by Zack Beauchamp
Timothy Carney reminds us of an important point:
President Obama injected the U.S. military into Libya's civil war without ever seeking congressional approval, or leading a public debate. To square this clearly illegal action with the law and his previous statements about presidential war powers, his lawyers (who, like Obama, had fiercely attacked Bush's overreaches on war) argued that our air strikes in Libya did not count as "hostilities" as defined by the law.
Today, it looks like the rebels we've backed have succeeded in deposing Moammar Gadhafi, (which, you'll remember, was not the aim of our intervention). Setting aside the questions of the U.S.'s role in nation-building and peacekeeping, should we now forget about the fact that our President illegally launched us into a war?
Nick Gillespie and Greenwald have similar thoughts. The legal problems were always the strongest argument against the Libya intervention, as Andrew has repeatedly highlighted. I'm of the opinion that the looming humanitarian catastrophe forced Obama to act initially, and that was the right thing to do. After the 60 day War Powers Act deadline, the question of whether to keep U.S. assets in combat operations became substantially more complicated. I don't really think the violation was all that grievous, as since Bush it has been staggeringly apparent that existing legislation isn't nearly enough to restrain the Presidency. What this suggests, then, is that we need new legislation. A new law should contain a specific provision governing the special case of humanitarian intervention, as the time-pressures created by having to respond to impending mass slaughter are somewhat unique.
The Dish 