With Thursday’s passage of United Natons Security Council resolution 1973, the United States is set to go to war against Libya. Removing Moammar Gadhafi from power would probably advance the cause of freedom, but the United Nations has no legal authority to take a step of this magnitude. By bowing to the will of the U.N. Security Council, President Obama is diluting the sovereign power of the United States.
The U.N. resolution authorizes member states to take a number of military and nonmilitary actions to protect the people of Libya from Col. Gadhafi's government. Under its own rules, however, the United Nations cannot legally authorize military action to shape the internal affairs of member states. Article 2 section 7 of the U.N. charter states that, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.” Chapter VII of the charter, which enumerates U.N. intervention powers, applies only to international breaches of the peace. The December 1981 U.N. “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States” reaffirmed this principle with its solemn declaration that, “No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.”
Five Security Council member states sat out the vote, including permanent members Russia and China, in addition to Germany, India and Brazil. China in particular objected to any action that would compromise Libya’s sovereignty, but did not veto the resolution. This may have been a political move, since the abstaining countries are now in a position to raise principled objections to whatever happens once force is utilized. To claim the United States forged an international consensus seems premature when Resolution 1973 did not have the support of countries representing 42 percent of the world’s population.
True to its internationalist instincts, the Obama administration would never contemplate an action that lacked U.N. approval, yet United Nations permission alone is inadequate. Sen. Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, believes that the Congress should debate a declaration of war over intervening in Libya. But the White House has not sought even the type of congressional authorization for the use of force that President George W. Bush did before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be ironic to say the least if Mr. Obama waged war with less legal backing than his predecessor.
International military action in Libya, even coming this late in the game, will be decisive. Resolution 1973 authorizes “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians,” short of deploying ground troops, which still leaves a variety of potent options for coalition commanders. The stated policy of the United States has been and should remain regime change, but the White House must seek some form of congressional approval before military action is taken against Libya. The president cannot be seen as a mere instrument of the United Nations, which would relegate the U.S. Constitution to second-class status behind the U.N. Charter. If U.S. troops are going to be put in harm’s way, the authority must come from elected representatives in Washington, not from a bunch of international bureaucrats hanging out in Turtle Bay.
OBUMMER say's OOPS! MY BAD.
But no ground troops (they are in egypt waiting and watching.)
Now we have three political wars going to protect Muslims from Muslims. I say let them settle their own problems as long as it is done internally. Libya is a civil war and we lose no matter who wins it. If the rebels win they will probably be controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood dedicated to our destruction. If the rebels lose Gadaffi and his government will hate us even more and probably add costs to the oil they supply to Europe.
Obama had to delay his decision to see what his Muslim brother leaders wanted him to do.
If congress doesn't act on this one. They never will.
Get ready to find replacements for all House and Senate members. Both Parties.
First Act Billy is how to remove the sitting ones now. Obviously voting them out doesn't work. They don't get voted out for whatever reason....They are still there. We're running out of time. The Constitution has already been done away with....we just have not admitted that yet.
Look all I want is truth! No dancing around trying to make it sound pretty! Brainstorm to come up with a peaceful plan of action that will produce the outcome we desire. Trying to work with or through the Congress or the judicial system will not work. We already know this!
How do WE remove Obama for war crimes and all those who back him?
Twana, If you think we can't get Congress or the Judicial to remove Obama and cabal of communists, then it leaves only two options. A military led overthrow or a full revolution of we the people. Neither option is likely as our military, even though sworn to uphold the Constitution, is too disciplined to act, and WE the people have been brain washed too long and are now too timid, PC oriented, cowardly, and busy having a good time.