U.S. President Barrack Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year. Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and Senate.
Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
“Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
President Barack Obama becomes only the third sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing an office holder without the Senate’s approval, and Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both were acquitted by the Senate.
Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his impeached predecessors and it’s still unclear what legal defense he will use to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been inconsistent and vague from the beginning of the Libya assault.
Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in a 14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states vaguely: We conclude…that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President’s constitutional power. At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to “war” in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War clause.
The memo goes on explain why the alleged situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.’s national interest, cites previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.
However, in no way were national interests under an “imminent” threat by hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an international mission is irrelevant to the Act. Furthermore, Obama has maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.
The New York Times quotes directly from the 38-page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn’t a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with. However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these non-hostile military activities.
Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constitute military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in “international permission”:
This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming “judicial process” was not the same as “due process” under the Constitution.
Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
Wow Jack and Tina, this is huge. I couldn’t believe the email when I got it. I’ve been reading sites since.
Question. Was this filed on 3/7/12 as it appears on the top of the bill or today? If 3/7 why did it take 5 days before we heard anything?
Please don’t tell me this has been out for five days and because of the MSM refusal to cover it, which some of the sites are saying, is why we’re just now hearing about it.
In addition I’d also like clarification on Holder’s action concerning our “rule of law” and possible violations.
==========
From the New World Reporter:
“This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming judicial process was not the same as due process under the Constitution.
Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.
And as Wikipedia defines due process:
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
The Obama Administration has clearly offended against the rule of law, and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words. Its not a strong legal position to be in and it seems that for the first time in history, a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Full article here:
http://www.thenewworldreporter.com/2012/03/11/obama-impeachment-proceedings-begun/
About F ing time! I guess being a worthless pile of $hit doesn’t count.
Hmmm…a piece posted at Western Journalism indicates the House would only start impeachment proceedings IF…
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress-2/
This article was dated March 12th
It seems like a warning to the administration more than an actual start of impeachment procedings.
The Daily Caller reports the bill was introduced last week:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/12/gop-legislation-warns-obama-of-impeachment-over-military-action/
With the MSM in Obama’s camp I doubt this will go anywhere,
They have not said much against Obama, unlike how they treated GWB, there was a constant barrage against him, talk about partisan.
Good for Jones. I’d be proud if he were my congressman.
Liberals love illegal wars, just as long as it’s a Demoncrat that launches them.
I thought John McCain was lecturing Obama for NOT getting involved enough in Libya. Why the heck do we keep getting involved over there when we can’t even pay our bills over here?
Here is a link to the pdf of the resolution
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hconres107ih/pdf/BILLS-112hconres107ih.pdf
and you can read the text of the bill at the Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112%3AH.CON.RES.107%3A
I think the reluctance of Fox News to cover this shows that it is pretty much just grandstanding and will not look good for Republicans in an election year. This will probably go nowhere.
I understand that this may be the first step in a long process, but isn’t it still news worthy?
Here is the actual form:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.+Con.+Res.+107:
Well, at least we won’t have to listen to sex stuff, like with Clinton. That was disgusting, watching all those old pedophiles slavering over Lewinsky.
Princess and Peggy thanks for the links!
A lot could happen in the next few months that would encourage more support for this bill but with an election coming up this is mostly important as a means of letting the President know the Congress will not let him continue to act like a czar and to put it in the Congressional Record.
This guy needs his wings clipped. (Holder too)
I disagree with the characterization of Obama’s decisions re: Libya, but I am glad this article points out the gross violations of the fifth amendment that Obama has signed into law, allowing him to detain and even assassinate U.S. citizens without trial. That, to me, should be an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, neither Romney, Santorum or Gingrich have condemned Obama for this unconstitutional action, and in fact it seems to be one thing they actually agree with Obama on. This disgusts me. Ron Paul seems to be the only one who actually wouldn’t approve of such clear constitutional violations, and there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination. How did we get to the point where none of our leading candidates for 2012 understand the importance of the fifth amendment? How have we reached the point where most Americans don’t even know about, let alone care about, this extreme breach of our freedoms?
