- checking login information
Loading...Kerry And McCain Offer Bipartisan Resolution On Libya
- by Suzi Parrasch
- June 21, 2011
- 10:00 pm
According to a report in Saturday’s New York Times, the president “rejected the views of two top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department” after they told the White House they believed the U.S. participation in the NATO-led air strikes constituted hostilities. The assertion by Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline Krass, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, would have required the president to scale back U.S. participation after May 20th.
However, as the Times report contended:
Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
And, as the Times report also pointed out:
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
Senator Kerry’s and Senator McCain’s bipartisan resolution is an attempt to stem the brewing tide of anger that also extends to the House where Representatives Joe Heck (R-NV) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are pushing to cut off funds for Libya.
“I strongly support the President’s action in Libya and Senator McCain and I are convinced that this resolution represents a viable and practical way forward that allows all of us to support that limited action while protecting the constitutional prerogatives of Congress over the power to wage war,” Senator Kerry said in a press release about the resolution.
“The Senate has been silent for too long on U.S. military operations in Libya, ” Senator McCain added. “It is time for the Senate to act. It is time to authorize the President’s use of force, whether he thinks he needs it or not. And it is time to send a message to our allies, to Qaddafi, and to his opponents in Libya who are fighting for their freedom that there is strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and among the American people, for staying the course in Libya until we succeed.”
As the AP reported, both senators urged lawmakers to consider the implications of abandoning the mission.
“Gadhafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time,” McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse?”
Said Kerry: “The last message any United States senator wants to send is that this mad man need only wait us out because we are divided at home.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he had the votes to pass the resolution, with the support of all the Democrats and several Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah. The Senate was likely to debate and vote on the measure next week.
Related Care2 coverage:
NATO Admits 3rd Mistaken Attack on Rebels; Accuses Gaddafi of Using Mosques as Shields
Could Gaddafi Be Using Libya’s Archaeological Treasures As Weapons Depots?
Momentum Against Gaddafi Builds As Libya Contact Group Meets In Abu Dhabi
Photo courtesy of BRQ via Flickr
Read more: john mccain, john-kerry, libya, muammar el-gaddafi, nato, north africa, politics, president obama, regional conflict, war powers resolution
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
thanks for the info
Petition signed with hope.
(continued) He went on to list how Republicans are blocking the nominations of a new head for the…
35 comments
+ add your owncont'd....
The following countries have good to close relations with the U.S., some of them very close, some of them for a very long time. For example, we have had good relations with Egypt for 150 years. Each of these countries has asked for U.S. diplomatic or development assistance in various forms and yes, military assistance:
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia (yes, we had a good security agreement with Gaddafi - that's why we didn't want to get involved with the rebels at first), Egypt, Sudan (yes, in spite of their Islamist govt. they repeatedly asked for U.S. help in a variety of ways, and for mediation in Darfur, which has resulted in a solution), Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatr, Bahrain, Lebanon, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia - EVERY Muslim country except Iran and Syria (and who knows their governments might change soon) all have good relations with the United States!
I also admit Afghanistan and Pakistan are a mess, but leaders there asked us to come in originally to help fight Communism, we didn't just invade like the Russians did. Since then, they have asked us for help with a variety of issues, so we are not exactly uninvited guests. Iraq and Kuwait are the only Muslim countries we actually invaded - Kuwait because the inhabitants begged us to help liberate them from the tyrant Saddam.
On the contrary Eugene, it's Al-Qaeda and the extreme Takfiri militants within the Islamist movement, who condone the killing of innocents, who have largely caused the deaths of nearly 3 million civilians mostly in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and Iraq (oh and in the U.S. also).
They take advantage of political instability to promulgate their extreme doctrinaire Sharia code. In the case of Iraq I admit the instability was our fault but U.S. troops were responsible for the deaths of less than ten thousand Iraqi troops, irregulars and civilians, since the regime caved in rather quickly after we invaded. The horrible mess that followed was a Sunni-Shia civil war punctuated by ancient tribal rivalries, but the major atrocities and casualties were caused by extremists - that's what finally turned the people against them and led to our victory over Al-Qaeda there. Terrorists were literally boasting of murdering women and children and mowing down entire villages and schools - same thing happened in Algeria. The people got sick of it. Then they asked for U.S. help.
