Last week I joined six
Republican and three Democrat colleagues to file a lawsuit against the Obama
administration over its illegal war against Libya. Now that more than 90 days
have passed since the president began bombing Libya, no one can seriously
claim that the administration has complied with the clear requirements of the
1973 War Powers Resolution.
In a remarkable act of
chutzpah, the administration sent to Congress its response to the growing
concern over its abuse of war powers. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that
the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because US armed forces are not
actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot
fight back! This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific. The
administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the
victim cannot fight back? Imagine if this standard was applied to criminal
law in the United States! I am sure Libyans on the receiving end of US and
NATO bombs feel hostilities are quite definitely taking place.
We must recall the origins of
these attacks on Libya. The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan
leader Gaddafi was killing his civilian population. Rather, the claim was
that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future. One need not
defend Gaddafi's regime -- and I most certainly do not -- to object to this
flimsy and dangerous rationale for violating the sovereignty of another
country. Imagine a scenario where the UN approves military action against the
United States as a preventative humanitarian measure over US enforcement of
its immigration laws, for example!
Now in Libya we see the
possible use of depleted uranium shells, we see infrastructure destroyed, we
see universities bombed, we see all the "collateral damage." Yet,
this is a "humanitarian intervention"?
In our lawsuit against the
administration, among other critical issues we are demanding that the courts
provide relief and protection to the country from the administration's policy
that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of
the United Nations and NATO without authorization from Congress, and that
previously appropriated funds by Congress may be used for an unconstitutional
and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries. These are fundamental
Constitutional issues and I expect the judicial branch to treat our challenge
with the same level of gravity as we do in the legislative branch.
Remember, we were told that
this attack would last "days, not weeks" and we are already three
months and likely nearly a billion dollars into it. As the bombings obviously
target Gaddafi's houses, even killing some of his family members, we can see
that the real goal is regime change rather than protection of civilians. Do
we know much about the rebels whose side we have taken in what is, in fact, a
civil war?
Although it is a bit late, I
am pleased to see that congressional leadership has started to listen to our
constituents, who are solidly against this war on Libya. I commend Speaker
Boehner's expressions of dissatisfaction with the administration over this
war and I sincerely hope he will use the full constitutional authority
granted to the legislative branch to bring into check an administration
clearly out of control.
Polls show that the American
people increasingly favor a truly conservative foreign policy: one that
rejects the leftist, utopian doctrines of nation building and preemptive war,
and one that is NOT funded by debt. Forcing the Obama administration to obey
the clear letter of the law is one step towards restoring a traditional,
patriotic foreign policy that serves American interests.
