In response to a bipartisan resolution from Congress accusing him of violating the US War Powers act (which prohibits the President from making extensive commitments of American troops without Congressional approval - Congress having the power to 'declare war' under the constitution), President Obama has essentially claimed that the United Nations has the power to make war on the United States' behalf.
Yesterday the President gave his response. He sent a 30+ page report (embedded below) justifying continued military involvement U.S. military involvement is “legitimated” by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.
U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
A major problem with that argument is that the Constitution's provisions regarding the United States use of military force mentions Congress, but it doesn't mention the United Nations as having the right to legitimize the use of American forces.
Funny - I don't recall the United Nations being mentioned in the US constitution.
This has some very serious implications in lots of other areas. For example, a UN action to 'protect' the 'Palestinians.'
Video: How Obama uses 'international law' to bypass the Senate
Douglas J. Feith, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under the Bush administration, spoke to the Center for Security Policy's National Security Group on Capitol Hill on the topic of international law. The State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, is a strong proponent of following the "norms" of international law. Now, the Obama administration is making the case that a part of the Geneva Convention that the US has NEVER ratified should be accepted in the United States.
The Washington Post published a letter from State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh to Wikileaks and its lawyer urging them not to release the thousands of 'secret' diplomatic cables that were released on Sunday. The letter is a metaphor for the Obama administration: It's pathetic.
In your letter, you say you want – consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” – information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.
Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
I'm sure Julian Assange is just quaking in his boots from that threat.
Anyone else here old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg? Ellsberg stole documents from the Penmtagon and gave them to several US newspapers to publish in 1971. While the government was unable to prevent their publication, they did take all the newspapers to court and the resulting legal expenses (it went to the Supreme Court) were enough to make the newspapers think twice about doing that sort of thing again. Until now. They also drove Ellsberg into psychiatric care.
What's missing from Koh's letter is something every lawyer puts into a letter like that: A threat. What are we going to do if you don't listen to us? We'll sue you. We'll go to court and try to freeze any assets you have in the United States.
Please don't get me wrong. As an Israeli, I'm thrilled that these documents were published because they have vindicated everything we have been saying for the last two years. If the documents had said something different, I would not have been so thrilled. But yes, I'm happy they were published.
However, a government cannot carry out its foreign policies if it cannot maintain confidentiality. What's in these documents would normally have come out in someone's memoirs 30 or 40 or 50 years from now. Instead it's come out in 'real time.' In a way that's a metaphor for our society today. Just like the Obama administration's weak efforts to stop it are a metaphor for American weakness.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
In response to a bipartisan resolution from Congress accusing him of violating the US War Powers act (which prohibits the President from making extensive commitments of American troops without Congressional approval - Congress having the power to 'declare war' under the constitution), President Obama has essentially claimed that the United Nations has the power to make war on the United States' behalf. 
