Personal tools
 
Views

Arguments: US action in Libya does not amount to hostilities/war

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22:15, 18 June 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (22:19, 18 June 2011) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
-*[[Debate: Legality of US involvement in Libya]] - con argument.+*[[Debate: Legality of US intervention in Libya]] - con argument.
==Supporting quotations== ==Supporting quotations==

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. 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. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."


White House report on legal justifications for engagement, provided on June 15th, 2011: "U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."[1]


One senior administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House: “We’re not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute. We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops. None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power."[2]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.