Ever since the US started bombing Libya in defense of civilians (depending greatly on your definition of 'civilian'), and somebody brought up the Vietnam-era War Powers Act, which limits the President's ability to conduct hostilities without Congressional consent, I've been waiting to hear how the executive branch could possibly justify their seemingly blatant violation of said act. Now, under duress, they're releasing their rationale to Congress (link). Basically, it boils down to "it's not hostilities if the other guy can't fight back".
There are all sorts of reasons I could possibly stomach as the basis for a fight over the War Powers Act... top of the list, of course, being a challenge to its constitutionality, but nobody seems to want to go there. This excuse, on the other hand... it doesn't even pass a basic sniff test. It's the equivalent of a high-schooler hitting elementary school kids, then arguing that he shouldn't be suspended for fighting because they couldn't fight back.
For the meanings-of-words-challenged, let's cover "hostility" in a nation-state frame of reference. If you are using military force within the borders of another country without their government's consent, you are acting in a hostile manner to that country. I know, that may be inconvenient, what with all the fun we've had with unmanned drones and precision-guided munitions, but inconvenient doesn't equal wrong. Heck, I might even give you a pass on something like Pakistan, if the government there is giving the OK "under the table" while publicly denouncing your actions to save face with their people... but that's nowhere near Libya's situation, is it?
Well, maybe Congress will call bullshit on this pitiful excuse as a whole... I can only hope, but I'm not exactly holding my breath. At the very least, a few Congresscritters are filing suit (link)... maybe the Judiciary will decide to get involved and (hopefully) do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment