U.S. Mission In Libya Exposes Divisions In Congress

[Zinegata]

A useful reminder:

If people waited for Congress to pass some kind of law to allow the Libyan intervention, the law likely wouldn't have been passed by now and the Libyan rebels would be mostly dead or on their way to death camps.

The president was given specific executive powers for a reason: He needs to be able to respond to ongoing crisis swiftly before catastrophe strikes. That includes being able to direct the country's military forces in case of a sudden attack. There's a question whether or not foreign intervention for reasons other than self-defense counts (i.e. the Libyan intervention), but I'm no legal expert on its current state... albeit historical precedent (i.e. Panama) seem to favor it being "legal".

The Congress by contrast is a legislative body. It's supposed to take its time and have debates in order to craft the best laws for the country. While Congress is supposed to maintain some checks and balances against the Executive branch, it comes mostly in the form of budgetary control. If Congress really wanted to, they can cut funding to ensure that the president doesn't have money to engage in wars.

So, to me, Congress having the "power to declare war" is not actually compatible with its role in the American government. I would submit that the intent of this power was to ensure that only Congress had the power to commit the United States to a large, long-term military conflict that would tie up the majority of the nation's wealth and power. But for smaller interventions - operating within the pre-allocated budget given by the Congress - the president does in fact have the authority to commit US forces into action as head of the executive branch.

[K. A. Pital]

If people waited for Congress to pass some kind of law to allow the Libyan intervention, the law likely wouldn't have been passed by now and the Libyan rebels would be mostly dead or on their way to death camps.

I thought that for that reason exactly the President has two whole months to discuss the issue post-facto:

1) President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action
2) forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

So no (even ignoring the absence of "death camps" in Libya), it wouldn't have hurt the war effort. Blam blam.

[Simon_Jester]

In times of genuine national emergency, these resolutions "authorizing the use of armed force"* can come very quickly- Congress didn't exactly drag its feet producing a document authorizing Bush to retaliate for 9/11, for instance.

It's in situations where it's debatable whether the US should be getting involved at all where there's going to be a lot of debate. But almost by definition, those are the times when we should be thinking most carefully about what to do, not just blindly charging into a quagmire on the President's say-so.

*(which have largely taken the place of declarations of war, in a more mealy-mouthed form that basically refuses to acknowledge that we are fighting other governments who are in some sense peers)

[K. A. Pital]

The President has 60 days to use forces without authorization and then a 30-day withdrawal term if the use of forces has not been authorized. How the hell is that unreasonable I can't understand.

People apparently want the President to be able to make war for years and decades, or what?

[Zinegata]

First of all, let me preface that I'm not responding to anyone in particular with my original post and was just bringing up a couple of items I thought was getting lost in the back-and-forth.

That being said...

I thought that for that reason exactly the President has two whole months to discuss the issue post-facto:
1) President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action
2) forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

I don't see how this is incompatible with my statement. As I said: Congress is a legislative body. It's supposed to be slow. Hence the power to commit military force lies with the President. And the congressional DoW is something that you need only for a more long-term commitment. As I concluded:

I would submit that the intent of this power was to ensure that only Congress had the power to commit the United States to a large, long-term military conflict that would tie up the majority of the nation's wealth and power. But for smaller interventions - operating within the pre-allocated budget given by the Congress - the president does in fact have the authority to commit US forces into action as head of the executive branch.

Emphasis mine.

Now, you can argue whether or not 60 days is the pre-allocated budget, but that's not my point. My point is that the president can - and in many cases should - deploy military forces without getting Congressional approval.

So no (even ignoring the absence of "death camps" in Libya), it wouldn't have hurt the war effort. Blam blam.

[/quote]

I did not say there were death camps in Libya now. I am saying that the rebels would most likely had been mass-executed if they had surrendered to Qadafi if he had crushed the rebellion easily.

Are you seriously arguing that the Qadafi regime has not shown that it is willing to shoot unarmed civilians for the crime of not supporting the regime? Do you really seriously believe Qadafi will just pat the rebels in the back and say "Don't worry, I forgive you now!"