I do think the mainstream media has failed when it comes to reporting on Obama’s radical national security policies. Not necessarily because the media is pro-liberal or even pro-Obama, but because they are pro-easy-narrative. Obama’s aggressive national security policies don’t fit into the narrative that Obama is a squishy liberal peacenik, a false narrative that people on both the left and the right would nonetheless love to believe, so it’s not reported. The irony of this will never cease to slay me. Obama is a war-time president who won a Nobel Peace Prize. What is wrong with this picture? There is a huge gap between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions when it comes to national security. He talked a big game about closing Guantanamo and reversing the unconstitutional and sadistic policies implemented by the Bush administration, but once in power, he mostly expanded upon them and made them even worse. I agree with much of what Obama has done as president, but this is a huge problem that has been ignored by both the left and the right. This will be a stain on Obama’s legacy, just as Japanese internment was a stain on FDR’s.
Hey Chris, It’s a great day. You and I agree on some things. Like our Fifth Amendment, and Holder.
We’ve gotten here because people don’t know our constitution and believe what others tell them, unlike you who took the time to inform yourself.
While I don’t like Obama I also didn’t like McCain and after hearing him talk about getting involved in Syria Im glad he didn’t win the election. Enough is enough. We have to stop saving countries from themselves and get involved only when we are threatened.
Concerning the media coverage, I want to be able to watch the news or read a paper and get just the news void of their personal bias. If I want someone’s opinion I’ll watch a commentator or read a editorial. Anyone can be a commentator, but a journalist is supposed to be a product of a specific course of training. I believe that education has changed over the years and reporters have crossed the line into the area of being commentators.
Adding to the confusion are all the people watching commentators, comedians, late-night talk show host and reading editorials who think they’re getting the news.
Keep up the good work. Hopefully, well be able some day to figure out how we can work together to solve those problems we agree on.
How soon we forget how vulnerable we felt after 9/11 and now we are acting indignant because a president stops attacks on U.S. citizens on its tracks. You don’t know the half of what has to be done on U.S. soils to keep our citizens safe from terrorist cells living in the U.S. If there are further attacks than you’d all be yelling why there wasnt more security and putting the blame on the president.
We had our own Euro-white terrorists who killed innocent people and you all don’t think much about it. You all conveniently pushed it out of your mind.
We have our own domestic terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma bombing, who killed 168 people.
The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing in Atlanta Georgia during the 1996 Summer Olympics, the first of four committed by Eric Robert Rudolph, former explosives expert for the United States Army. Two people died, and 111 were injured.
2001 anthrax attacks – killing five people and infecting 17 others
Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting – An elderly man with believed ties to neo-Nazi groups opened fire on June 10, 2009 at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, killing one guard.
Fort Hood Shooting – Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.
Austin IRS attack – Andrew Joseph Stack III flew his airplane into the IRS building in Austin, TX killing one other person and injuring many more in an act of lone wolf terrorism.
Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki an America-born militant – Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network’s most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks.
It may have been preferred he would have been given the chance to carry out his threats, deaths to the American in American soil then you could have had the audacity to blame the president for not protecting our country.
“Wow Jack and Tina, this is huge.”
No, it doesn’t seem to be. In my searches, not a single main stream, let alone progressive, news outlet has deigned to report on it.
Presumably paperwork is circulating, but has not been voted upon, and apparently will not be voted upon.
Smoke.
Because, if you will remember, we did not do Libya … NATO did. A distinction which the NC Repug seems unable to grasp. We simply must stop sending morons to the Congress.
Better luck, next time.
dmgg711: “…and now we are acting indignant because a president stops attacks on U.S. citizens on its tracks. You don’t know the half of what has to be done on U.S. soils to keep our citizens safe from terrorist cells living in the U.S.”
