re: "War Powers"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") is a pretty bright guy.

Here's his take:

"(T)here are two holes in the roof of Gaddafi's palace as I reported last night, but the US military now says that Gaddafi is not a target. This probably means that some component of the Tripoli air defense system was installed in or on the palace. Possibly there was a radar on the roof."

These were my thoughts exactly. After all, it's not been unknown, even in the U.S., to station elements of some sort of air defense arrangement on the grounds of presidential palaces, particularly during wartime. As time goes on, however, we're starting to see air strikes on items (tanks, boats) whose connection with enforcement of a no-fly-zone eludes me.

"The President claims the War Powers Resolution as the authorization for the gunboat style bombardment of Libyan air defense forces. I presume he uses Harvard Law School logic: the US is a signatory to the UN treaty. The UN has called for a no-fly zone in Libya. The US is obligated to carry out the mandates of the UN, because treaties are the supreme law of the land and rank with the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the power to resist attacks on US forces. Any attempt to impose the no-fly zone would inevitably expose US forces to attack from Libyan air defenses, and therefore it would be absurd to send in US aircraft over Libya while those air defense forces are intact; therefore carrying out the UN resolution did expose US forces to attack, and therefore the preemptive strikes on Libyan air defense targets was within the powers given by the War Powers Resolution. QED."

Dr. Pournelle cuts right to the heart of this matter. It's not as if the U.S. doesn't have a window into the machinations of the U.N. Security Council. As I learned, long ago, when I used to do "model U.N." as a high schooler, the U.S. has a permanent seat on the Security Council. And the U.S. has a permanent veto power in that body as well. So when the U.N. Security Council tells us something, it's somewhat like whispering in our own ears.

"Note that there is in fact some validity to the President's logic as explicated above. (Note also that I made it up: this is not based on any official statement I know of.) If you grant that the US is obligated to respond to the UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone, then the rest certainly follows, and any President who sent in US forces without adequate preparation would and should be condemned. However: the US holds a veto over such UN resolutions, and in fact the US sought that resolution. The counter argument here is that a UN resolution cannot give the President of the United States power to make wars without the consent of Congress, and if the President believes the US is obligated to act when the UN mandates such an action, then he ought not consent to such a UN resolution without authorization of Congress. That, however, contradicts the almost universally approved doctrine that matters of foreign policy are pretty much the business of the President and the President alone, and while Congress and particularly the Senate may advise the President, neither Congress nor Senate have any veto over how the President uses the UN votes and veto powers." (Bold typeface added for emphasis - CAA)

"Usually when we debate the limits to the power of the president to make (as opposed to declare) war, it is already too late: we are in, and the Legions need our support. This time we are not yet in, and we have no particular obligations to anyone. A good time for a real debate on these matters.

As to my views, I have no objection to wringing Gaddafi's neck, but I do not believe that decision belongs to the President alone. This is a matter for the Congress of the United States to decide. The nature and quality of debates on this matter should be illustrative. They might even change people's opinions about the present leadership qualities in the United States."

Just so. The Libyan dictator isn't exactly on my Christmas card list. He's a bad guy, has the blood of American servicemen and civilians on his hands (and has had so for decades) and belongs on any clear-thinking American's "better off dead" list.

But when it comes to the Constitution, I'm something of a stickler for form. Let's do this right. As both my long-time readers here will be aware, I consider the Iraq War Resolution to have sufficed as a declaration of war for Constitutional purposes, so I'd have the same reasonably wide benefit of the doubt for something like that here.