[Simon_Jester]

It doesn't take long for Congress to resolve to fight a war in times of national emergency; we've seen this. What does take a long time is resolving the decision of whether to fight when it's not obvious whether we need to fight the war or not... which, almost by definition, suggests that we should seriously consider whether the US should be deploying troops under such conditions at all.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't see how this is incompatible with my statement. As I said: Congress is a legislative body. It's supposed to be slow. Hence the power to commit military force lies with the President. And the congressional DoW is something that you need only for a more long-term commitment. As I concluded

You don't see people here arguing that the President has no right to authorize military action; he does, for a term specified in the War Powers Resolution - that term is 60 days and that's more than enough for a short-term operation like extraction of civilians, a bombing campaign, etc. After that comes the review process which is supposed to determine - is the thing worth it? Two months is an okay time for that. The WPR doesn't prohibit Presidential action; but it places strong limits on the duration of such actions. People have argued here that those are useful limits, which produce a necessary democratic review of the military action.

I did not say there were death camps in Libya now. I am saying that the rebels would most likely had been mass-executed if they had surrendered to Qadafi if he had crushed the rebellion easily. Are you seriously arguing that the Qadafi regime has not shown that it is willing to shoot unarmed civilians for the crime of not supporting the regime? Do you really seriously believe Qadafi will just pat the rebels in the back and say "Don't worry, I forgive you now!"

Death camps are a very specific type of camp, you see. Those are camps which don't really carry a penal function as the death rate is higher than 30-50% percent very often and thus there's a high attrition rate among the prisoners; the camps are meant to function as mechanisms of genocide. In recent history, there are few examples of such camps - Italy, Germany and to some extent Japan created and utilized "death camps" in the 1940s (by that I mean specific decimatory camps with over 30% mortality), but not other nations. Death camps are one of the key elements which allowed to prosecute Axis military functionaries and government officials for genocidal actions. Hence why I take issue with that. Especially as Gaddafi and other African dictators, while being ruthless autocrats, did not engage in anything like the policies, say, Italians engaged in when they occupied Libya and Ethiopia. Gaddafi is not going to "pat rebels on the back" (in fact, no autocratic regime in history has been willing to forgive armed rebels, and most of them also killed their unarmed sympathizers, too). But when, if ever, had armed rebellion been taken with a light heart and no repressions followed after one party won a civil war or a revolution? Care to point an example?

[Zinegata]

I would say it's not as simple as that.

Yes, Congress has issued general declarations of war pretty quickly after a national emergency. And such a setup worked great back in 1941 when countries like Japan and Germany actually manned up to committing acts of war and waged open conflict as nation-states.

However, the reality today is that emergencies are created by entities that are not nation-states, which adds a level of complexity. When America declares war on Al Qaeda for instance - does this mandate automatically extend to countries which harbor terrorists? Does it extend to allowing US forces to violate Pakistani sovereignty to nail Osama Bin Laden?

That's why it is important for the president to have executive powers to use military force. The President needs to be able to act on real-time intelligence without needing to push it up to a legislative committee. Likewise, intervening to prevent the annihilation of the Libyan rebels required pretty immediate action - if you'd recall they were on the brink of defeat before the Western forces intervened.

That's something people seem to keep forgetting in this debate. The rebels were losing until the US finally stepped in. Was it really in the world's - and the United State's - interest to see Qadafi brutally crush the rebels?

------

On the second note - again, Congress' role is oversight. It's to serve as a form of checks and balances against the power of the executive. In this instance, the Congress has the "power of the purse" to prevent any major conflicts/interventions if it so desires.

The problem however, is that it has done a generally shitty job at it so far. The Iraq War for instance was widely supported by Congress back in the lead up to the invasion in 2003, with little done to question the evidence regarding WMDs.

In short, it's not the President's job to stop himself from engaging in military intervention - especially if the President believes that it serves the interests of the country. Instead, it's the job of the Congress to police and ensure that the President's decision-making is sound, and they have the power to cut military funding to minimize any military adventures. They don't need 60-day laws. They just need to have the backbone to cut funding on questionable operations (and risk the ire of their opponents accusing them of "not supporting the troops").

[K. A. Pital]

Once again, the President can act and then there's TWO FUCKING MONTHS to decide where the action is worth continuing or not.

[Zinegata]

You don't see people here arguing that the President has no right to authorize military action;

And like I said, I wasn't directing those statements at anyone in particular. However, in very many discussions about this issue I've seen people get confused over what precisely the roles of the executive branch and the legislative branch are - as well as Congress' "Power to declare war".

