Kucinich says Obama "crossed the line," calls attacks on Libya an "indisputable" impeachable offense

CBS/AP/iStockphoto

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Hotsheet today that it's an "indisputable fact" that President Obama committed an impeachable offense by authorizing a military attack without congressional approval.

"The next question is what does Congress do it about it," Kucinich said, adding that he hasn't said he's introducing a resolution for impeachment.

"This is a teachable moment," he said. "The American people should understand that our Constitution does not provide for the president to wage war any times he pleases."

Kucinich and other lawmakers -- including both liberal Democrats and some Republicans -- are raising concerns about the air strikes the U.S. military is conducting in Libya to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from killing civilians who oppose his rule.

The United States on Monday fired cruise missiles over Libya, after leading a round of air attacks over the weekend. The air attacks are part of an effort to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya approved by the United Nations last week. The U.N. resolution approving the no-fly zone also approved "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians.

In a press conference, Mr. Obama maintained today that the U.S. will hand off control of the mission to the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone in a matter of days. But Kucinich said the U.S.'s continuing role in the mission does not change the fact that the president went outside of his authority.

"They crossed the line," he said. "The president needs to explain to the nation why he went outside the Constitution to order this attack."

Complete coverage: Anger in the Arab World
Pentagon: Qaddafi forces in disarray
Lugar: U.S. not declaring war on Libya

The 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action and forbids armed forces to remain in action for more than 60 days without congressional approval. However, several presidents since then have initiated attacks without congressional approval.

Kucinich said that Mr. Obama's actions were unconstitutional, according to the president's own constitutional interpretation. He cited a 2007 interview in which Mr. Obama said, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

President Obama met with congressional leaders at the White House on Friday to discuss the situation in Libya, and today, he sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner outlining the nature of the operations there.

"Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States," the letter says. Mr. Obama added, "I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action."

Watch President Obama in a press conference today defend his administration's actions in Libya.

With respect to the president's meeting Friday, Kucinich said, "To call a couple congressional leaders up doesn't fulfill a constitutional requirement."

"Taking us into a war involves putting the lives of American men and women on the line... and an expenditure of extraordinary amounts of money," he added.

The U.S. could end up spending up to $500 million in one week on this mission, Kucinich charged (the National Journal calculates that U.S.-led forces spent $112 million and $168 million on just the first day's strike in missiles alone). Furthermore, he said he was skeptical of those who insist this will be a quick operation.

"We've heard the story before we'll be in and out right away," he said. "There are people who are pushing for regime change, and the president himself made reference to that a couple weeks ago."

While Kucinich seems to be the most outspoken about his concerns with the Libya mission, other liberal congressmen are also raising objections to the administration's decision to take action without congressional approval.

Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California also noted today that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, Agence France-Presse reports. He said the U.S.-led operation "sends the message to the world that American democracy is deeply dysfunctional."

Honda reportedly said the Defense Department decided to act in Libya "based on energy security considerations, which is particularly apparent given Libya's 7th-ranked oil reserves."

That "sends the message that America cares little about the human rights and freedoms of people in countries, like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sudan, or Ivory Coast, without critical energy resources," he continued. "I demand a serious conversation in Congress before new countries are incautiously invaded and before America's legislative branch is eviscerated further."

Meanwhile, on a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday, Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Washington, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) all questioned the constitutionality of the president's actions, Politico reports.

Liberal groups and commentators are also voicing concerns. VoteVets.org, a progressive veterans group released a statement declaring that it cannot support the president's actions.

"Though the actions in Libya are morally justified, and we are extremely interested and eager to see the Libyan people live under freedom, there are far too many unanswered questions for us to support this new US adventure in the Middle East," Ashwin Madia, Iraq War veteran and interim chairman of VoteVets.org said in the statement.

Additionally, filmmaker Michael Moore has been slamming the president and the Libyan mission on his Twitter feed, pointing to the cost of the operations, and making remarks such as, "May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?"

Blogger Andrew Sullivan pointed out that the Libyan military operation does not contradict the military philosophy the president put forward when he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize. The president said at the time, "I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."

Watch CBS News national security correspondent David Martin speak with Bill Plante on CBSNews.com's Washington Unplugged about the latest news from Libya:

[discussthis]

by ToolMangler1 March 22, 2011 8:20 PM EDT
"-Power-Under-Constitution-to-Unilaterally-Authorize-a-Military-Attack-"


Now!!!!! He didn't "Unilaterally" authorize anything.. The United states is acting in concert with NATO and "The ARAB League"
That is "NOT" against the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The War Powers Act requires consultation with the U.S. Congress.
If you believe NATO and "The Arab League" -- or the U.N. for that matter -- can replace the Congress, please renounce whatever citizenship you may claim and join 0bummer's minions in the trash heap in 2012.

