How did the Clinton and Obama Administrations justify their decisions to engage in military action without the explicit approval of Congress? Were you convinced by their reasoning?
PS OLC stands for Office of Legal Counsel, which is basically the President’s legal team.
Constitutional Law (Powers) Spring 2019 
One way the Clinton and Obama administration justified their military action without the explicit approval of congress was the use of the vesting clause. According to Yoo white house counsel to President Bush, interprets this clause giving the executive authority to deploy troops in response to an attack or in hostilities as long as it does not turn into a total war. He explains his reasoning that the power to declare war is given to congress, whereas the President is commander in chief and has the power to deploy troops into hostilities as long as it does not turn into a total war. This reasoning only unilaterally bans the President from declaring war , where the converse, this reasoning also implies that congress can not unilaterally deploy troops into hostilities. Clinton used this rational to deploy troops in Bosnia, arguing that it is enough constitutional backing because he is commander in chief. Obama used a similar backing when he deployed troops in Libya ,however President Obama added another element which is he is doing this to protect national interests and congress did not explicitly forbidden him from doing it. I am not convinced that these actions are justifiable because they seem to stretch the power of executive and the check put on the executive by the founders for congress to declare war. In these cases, the two presidents seemed to just walk around the check and found a loophole to expand this power.
LikeLike
In the extreme circumstances we see our government rely on one branch, that being the executive. In the wake of devastating attacks against the United States their is a general consensus amongst lawmakers and of public opinion to fight back. The constitution does not discuss the issuance of military strength in the the forms that both President Bush and Obama did, we the “war on terror.” The original signers would say that the text does not imply even it its broadest sense, to apply our unconventional methods. Corwin wrote that the constitution is “an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.” As of right now the OLC has been the only legal counsel when directing foreign policy.
Historically Hamilton and Madison had different viewpoints on the responsibility of war powers and where they shall fall. The United States uses the Hamilton approach getting caught in between the executive and the legislature. The supremacy falls under the executive umbrella as long as the president does not entangle themselves with congressional ability to declare war. The line is not drawn as the police actions are not considered wars but are mobilized as such. Even times when congress had taken a hard line on executive military authority, it is in the form of arguments and well versed speeches. These do not carry merit as representatives wish it would, but it does hold precedent in acknowledging overreach of power.
Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia with NATO forces was a presidential use of war powers. The downside was the congressional reaction realizing that Clinton was using U.S. military assets to conduct military operations with no clear objective or approval from Congress. It could have been that U.S. interests were not materially in the region but a moral one was which would provoke concern in general terms. The idea of who can declare constitutionality is laid in the foundation of the Judiciary branch, but the executive has overlooked such persuasions.
Obama’s intervention is Libya is yet again another police action declared by the executive branch to pursue a military solution within a region. Obama had originally detailed his actions within a letter to congress which would later expand the objectives of the intervention, a bait and switch method which must be condemned. Resolutions were passed but is not concrete due to the legislatures unwillingness to enforce their will, or in other words do their job. Debating the drone attacks is another part of military authority that the congress is slow to rangel in these provisions as they do not put U.S. troops on the ground, again seeing a change in modern warfare.
It is the extent at which military might is used to prevent attacks, but has been transformed to hurt and kill our own population. During World War II interment camps were a sad part of history with the removal and incarceration of a people based on race, no different than the methods implored by Nazi Germany. Korematsu v United States hold the value of protecting American citizens no matter the cost against the reign of our military. Obama has ignored these calls through his drone wars that have killed American citizens in the approval of the OLC, again ignoring balance of powers between branches.
The blame can sit solely on the shoulders of the President but of the OLC, legal counsels work for the executive and do not answer to congress or the judiciary. It is the free of another September 11 attack that drives our military budget and our decisions in world affairs, at times ignoring the constitution. Benjamin Franklin once said that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We need to hold our executive branch accountable and force legislatures to do there job because an unchecked branch will encroach on others.
LikeLike
Great response, Jorge – plenty of detail and passion in here. I’m glad you mentioned the debate between Hamilton and Madison, and it’s also good to see the War on Terror story discussed. (We will discuss it in more detail on Thursday). One counter-point I’d put to you – and I’ll put plenty more in class – is this argument about the unwillingness of Congress to engage with foreign policy. When the legislative branch is so silent and arguably lazy, can we really complain about the executive taking unilateral action?
LikeLike
Throughout history it has shown us that the past presidents asserted unilateral power and Congress continued to allow them to do so. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations had the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to justify their military action without the explicit approval of Congress.