So really, what is your objection to my statement other than you think it's unnecessary repetition? Are you again arguing that it is not compatible with yours? Present proof or you're just arguing needlessly.

Death camps are a very specific type of camp, you see. Those are camps which don't really carry a penal function as the death rate is higher than 30-50% percent very often and thus there's a high attrition rate among the prisoners; the camps are meant to function as mechanisms of genocide.

As you admit, the camps are a mechanism of genocide. Is it your assertion that Qadafi will not attempt to wipe out all of the people in the rebel strongholds had he been able to capture them?

Because really, it seems your argument is simple hair splitting. "Qadafi may engage in terrible, inhumane reprisals against the rebels and their unarmed dependents, but it's not necessarily genocide!"

Seriously? You're gonna be that obtuse?

[Zinegata]

Once again, the President can act and then there's TWO FUCKING MONTHS to decide where the action is worth continuing or not.

And how is this incompatible with the statement "Regardless of the 60-day law, it's useless if the Congress is too spineless to act"?

[K. A. Pital]

And like I said, I wasn't directing those statements at anyone in particular. However, in very many discussions about this issue I've seen people get confused over what precisely the roles of the executive branch and the legislative branch are - as well as Congress' "Power to declare war". So really, what is your objection to my statement other than you think it's unnecessary repetition? Are you again arguing that it is not compatible with yours? Present proof or you're just arguing needlessly.

So why are you even arguing? People have been arguing about the War Powers Resolution, not whether the President should not have the ability to commit forces to action. The key question has been whether he should have the right to do so UNCONDITIONALLY, without any prior or posterior review. Posterior is also okay. No review at all is what people were not so hot about.

As you admit, the camps are a mechanism of genocide. Is it your assertion that Qadafi will not attempt to wipe out all of the people in the rebel strongholds had he been able to capture them?

Actually, yes. Mass murdering the entire population of large cities has happened about once in history, with Pol Pot's destruction of Pnom Penh (well, that and the Leningrad blockade, but that's Hitler, so what have you). It is highly likely that a lot of the armed rebels will die, and probably many unarmed civilians who will be targeted as supporters. However, this is not the same as genocide. Needless to explain why.

The idea of minor war crimes being equivalent to genocide simply devalues the concept of genocide itself. And while we're at that, I should remind you that the West and major powers in general either remained completely indifferent or actively aided and supported four major post-war genocides - Cambodia, East Timor, Rwanda and Darfur. During these genocides, hundreds of thousands of people died, but the First World nations did jack shit (or, as is the case with France in Rwanda and the USA in East Timor and Cambodia, actively helped either the genocide itself or the government which commited said genocide). On the other hand, minor death tolls like that of 9/11, the KLA-Serbian war in Kosovo and the civil war in Libya provoked swift Western intervention.

Because really, it seems your argument is simple hair splitting. "Qadafi may engage in terrible, inhumane reprisals against the rebels and their unarmed dependents, but it's not necessarily genocide!" Seriously? You're gonna be that obtuse?

By claiming that any minor war crimes constitute genocide, it is easy to devalue the entire concept of genocide and make any civil war a "genocide" which requires intervention. If you don't see how this constitutes a dangerous precedent, fine. Just don't be obtuse youself and admit that by this standard civil conflicts give the ground for further and immediate interventions in Yemen and Syria, for example.

And how is this incompatible with the statement "Regardless of the 60-day law, it's useless if the Congress is too spineless to act"?

How is it "useless"? If the Congress decides the war is not worth it (which it very well may, and you should know that four greatest post-war genocides were either completely ignored and one of them was directly aided by the USA), it is the decision of the Congress. Operations will be mopped up. However, immediate action would have happened and would have achieved its goals in two month; and if two months are not enough to achieve the goal, the Congress should review the situation. You disagree?

What if your president doesn't "swiftly intervene" to stop genocide but swiftly intervenes on the side which is commiting the genocide? Let's imagine Sukharto's little genocide blew in his face and his invasion of East Timor turned into a civil war in Indonesia itself - and the US would decide to intervene on Sukharto's behalf (which, given the President's love of the guy, is not totally unreasonable). In this case, in two months the Congress might at least stop the war and remove US forces from the nation. However, by your logic that would be an unreasonable infringement on the rights of the President.