[TJefferson_Lives]

Have you read the Constitution? How about the War Powers Act of 1973?

Both require Congress.

[Dogtired22]

WAR POWERS ACT...
(Nov. 7, 1973) Law passed by the U.S. Congress over the veto of Pres. Richard Nixon. The act restrained the president's ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to consult with and report to Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities. Widely considered a measure for preventing "future Vietnams," it was nonetheless resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, most of whom regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority.
I called John Boehner office and was told that president Obama did not call him when he engaged our forces. That is required by law. He has to notify both speakers of each House, so that there is a record and agreement as to the Date , time, the action began and how long he has to notify the body ( congress), of his actions. He circumvented that law. Period

[jacksays]

you called John Boehner's office and were told... LOLOLOL Oh, I'm quite sure the secretary's intern you spoke to gave you the top secret low-down lololol

[tgreen33]

We are not in a war with Libya. Educate yourself first, according to the 1973 War Powers Act Resolution, Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced --
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth --

[mcfergy]

Holy Cow Congressman Kucinich, did the caffeine just kick in? President Obama hasn't been controlled by the U.S. Congress, conformed to U.S. Federal Circuit Court Judge Rulings or listened to the majority of Americans since his inauguration. And, what's this about the Constitution? It's apparent that the Mr. Obama became a 'constitutional scholar,' to be polished, proper and proficient at subverting that very document. Oh the days when journalists and the media stood as watchdogs on the three branches of government as a forth check-and-balance for the American public. Sadly, those days are long gone.

[Exles]

His caffine has been kicked in for over a decade. He called for the impeachment of Bush who started this mid east agression. He is a Left sided Constitutionalist like Ron Paul is a right sided one. They both meet in middle in areas that could prevent the destruction of our republic. Look at his record. I am very right winged and he has kudos integrity. He would be president if we were not so influenced by vain MSM sound bits and poll bought popularity contests.

[trimrider]

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/226200-Obama-President-Does-Not-Have-Power-Under-Constitution-to-Unilaterally-Authorize-a-Military-Attack-

OBAMA Dec. 2007
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"

So now he is a Liar, a hypocrite and a criminal by his own words.m Worst President ever.

[jnix729]

I must say, its nice to see for once a little consistency of message from a Dem. I'm sure that Kucinich also called for the impeachment of Bush for the same thing. Of course Bush CLEARLY had justification under the war powers act to do what he did... we were already under attack from the enemy. Obama, on the other hand, has CLEARLY violated the constitution with this act... there was absolutely no threat of attack from Libya. So Kucinich is definitely right about this being an impeachable act. The really funny thing here though is watching all these Libs who screamed for Bush's impeachment now defend their Messiah when he did EXACTLY the same thing that Bush did (except of course for the whole issue mentioned above, where Obama clearly had no authority...).
Oh, the hypocracy... its laughable.

[jacksays]

other than the fact that this wasn't under the auspices of the USA but, rather, as part of our membership in NATO. Remember NATO, the folks who Bush bullied into backing us in Iraq under the veil of lies? Yeah, paybacks are a b!tch, aren't they.

[rgalen2]

BUSH trampled the constitution worse than any president ever could of

[TJefferson_Lives]

I would love to see what all Bush trampled the Constitution on?

I mean aside from not following Article 4 Section 4 with the Borders, the Patriot Act, and the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security?

Obama has violated the Constitution approximately 300 times. This doesn't even include his Treasonous act of supporting the John Adams Foundation which is outing CIA Agents or his support for the Wikileaks guy.

[rgalen2]

gbrum what branch you serve in the the Falatio branch
?

[rgalen2]

First off all you IDIOTS he only needs the approval of congress if he wants to go to war the U.N didnt declare war on Lybia they made sure the didnt use the word WAR when passing the resolutions. As long as it is not called a war there is nothing congress can do a fair amount of Republicans came out and said he didnt need the approval. Number 2 you all do what yo do best is run your mouths before you know the facts. FACT the Saudi's are paying for this little excursion go back at the begining of the events it was told the U.A.E. and SAUDI ARABIA is paying the cost of this event. so please you just shut up and bite the big one this isnt half as bad as what BUSH did. What a bunch of WAH WAH'S

[gbrum]

C'mon ObamaZombies chant after me. O-BOMB-A, O-BOMB-A, O-BOMB-A.......

How are we funding this illegal war!?!?!?!. No BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!!!! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!! HALLIBURTON....HALIBURTON!!!!!

And for the dunce talking about Bush not getting UN approval...why was that? Oh yeah, half the members on the security council were getting kick backs from Saddam...they weren't going to mess up their meal ticket.