President Clinton consistently asserted his executive powers in conducting foreign policy and his power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief to justify the notion that he doesn’t need to “lay down any of my constitutional prerogatives” to Congress. In regard to Bosnia, the OLC backed up Clinton’s military action by providing “a great deal of background information to demonstrate the long-standing commitment of U.S. forces to NATO and UN missions in Bosnia”. The OLC stated that the president had the authority to act unilaterally without the approval of Congress because if the peace agreement were to fail, it would damage America’s national interest and the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and tarnishes the success of its peacekeeping mission. The OLC backed up the president’s actions in Bosnia by “looking back over 40 years of bipartisan precedent.”
The Obama administration had justified President Obama’s decision on engaging in military action in Libya without the explicit approval of Congress quite well. Obama’s administration argued that it was a NATO led operation and that NATO was in charge, therefore there aren’t any U.S. ground troops involved in Libya, therefore noting that the U.S. is not at war. Obama had the authority and legality to do so under international law saying he had to act to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. He cited UN Security Council Resolution 1973 as authorization and his powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct U.S. foreign relations.” This was the same tactic Bill Clinton OLC used to justify his decision and Obama’s OLC took that and straightened their case. Obama’s OLC stated that president had “the authority as long as he did so to protect national interests and provided that Congress had not “specifically restricted” him from acting.” The OLC used historical practice of prior presidents to back up Obama’s decision, where they stated that prior presidents had used military action just like President Obama did throughout history without the explicit approval of Congress, claiming that “historical practice is an important indication of constitutional meaning.”
I do feel that history just proves how the War Powers resolution really doesn’t work but rather as a political tool that allows Congress to criticize a president about the prosecution of a war.
LikeLike
Thanks for such a thorough response, Tina. It sounds like you are somewhat sympathetic to the Clinton and Obama administrations here, so we’ll go through and try to pick their arguments apart in more detail today.
PS Take a look at what Bush’s OLC said about Iraq for your extra credit paper
LikeLike
The OLC for both the Clinton and Obama administration used broad interpretations of the role of the Executive and War Powers Act as justification for their military engagements. Burns describes the beliefs of “executive supremacists” that explain the legal reasoning behind most of the military engagements post-WWII. Clinton’s OLC explained the United States commitment to NATO, the UN, and our interests in Europe as reasons why Clinton used the military in Bosnia without Congressional approval. Clinton’s OLC argued that the role of commanding troops overseas has historically been held unilaterally by the President alone. Even if that meant being the ones to shoot first. Clinton’s OLC cited President Johnson’s involvement in the Dominican Republic as precedent. They also said that the mission in Bosnia was to achieve peace between the two parties in violent conflict. The United States was not attempting to conquer any land or people. Which most likely would mean the United States would be involved in a limited capacity and not result in “extensive or sustained hostilities.” Clinton’s OLC argued this meant the military engagement in Bosnia could not be defined as “war” according to the Constitution. The Obama administration’s OLC had a broader interpretation of the president’s power to justify military engagement in Libya. They also argued that the involvement in Libya did not satisfy the requirements of an actual “war.” But Obama’s OLC stated that there needed to be “two national interests at stake.” They cited “regional stability” and upholding the reputation of the UN Security Council as justification. But Obama’s OLC stated that as long as the president had the interests of the nation at heart and if Congress did not ban him from taking action, he was free to do so.
I was not convinced by either OLC’s legal reasoning that justified the massive expansion of Executive power, but I don’t think that’s their fault. The main reason why is because it seems like this was a constitutional principle that was meant to be broken. The decision to wage violent conflict has serious repercussions for the United States. It is something that needs to be carefully thought and debated. That debate hardly exists in the Executive branch. Which is why, the founders wanted Congress to be the primary policy-maker, not the president. However, I believe this debate highlights a contradiction in the system designed by those men in 1787. The decision to make the president the nation’s chief diplomat seems to contradict making Congress the chief policy-maker. Being a unilateral diplomat inherently means they will decide domestic policy. It is impossible to make a foreign policy move without impacting the United States at home. The founders knew the decision to wage war was a serious policy decision, yet that power is given to the centralized power they feared. The way I see it, the founders knew giving the president that much power did not align with their desire to create a republic ruled by a legislative body. However, it is something that is necessary for the interests of national security and foreign relations. So they quietly accepted this first step in expanding executive power. Violent conflict being voting in Congress is something that should happen in a perfect world, where legal theory aligns with reality. But that world does not exist. So to deal with our imperfect world, we probably need a powerful president making these decisions on a whim.