Why, now?

[Simon_Jester]

I would say it's not as simple as that.

Yes, Congress has issued general declarations of war pretty quickly after a national emergency. And such a setup worked great back in 1941 when countries like Japan and Germany actually manned up to committing acts of war and waged open conflict as nation-states.

However, the reality today is that emergencies are created by entities that are not nation-states, which adds a level of complexity. When America declares war on Al Qaeda for instance - does this mandate automatically extend to countries which harbor terrorists? Does it extend to allowing US forces to violate Pakistani sovereignty to nail Osama Bin Laden?

These decisions were made over long periods of time- why wouldn't Congress be involved, or at the very least consultations with congressional leaders?

I mean, it's actually quite troubling, from an international-law and civil-liberties standpoint, that Bush and Obama have claimed the authority to bomb anyone any time as long as they are suspected of being important to Al Qaeda. A few specific exceptions to that rule wouldn't cause much harm (raid on bin Laden), but the massive, categorical ongoing campaigns to assassinate enemy leaders hiding out in the soil of sovereign states we are not at war with creates problems.

You can make a case that the interventions you cite aren't all that righteous- that it would be better if the president couldn't simply order long-planned, premeditated attacks of that sort without consulting Congress. The argument that "Congress is too slow" makes no sense at all unless we're dealing with an urgent crisis, after all.

That's why it is important for the president to have executive powers to use military force. The President needs to be able to act on real-time intelligence without needing to push it up to a legislative committee. Likewise, intervening to prevent the annihilation of the Libyan rebels required pretty immediate action - if you'd recall they were on the brink of defeat before the Western forces intervened.

The Libyan rebels were in danger of annihilation; the Libyan people were not. I want to see the rebels win- but I don't want to see the US becoming a military dictatorship. Ultimately, we might be better off accepting that our Constitution forbids us from becoming a world policeman who has latitude to jump into any conflict at a moment's notice, to any extent our president wants to join it.

On the second note - again, Congress' role is oversight. It's to serve as a form of checks and balances against the power of the executive. In this instance, the Congress has the "power of the purse" to prevent any major conflicts/interventions if it so desires.

Congress was originally constructed not as a check on the executive, but as the senior branch of government- the president's job was to carry out the laws and strategic directives issued by Congress. Individually he was a powerful man, but ultimately, important decisions were made by Congress, or subject to Congress's approval before they could be acted on.

And I'd argue that this is healthy, or would be for a sanely designed legislature that didn't suffer from some of the more absurd small-c constitutional features of our government. Frankly, if anything the increasing aggrandizement of the president has undermined Congressional politics, because so much of the attention paid to policy questions by the American public and media centers on his person, and so little centers on Congress.

In short, it's not the President's job to stop himself from engaging in military intervention - especially if the President believes that it serves the interests of the country. Instead, it's the job of the Congress to police and ensure that the President's decision-making is sound, and they have the power to cut military funding to minimize any military adventures. They don't need 60-day laws. They just need to have the backbone to cut funding on questionable operations (and risk the ire of their opponents accusing them of "not supporting the troops").

What are you talking about? Of course it's the president's duty to use his powers in a restrained fashion, and not commit the US to costly wars over marginal issues. The fact that someone else has the power to jerk him up short on his leash doesn't remove his responsibility for his own actions.

[Zinegata]

So why are you even arguing?

It was not an argument. It was a factual reminder. The very first line of my original post:

A useful reminder:

Because really, it sometimes gets hard to follow an argument when two people are talking to each other and I thought to put up a quick summary of things that are not really in contention.

Actually, yes. Mass murdering the entire population of large cities has happened about once in history, with Pol Pot's destruction of Pnom Penh (well, that and the Leningrad blockade, but that's Hitler, so what have you). It is highly likely that a lot of the armed rebels will die, and probably many unarmed civilians who will be targeted as supporters. However, this is not the same as genocide.

And you're entitled to keep deluding yourself that you're not being obtuse by hair-splitting between "mass murder" and "genocide"... whose discussion is in any case moot because it never happened thanks to Western intervention.

It is a more valid argument to say "it devalues genocide by comparing it to mass murder" (the other part of your argument). But we can't even actually tell if a genocide or a mass murder would have happened since it never actually took place, can we?