The isolationist fairyland that you imagine does not exist, Eugene, we can't crawl into some hole and make the world go away. We are not going to shrink from striking very hard at the madmen who want to hurt our citizens and our country. And yes, we have cooperation and agreement with nearly the entire Muslim world in doing so because, guess what? They want to get rid of the crazy Takfiris, too
"Believe it or not, the U.S. has good relations with most countries in the Muslim world."
@ Jonathon Y. Except of course the countries that we're presently blowing up and killing innocent civilians such as Pakistan (we've killed over 900 people with our drones), Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq (we've killed over a million with embargoes and war) and of course Palestine and Libya (where we have absolutely no business). But all the rest of the countries in the Muslim world think we're ok...like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
One must remember the republicans are only Patriots when they are in office.
Because they know a military victory almost guarantees a political victory, they don't care what happens to America as long as no Democrat is in office when we are fighting an enemy, if there is one they will scream - wagging the dog - until the people forget what it was someone was wagging the dog about, even if it means that a couple of years later our Country is invaded by the same group of religious fanatics. Now that Mr. Obama is our President they are quaking in their boots because they left him in charge of a war... not only that... he got Osama. So now it does not matter what threat there is to our country the republicans cannot back our President. Because if they do and he should have a victory... well the republicans can't have that, they don't know how to be Democratically Patriotic... and if in fact they can't be Democratically Patriotic, are they real Americans?
Jonathan, excellent overview of this issue. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
cont'd....
In the long run it will save us money to partner with these people against terrorism, tyrannical leaders, and financial crises. Boots on the ground should be a last resort.
Diane, thanks. And I agree we need to save $$ and our focus should be at home.
Trouble is we cannot just stop being the big kid on the block. We are THE major strategic partner for most moderate countries and people around the world who just want a better life and more political breathing room.
If you travel in the Mideast you will find most people friendly and hospitable to Americans, even in Iran or Syria (whose govts. are not great fans of ours). But the people mostly want the same things we do, a better life for their kids and a better govt. for themselves. Ironically it was a moderate Iranian President, Khatami, who proposed the idea of an 'Alliance of Civilizations' to promote trade, cultural and political ties between the West and the Middle East. Part of that idea was to push back against terrorism and the hopelessness that many young people there feel due to lack of jobs. Now their young people have taken things into their own hands.
Unfortunately Khatami, a moderate democrat, was replaced by Ahmadinejad, which put our countries at odds again. But it turns out most Iranians and Syrians and Egyptians and the others would like to have a more democratic way of life. Just read "118 Days in Hell" by Maziar Bahari, an Iranian journalist who reported on his treatment by the system. I think Iran, too will change soon without us having to intervene and spend trillions of dollars. There are signs Ahmadinejad may be on the way out.
In the long run it will save us mo
Jonathan, excellent post with common sense solutions for the future. Personally, I am torn between staying the course in Libya and rationalizing the larger picture of the United States spending an exoribitant amount of money to help other countries at the expense of losing the lives of our brave men and women in uniform. Donald Trump said one thing that raised consideration and that was "if these countries need US intervention then they need to pay for all of the costs involved in coming to their aid." Our taxpayers are tired of spending $354 million A DAY in Afghanistan (when we have to borrow $.42 of every dollar we spend) when we cannot adequately take care of our ever escalating healthcare issues.
It's time for America to take care of her own. I understand perfectly your thinking on this I question your comment that we have allies in the Middle East. These people are not like us. They manipulate and take advantage of us when at the same time they stab us in the back because they hate Americans.
Why the bloody hell don't we just have one of those super-secret branches of the CIA spend a hundred thousand to hire three or four mercs to hop on over to Libya and execute Khaddafi and his sons, and have it over and done with inside a WEEK?
Yeah, I know the US doesn't officially condone hired hit-squads, but I'll bet we, and most of the other countries of the world, have done it in the past. Some psycho mu-fus just don't deserve to share this planet with the rest of us.
We have to stay the course. This must NOT turn out to be another Korea, divided into two sections, one free, one slave. Just ask the people of N. Korea how that turned out.
Gaddafi's neighbors, the African Union, have asked for him to step down. The majority of the Muslim world, including the Arab League, have said he must go. The only holdouts are Syria and Algeria but they have their own slight problems with tyranny and insurrection.
Believe it or not, the U.S. has good relations with most countries in the Muslim world. That is extremely important for our economy and our global military posture. Which means whoever the President is, whoever is in control of the House or Senate, we have to see this through for our national interest. A free Lybia means better security for the entire region.
"There is no substitute for victory." - Douglas McArthur
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment