War Powers
Resolution was unconstitutional, they had no intention of abiding by it, and
then tossing the ball back in Congress' court.
But neither of those work for Obama. For one, as Obama has argued before, "
he won." That means he gets to rule unchallenged.
For another, he has a record of speaking out strongly in favor of the War
Powers Resolution -- when he was a US Senator and the president in question
was Republican George W. Bush (who abided by it, without ever officially
recognizing its authority).
So he decides that it doesn't apply here simply because he says so. And when
the experts on such matters tell him it does, he goes and finds other
people willing to tell him what he wants to hear.
That's one of the things about being president. One can usually find someone
willing to tell you what you want to hear. What they need are people
willing to tell them no, to say what they don't want to hear.
But that type of honesty seems to be unwanted in the Obama administration. |
|