And while we're at that, I should remind you that the West and major powers in general either remained completely indifferent or actively aided and supported four major post-war genocides - Cambodia, East Timor, Rwanda and Darfur. During these genocides, hundreds of thousands of people died, but the First World nations did jack shit (or, as is the case with France in Rwanda and the USA in East Timor and Cambodia, actively helped either the genocide itself or the government which commited said genocide). On the other hand, minor death tolls like that of 9/11, the KLA-Serbian war in Kosovo and the civil war in Libya provoked swift Western intervention.

And you having a chip on your shoulder against the West is relevant... how?

Don't accuse others of talking about useless stuff, when you keep posting useless shit of your own. At least my post - while largely a repetition of facts already known - was still relevant to the topic.

How is it "useless"?

Are you seriously going to argue that a law remains useful even if Congress itself does not enforce it? What use is a 60-day law if no Congress will ever impeach an American president for violating it anyway?

Again, my point is very simple: Congress has the power of oversight REGARDLESS of the 60-day law. It's called the power of the purse.

If the President is siding with people who commit genocide, then cut the program's funding. Congress has the power to do this. It's really that simple.

But Congress keeps refusing to exercise this power. That's the problem.

[Zinegata]

These decisions were made over long periods of time- why wouldn't Congress be involved, or at the very least consultations with congressional leaders?

I mean, it's actually quite troubling, from an international-law and civil-liberties standpoint, that Bush and Obama have claimed the authority to bomb anyone any time as long as they are suspected of being important to Al Qaeda. A few specific exceptions to that rule wouldn't cause much harm (raid on bin Laden), but the massive, categorical ongoing campaigns to assassinate enemy leaders hiding out in the soil of sovereign states we are not at war with creates problems.

You can make a case that the interventions you cite aren't all that righteous- that it would be better if the president couldn't simply order long-planned, premeditated attacks of that sort without consulting Congress. The argument that "Congress is too slow" makes no sense at all unless we're dealing with an urgent crisis, after all.

If Obama had information that there was a nuclear threat in some country that would become operational within 24 hours, who do you think he would really try to get Congress to pass a resolution authorizing military action first?

As you admit - "A few specific exceptions to that rule wouldn't cause much harm (raid on bin Laden)". And that's my point - it's the President's job to actually act on these exceptions - particularly if he has real-time intelligence sitting on his lap that needs to be done immediately. Congress is an inherently ponderous organization, because it's meant to craft laws which by necessity require long-term debate.

I'm not saying you should keep Congress out of the loop forever. But I am saying that Congress' job is primarily oversight - which is making sure the President is accountable for his actions, and to cut any projects that have gone out of control.

Congress was originally constructed not as a check on the executive, but as the senior branch of government- the president's job was to carry out the laws and strategic directives issued by Congress. Individually he was a powerful man, but ultimately, important decisions were made by Congress, or subject to Congress's approval before they could be acted on.

And I'd argue that this is healthy, or would be for a sanely designed legislature that didn't suffer from some of the more absurd small-c constitutional features of our government. Frankly, if anything the increasing aggrandizement of the president has undermined Congressional politics, because so much of the attention paid to policy questions by the American public and media centers on his person, and so little centers on Congress.

Well, one can argue that was the original intent. But the reality nowadays is that Congress serves as the oversight. Or rather should serve as the oversight, but they never actually use their power to curb any presidential misadventures for fear of being seen as "against the troops".

What are you talking about? Of course it's the president's duty to use his powers in a restrained fashion, and not commit the US to costly wars over marginal issues. The fact that someone else has the power to jerk him up short on his leash doesn't remove his responsibility for his own actions.

Obviously, the President - as an elected official - would not just jump into every military intervention that comes up his lap. He knows that such ventures are risky and can consume political capital.

But what if the President keeps screwing up and making mistakes? Or what if he's really an idiot or evil overlord madman? Then you need to have someone make sure he's on a short lease. Unfortunately, the said body isn't doing its job.

[K. A. Pital]

It was not an argument. It was a factual reminder.

A reminder those arguing in favor of Congressional review hardly needed. Review is not the same as disallowing immediate action, and it is dishonest to even pretend so.