Thanks for joining us in the discussion, dmgg711. I think if you read through our blog you will see that we do know what it takes to protect America. Some of the posters here are ex military and they know very well! You will also see and that we have not been terribly critical of the President on his efforts to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks.
The bill that has been introduced was in response to remarks made by Leon Panetta.
His remarks are the latest in a series of choices and events that demonstrate the administration has become arrogant and dismissive of the duties of Congress. Instructing unelected bureaucrats at the EPA and Health and Human Services to basically enact law through regulation is another example. Announcing that our elected representatives won’t be given a voice but rather the administration will turn to international bodies is disconcerting and disrespectful…a slap in the face of not only our elected leaders but also we the people.
Libby we are NATO so that’s a thin excuse.
Smoke? Maybe…maybe not. I find this a bit damning:
Much will depend on whether the DemRats are successful in putting this wannabe czar in for another term…then Katie bar the door! He will overstep spectacularly.
dmgg711: “It may have been preferred he would have been given the chance to carry out his threats, deaths to the American in American soil then you could have had the audacity to blame the president for not protecting our country.”
dmgg711, haven’t you ever heard the quote attributed to Ben Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety?”
I am sure that the president is doing what he believes is necessary to protect the country. I am sure that his predecessor did the same. But the president is not above the law, and he is not above the Constitution. He’s not a vigilante who gets the power to choose who to kill. We cannot allow national security concerns to be used as an excuse to ignore the Constitution and our civil liberties. That way lies tyranny.
I don’t doubt that Al-Awlaki deserved to die. But that should have been decided in a court of law, not by executive fiat. All men are entitled to a trial, no matter how heinous they are.
Keep in mind that innocent people have suffered because of the aggressive national security policies of Obama and Bush. These tactics led to the imprisonment and torture of Khalid El-Masri, an innocent man who was mistaken for a terrorist over a simple misspelling of his name. This man was tortured and allegedly raped by our government for information he did not have. His life was ruined, and the officials responsible for his erroneous detention still work for the government. One was even promoted!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
This is not an isolated incident–the majority of detainees from Guantanamo and other illegal American prisons have been released with no charges, because the government had nothing to hold them on. In many if not most of these instances, the reason there was no evidence is because the prisoners had done nothing to deserve their punishment. They were wrongly detained.
That’s what happens when we allow the government to decide to imprison people for months or even years without ever holding a trial, filing actual charges, or giving any sort of justification for their actions.
It strikes me as bizarre that many of the same people who don’t trust to government to regulate health care have no problem trusting the government to secretly arrest and detain people indefinitely and subject them to “enhanced interrogation techniques” without going through the judicial process at all. I can’t believe that these same people trust the government to target American citizens for assassination as long as the government says that the target is a terrorist. Now THAT is Orwellian, if you ask me.
dmgg711, not sure I understand who you are speaking to here, we at PS are all for killing terrorists and if necessary bringing them to trial.
Libby we are NATO so that’s a thin excuse.”
Tis. But legally, it will do. Which only makes the NC Repug look like that much more of a moron.
This does not help yer cause.
Your cause is looking pretty stinky at the moment…but who’s counting. I am:
Lousy economy, food and gas prices rising, people out of work, wealth lost, houses lost, food stamp program doing well but, oops, not enough funds for our schools, roads, fire, police…billions of tax dollars wasted on green energy pipe dreams. Over 23 Billion has gone to enviro/energy. You can track all stimulus (Recovery Act) spending here:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/contractsgrantsloans-details.aspx
You know what gets me is Biden sucking up, referring to Obama like some great savior of the middle class, ha! His last stump speech was about how Obama rescued the middle class and 4 more years will guarantee that he continues to protect the middle class. What unmitigated gall, does he think voters are completely oblivious and stupid? Wait…let me rephrase that, does he think democrat voters are completely oblivious and stupid? He must, but I think a good 5 or 6% of them see right through this charade.