US entered Libya wrongly

Reader Input
-A +A
Now that forces supported by the U.S. military are closing in on Qaddafi, I think it is again time to revisit the manner in which we became involved in this war. Yes, it is a war, no matter how you try to paint it. Over the six months of this war, our representative, Tom McClintock, has made speeches regarding the unconstitutional nature in which this president brought our nation into the conflict. On March 31, Congressman McClintock said: “When the president ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe ‘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.’” In that same speech he reminded us that even under the War Powers Act, the president is authorized to conduct war for 60 days (not six months) and only for the following reasons: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” I contend, along with Mr. McClintock, that our president did, indeed, engage in an overt and aggressive act of war against Libya. These very acts are nothing short of war crimes and clear violations of the president’s executive authority. They are nothing short of impeachable offensives, no matter who the president is. The president suggested he didn’t have time to consult with Congress before Libya faced a humanitarian crisis. Yet he had time to consult with the UN and NATO. Therein lay the foundation for the war in Libya. The United Nation’s Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. The UN has declared its right to intervene in any country where they believe there is a threat to civilians of any significant nature. This is the most dangerous of all doctrines ever enacted by the United Nations. By this doctrine the UN might feel compelled to send troops, or compel its member nations to send troops, to virtually anywhere. By this doctrine, a sitting president of the United States was compelled to violate the very fabric of our Constitution and every law pertaining to such acts. Is this how we wish to have our country governed now? I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope Congress will have the courage to bring charges against our president for these egregious acts. John Manuola, Auburn