And you're entitled to keep deluding yourself that you're not being obtuse by hair-splitting between "mass murder" and "genocide"... whose discussion is in any case moot because it never happened thanks to Western intervention. It is a more valid argument to say "it devalues genocide by comparing it to mass murder" (the other part of your argument). But we can't even actually tell if a genocide or a mass murder would have happened since it never actually took place, can we?

By that logic, you couldn't tell any genocide in advance. Which means you should attack any nations in a state of war, because genocide can happen under such circumstances.

And you having a chip on your shoulder against the West is relevant... how? Don't accuse others of talking about useless stuff, when you keep posting useless shit of your own. At least my post - while largely a repetition of facts already known - was still relevant to the topic.

I noted that intervention or non-intervention can be entirely unrelated to the scale of the humanitarian issues and quite possibly driven alltogether by other reasons - such as geopolitical interests. Which explains the pathetic failure to prevent any of the major genocides, because they did not serious impact anybody powerful's geopolitical interests (or even favoured them, as were the cases with East Timor and Rwanda) and the "swift" action on events when we're talking about attacks on pariah states, or nations which attack the West, regardless of whether there is a large-scale humanitarian disaster or not. You said this is irrelevant. How so? Your support for Presidential swift action ignores the entire historical record of Presidential actions of the USA. Hell, Nixon was largely a party to Cambodian mass deaths by authorizing secret bombings of Cambodia, in which lots of people died. That was a swift and deadly action by a US president, and the Congress wasn't too happy about it, understandably. Explain to me why this historical instance is irrelevant - because you say so? Because Obama is better than Nixon?

Are you seriously going to argue that a law remains useful even if Congress itself does not enforce it? What use is a 60-day law if no Congress will ever impeach an American president for violating it anyway? Again, my point is very simple: Congress has the power of oversight REGARDLESS of the 60-day law. It's called the power of the purse. If the President is siding with people who commit genocide, then cut the program's funding. Congress has the power to do this. It's really that simple. But Congress keeps refusing to exercise this power. That's the problem.

I think the Congress actually wanted to cut off the funding for Libya, and the reason the proposal failed it was not agressive enough in cutting said funding? Or so the thread made me think. Besides, how is an additional requirement hurting anything at all? Congress might not be willing to cut off funding immediately because it can lead to deaths of soldiers (say, in Iraq or Afghanistan) but at the same time express a clear statement that it wants people OUT of these nations, and so the ability to stop a war without cutting off funding is actually important and relevant. Whoa, I didn't think you could be that stupid.

[Simon_Jester]

If Obama had information that there was a nuclear threat in some country that would become operational within 24 hours, who do you think he would really try to get Congress to pass a resolution authorizing military action first?

As you admit - "A few specific exceptions to that rule wouldn't cause much harm (raid on bin Laden)". And that's my point - it's the President's job to actually act on these exceptions - particularly if he has real-time intelligence sitting on his lap that needs to be done immediately.

My objection is that this power is being used carelessly. The more we find the president committing us to protracted campaigns to deal with things that are not a real threat to the US, the more thoroughly the president has usurped the rightful role of Congress in deciding whether or not we are at war.

Congress is meant to pass laws, yes, but that's not the only thing they (or other legislatures around the world) do. It is designed to be perfectly capable of reacting to an emergency in a matter of days; plenty of legislatures have done so in the past. When the president reacts to a non-emergency situation by ordering prolonged military operations, and then behaves for all the world as if Congress's approval is irrelevant while month after month in which he could easily seek post facto oversight and approval of his actions... something has gone wrong.

Well, one can argue that was the original intent. But the reality nowadays is that Congress serves as the oversight. Or rather should serve as the oversight, but they never actually use their power to curb any presidential misadventures for fear of being seen as "against the troops".

I'd argue that Congress should act as the decision-making body, and enact reforms accordingly... but then, I think the US Constitution is in need of a major rewrite that no one in this country would be willing to give it until the whole thing becomes as big a mess as the Sejm was.

[Zinegata]

A reminder those arguing in favor of Congressional review hardly needed. Review is not the same as disallowing immediate action, and it is dishonest to even pretend so.

But that's not my only reminder. My other reminder was, in fact, that immediate action saved the Libyan rebellion. So there is merit to allowing immediate action.

By that logic, you couldn't tell any genocide in advance.

