Obama and the War Powers Resolution

[erps]

Past presidents apparently did not agree with the law that requires them to report to Congress when we go to war with another country, but they followed the law. Obama is being pressed right now to comply with reporting requirements, but has taken the position there are no reporting requirements because we're not in a third war.

The whole thing kind of reminds me on whether water boarding is torture or not, with a president picking legal opinions that support what he wants to do.

President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/wo...wers.html?_r=2

[bwalker42]

_________________________________________________

[BentSailor]

Out of curiosity, do you think water-boarding is torture and therefore the US President knowingly encouraged breaking the law?

On this, I agree with you. If you are doing more than providing the standard assets to NATO (and my understanding is the missiles used are not "standard" support for the organisation), then the US is participating in a war explicitly. As such, whatever laws/procedures there are about that need to be followed.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Out of curiosity, do you think water-boarding is torture and therefore the US President knowingly encouraged breaking the law?

The torture in question happened out of country. At the time, it wasn't clear that US installations abroad were "America" in this regard, so the administration that had to deal with an incalculable amount of new, life-n-death issues pushed. The SC has now ruled that this is the case and so we now know that the law applies to all government reps, anywhere in the world that they have authority.

Personally, I think bans on torture and assassinations aren't just naive. They're further proof that, psychologically, the New Left despises objective judgement, autonomy, strength, etc -- envy.

[erps]

Out of curiosity, do you think water-boarding is torture and therefore the US President knowingly encouraged breaking the law?

I think water-boarding is torture. I think there is wiggle room on whether it meets the legal definition of torture.

[PBzeer]

Since waterboarding is certainly germane to the War Powers Act and it's implementation (be careful, the floor is wet), just what is waterboarding? Does it cause physical harm, or even meant to? No. The whole purpose of waterboarding is to cause psychological distress. One could call that torture. Of course, under that definition, many aspects of modern life would qualify as torture.

The War Power Act though, is not quite as open to conjecture. We are engaged in military operations that put US personnel in harms way.

[RAGNAR]

I think that when you deliberately put someone under psychological distress in order to get him to do something he clearly doesn't want to do, you're talking torture -- psychological or physical, no sustained damage or permanent damage, we're talking torture.

I wish we'd stop dodging the word "torture" and get on with defining this near-ultimate state power in order to assure that it's used both effectively and honorably.

And, contrary to what the Administration is claiming, we're at war with Libya.

[PBzeer]

The problem with calling it torture lies not in the definition, but the reason for the use of the term. It was used, not as an indictment of policy, but of the person who authorized it. Or, to put it more bluntly, the only reason it's an issue is because it was Bush who authorized it, and it was hoped he could be brought down with it.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

The problem with calling it torture lies not in the definition, but the reason for the use of the term. It was used, not as an indictment of policy, but of the person who authorized it. Or, to put it more bluntly, the only reason it's an issue is because it was Bush who authorized it, and it was hoped he could be brought down with it.

I agree that the term is used in this way, PB. The only way around that is to define what we mean by the term. The moment we claim that we're not torturing, or trivialize what we're doing, we lose.

[erps]

The problem with calling it torture lies not in the definition, but the reason for the use of the term. It was used, not as an indictment of policy, but of the person who authorized it.

I agree, but would add that the difference between torture and the "legal definition" of torture is the difference between being put on trial or not.

But back to whether we are at war or not with Libya, I'm not sure Obama's credibility is worth whatever point he's trying to make by not complying with the war powers act. I just don't see what he has to gain from this position.