Is the Obama administration in violation of the War Powers Resolution?
The Pentagon’s general counsel and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel both advised the White House that the ongoing Libya campaign amounted to “hostilities,” and thus required congressional approval under the terms of the 1973 law.
But President Obama dismissed the opinion of the OLC, which usually is legally binding, and overruled the Pentagon, as well — arguing essentially that since no one is shooting at Americans, America isn’t engaged in hostilities.
Yes, but American drones continue to rain missiles on Libya as part of the NATO effort to dislodge a dictator — with UN authorization.
Sounds pretty hostile to us.
And to many in Congress, as well.
Sentiment for cutting off funding for the campaign is growing, and there’s likely to be a vote on the matter this week. Congress surely has a right to defund the effort — and perhaps even the duty to do so, given the stone wall the president is building.
President Bush got congressional authorization for the campaigns he began in response to 9/11, and Obama could spare himself grief by doing the same thing.
But that would require the White House to explain in public precisely how the Libyan campaign serves America’s best interests. And it’s not at all clear that the president can do that.
The War Powers Resolution was passed — unwisely, in our view — to tie a particular president’s hands at a difficult period in American history.
But it’s the law.
How would it harm American security interests to obey it?