Huh? Not my point at all. I'm saying you're being obtuse for arguing over whether or not Qadafi would have committed "mass murder" or "genocide"... when the said act never happened in the first place.

I noted that intervention or non-intervention can be entirely unrelated to the scale of the humanitarian issues and quite possibly driven alltogether by other reasons - such as geopolitical interests.

Thank you Mr Obvious, for pointing out that military interventions are actually driven by geopolitical interest. So stop being a pot calling a kettle black, when I do a Mr. Obvious and point out that it's worth remembering we're talking about Congressional review of presidential actions (not the president being forced to do everything only at Congress' beck and call) and that immediate action IS sometimes necessary.

I think the Congress actually wanted to cut off the funding for Libya, and the reason the proposal failed it was not agressive enough in cutting said funding? Or so the thread made me think. Besides, how is an additional requirement hurting anything at all? Congress might not be willing to cut off funding immediately because it can lead to deaths of soldiers (say, in Iraq or Afghanistan) but at the same time express a clear statement that it wants people OUT of these nations, and so the ability to stop a war without cutting off funding is actually important and relevant. Whoa, I didn't think you could be that stupid.

Stas, stop being a tool. It's obvious and embarassing.

I never said that an additional requirement hurt.

I am saying Congress is failing to act as oversight. And no amount of laws is worth shit if Congress isn't gonna enforce them anyway.

As you admit - they're not actually accomplishing anything that would actually stop any of the armed interventions they're not happy with.

So really, can you stop playing these bullshit games and stop being a tool? You're so fucking obvious.

[Zinegata]

My objection is that this power is being used carelessly. The more we find the president committing us to protracted campaigns to deal with things that are not a real threat to the US, the more thoroughly the president has usurped the rightful role of Congress in deciding whether or not we are at war.

My point though, is that Congress should be the one that monitors whether or not the President's power is being used carelessly. It's their job. They're not doing it.

If they did their jobs, whoever has the rightful role of deciding whether or not the US is at war is largely moot.

Congress is meant to pass laws, yes, but that's not the only thing they (or other legislatures around the world) do. It is designed to be perfectly capable of reacting to an emergency in a matter of days; plenty of legislatures have done so in the past. When the president reacts to a non-emergency situation by ordering prolonged military operations, and then behaves for all the world as if Congress's approval is irrelevant while month after month in which he could easily seek post facto oversight and approval of his actions... something has gone wrong.

But what Congress is bad at is reacting to real-time information that must be acted upon swiftly. Again - the president doesn't have to consult Congress for every little thing (like offing Bin Laden) - because it's his job to handle these things. Otherwise, you may as well delete the presidency altogether and adopt something akin to a parliamentary system.

I'd argue that Congress should act as the decision-making body, and enact reforms accordingly... but then, I think the US Constitution is in need of a major rewrite that no one in this country would be willing to give it until the whole thing becomes as big a mess as the Sejm was.

See above re parliamentary system .

[K. A. Pital]

I never said that an additional requirement hurt. I am saying Congress is failing to act as oversight. And no amount of laws is worth shit if Congress isn't gonna enforce them anyway

Heh. But the Congress tries to enforce a law to curtail the Libyan operation. That's exactly what you're saying it does not do. The Congress ran a review of the Libyan operation and is of the opinion that it needs to be curtailed. Yes, the Congress often failed to act as oversight. It doesn't mean you need to repeal existing laws or try to render them unconstitutional or something. Complying with the War Powers Resolution is not a huge problem for the President.

[Zinegata]

Heh. But the Congress tries to enforce a law to curtail the Libyan operation.

Not true. If they were trying to enforce the 60-day law you cited, the proper procedure would be to hold impeachment proceedings. That's what you do when the United States President violates US law. You don't simply cut his funding. You strip him of his powers.

Cutting funding tells the president the Congress thinks he made a mistake, but what he did was not criminal. However...

The Congress ran a review of the Libyan operation and is of the opinion that it needs to be curtailed. Yes, the Congress often failed to act as oversight.

They are failing to cut funding anyway. And they haven't exactly done that for any of the previous midadventures either - i.e. Iraq.

Unless Congress actually goes ahead and tries to impeach a President for violating the law, or they actually stop funding for a war they think is wrong - then Congressional oversight remains ineffective.