Cyprus-Forum.com

[yialousa1971]

Ten Congressmen to bring Obama up on charges in Federal Court for illegal Wars

Here are the names of the ten Congressman
• John Conyers, Jr (D., Mich)
• Dan Burton (R., Ind.)
• Mike Capuano (D., Mass.)
• Howard Coble, (R., N.C.)
• John Conyers, (D. Mich.)
• John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.)
• Tim Johnson (R., Ill.)
• Walter Jones (R., N.C.)
• Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio)
• Ron Paul (R. Tex.)

[Filitsa]

First of all, Yialousa, the title of your post is misleading. The congressmen are not charging the President with illegal wars. Rather, they are looking to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of U.S. action in Libya by virtue of its United Nations Membership. The issue is whether or not Congressional approval was required in order for the U.S. to intervene, as a member of the U.N., in defense of the Libyan people. Secondly, I think the issue is moot because the following Senate resolution urged the U.N. to take action, so in effect, Congressional approval was given. See #7 below.

112th CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1st Session

Strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Schumer, Mr, Wyden, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Levin) submitted the following resolution:

RESOLUTION

Strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.

Whereas Muammar Qadhafi and his regime have engaged in gross and systematic violations of human rights, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, that have killed thousands of people;

Whereas Muammar Qadhafi, his sons and supporters have instigated and authorized violent attacks on Libyan protesters using warplanes, helicopters, snipers and soldiers and continue to threaten the life and well-being of any person voicing opposition to the Qadhafi regime;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council and the international community have condemned the violence and use of force against civilians in Libya and on February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court; impose an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the provision of mercenary personnel; freeze the financial assets of Muammar Qadhafi and certain family members; and impose a travel ban on Qadhafi, certain family members and senior advisors;

Whereas Muammar Qadhafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years by banning and brutally opposing any individual or group opposing the ideology of his 1969 revolution; criminalizing the peaceful exercise of expression and association; refusing to permit independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations; and engaging in torture and extrajudicial executions, including the 1,200 detainees killed in Abu Salim Prison in June 1996;

Whereas Libya took formal responsibility for the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, 189 of whom were U.S. citizens and high-ranking Libyan officials have indicated that Muammar Qadhafi personally ordered the attack; and

Whereas Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Council on May 13, 2010 for a period of three years, sending a demoralizing message of indifference to the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 and Libyan citizens that have endured repression, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance or physical assault in their struggle to obtain basic human and civil rights.

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Qadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Qadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Qadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained; to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists; to ensure civilian safety; and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court; imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; freezing the assets of Qadhafi and family members; and banning international travel by Qadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Qadhafi regime to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the "disproportionate use of force in Libya" and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council resolution 1970, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council; and

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights.

(11) Welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible and transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2chamb ... ution.html

[B25]

Well thats that then. Those 10 must be thickos for not knowing this and still going ahead with it.

Pft!

[Filitsa]

B25, this is what they don't know ... or perhaps they do, but they chose to grandstand anyway. Where were they during the Bush Administration?:

It all sounds very important, and it is. There are few things more important than the Separation of Powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches and the question of the proper extension of the War Power. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is most likely destined to fail just as all previous attempts to resolve this issue in the Courts have failed.

The most recent example of a case like this was Campbell v. Clinton, a case filed in Federal Court in 1999 seeking a declaration that President Clinton’s decision to commit U.S. military forces to the NATO miltiary action against Yugoslavia over the disputed territory in Kosovo. The District Court rejected the challenge on the grounds that the lawmakers in that case did not have standing to challenge a military action in Federal Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision, and pointed out quite forcefully to the lawmakers that they had other options available to them more appropriate than getting the Judicial Branch involved:

In this case, Congress certainly could have passed a law forbidding the use of U.S. forces in the Yugoslav campaign; indeed, there was a measure—albeit only a concurrent resolution—introduced to require the President to withdraw U.S. troops. Unfortunately, however, for those congressmen who, like appellants, desired an end to U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia, this measure was defeated by a 139 to 290 vote. Of course, Congress always retains appropriations authority and could have cut off funds for the American role in the conflict. Again there was an effort to do so but it failed; appropriations were authorized. And there always remains the possibility of impeachment should a President act in disregard of Congress’ authority on these matters.

The Court of Appeals also noted, however, that the lawmakers didn’t have much of a claim on the merits either:

Appellants’ constitutional claim stands on no firmer footing. Appellants argue that the War Powers Clause of the Constitution proscribes a President from using military force except as is necessary to repel a sudden attack. But they also argue that the WPR “implements” or channels congressional authority under the Constitution. It may well be then that since we have determined that appellants lack standing to enforce the WPR there is nothing left of their constitutional claim. Assuming, however, that appellants’ constitutional claim should be considered separately, the same logic dictates they do not have standing to bring such a challenge. That is to say Congress has a broad range of legislative authority it can use to stop a President’s war making, see generally John C. Yoo, The Continuation of Politics by Other Means: The Original Understanding of War Powers, 84 CAL. L. REV. 167 (1996), and therefore under Raines congressmen may not challenge the President’s war-making powers in federal court.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in this case.

The powers of the purse that the Court of Appeals references in Campbell exist for Congress in the case of the action in Libya, of course. In a post at his blog, Turley makes clear that he’s aware of the standing issue:

This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief. In addition to challenging the circumvention of express constitutional language, it will also challenge arguments that no one (including members of Congress) has “standing” to submit this question to judicial review. These members will ask the federal district court for review of the constitutional question and for recognition that the Constitution must allow for judicial review of claims of undeclared wars under Article I.

That’s all well and good, but given the Court’s reluctance to get involved in disputes between the Legislative and Executive Branch over war powers in the past, it seems highly unlikely to me that the standing issue will be any less of a problem now than they were in 1999. In some sense the court in Campbell is right, if Congress believes the President has acted unconstitutionally, they have the power to cut off funding for the Libyan action, or even to impeach the President, if they have sufficient votes to support that action. if they don’t, I’m not at all certain that getting judges involved in this particular policy area makes any sense at all.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ten-co ... owers-act/

And by the way, there are nine Congressmen-Plaintiffs, not ten as Yialousa's post would have you believe above. Conyers's name appears twice on his list.