LikeLike
Great points, John – and I also sense some insights here from our Congress class. We’ll discuss further on Thursday how the “invitation to struggle” has played out during the so-called “War on Terror”
LikeLike
It would seem that in both cases the President’s OLC would simply create an interpretation that suited the interests of their boss. The lack of interest in debate and insistence that their constitutional interpretation was final makes their intentions very clear. This is where I believe that it is the rule of the judiciary to step in and make a ruling. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has a history of being ignored by the executive when it comes to his role as Commander and Chief and is probably afraid of repeating history. In President Obama’s letter to Congress, he justifies military action in Lybia by saying “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address
the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.” No one wants to be the one to say that they oppose such action, especially the Supreme Court, as they have adopted the role of the moral as well as legal judges of the country. This topic is extremely interesting to study considering the upcoming extra credit assignment!
LikeLike
Thanks for this comment, Adam – sounds like you’re not fully convinced by the OLC opinions, but can at least sympathize with the judiciary (and perhaps Congress?) for not wanting to stand against “humanitarian” interventions. Maybe we can think about this question in two ways: What do we think is right, and what would we do if we were in a position of political/judicial power? Tough!
LikeLike
Clinton approved justified his decision to engage in military action by arguing the constitution allows for him to implement hostilities so long as it doesn’t impede on congressional power to declare war; the president can do anything short of war without explicitly declaring war. His legal team also sighted that taking intervening in Bosnia’s civil war was right since peace needed to be maintained. If it wasn’t it would “ ‘injure America’snational interests,’ plunge European countries into ‘violence and atrocities of the sort not seen in Europe since the end of the Second World War,’ damage the credibility of the UN Security Council, and diminish the effectiveness of its peacekeeping mission” (211).
The Obama administration justified his decision to intervene in the Lybian crises by stating that he had to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, maintain international peace and secure the United States’ interests. He used the UN security council as authorization and his powers as commander in chief. His legal team added that he acted to protect national interests and Congress didn’t explicitly restrict him.
I believe in both instances the President’s acted in what they believed to be best for the United States. With that being said just because a President may have good intentions doesn’t mean their execution of such interests is always correct or fair. In regard to Clinton and Obama’s action, I don’t have a solid stance yet (as I have limited knowledge on both wars), but I do think it’s important to mention that in both cases Congress did not decide if Presidents’ actions should be permitted. It is also important to note that Congress still holds the power to declare war and these presidents did not, although their actions were war-like.
LikeLike
You’re on the fence again! But in all seriousness, this is a measured and well-considered response, Sarah-Hannah, which gives us a lot to discuss further in class. You’ve identified at least two really important constitutional questions surrounding war powers: 1) When can we actually say that something is a “war”? and 2) How do we interpret the “declare war” clause in the Constitution? Can the President take the initiative if Congress doesn’t? If so, for how long? [If you’re planning on doing the extra credit assignment, these are the sorts of questions that can structure an effective paper]
LikeLike
There is little to no difference between the justifications of their decisions to engage in military action without the explicit approval of Congress. Both administrations justified their actions by simply stating the precedent that occurred before them taking office. Therefore, through precedent, presidents with their lawyers have advanced the institutional habit of “initiating hostilities” unilaterally. Consequently, a never-ending cycle of precedents blossom just like the never-ending cycle of flowers blooming in the spring. As a result, future generations arrive to conclusions in regards to the “initiating hostilities unilaterally by the executive” as the innate and natural way of conducing Foreign Policy.
Obama justified his decision to engage in military action without the explicit approval of Congress by stating that his intentions were to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.” Thus, he further added that Libyan instability had “dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States”.
Clinton on the other hand simply engaged in interpreting the constituting as well as the “Presidential War Power” by declaring to Congress that his “constitutional authority provided him with all of the legal ground necessary to initiate combat”. Moreover, the lack of Congress action in these matters illustrates how the President can interpret the constitution for his own advantage.
Congress failed to provide explicit statutory authorization for Clinton’s military action and also failed to provide the president with a clear statement of its opinion. Furthermore, with both the House and Senate failing in producing a clear answer whether they supported or were against the military action, illustrates how important Unitary Executive Action is.
LikeLike
Albi, I’m glad you emphasized the point about Congressional failure/inaction. This is one of the leading arguments in favor of a more energetic executive. If, in class, we don’t get into the causes of Congressional inaction, I will send you some material from my Congress class last semester, which reflects on this issue in some detail. Might be useful if you do anything relating to war powers for the final paper (or, indeed, the extra credit assignment), and just for broader knowledge of this issue.
LikeLike
According to President Clinton, he had the constitutional authority that provided him the legal grounds to start warfare. President Clinton and his administration declared that If the peace agreement was to fail, it could possibly “injure America’s national interests,” and cause European countries to fall. According to the OLC ( The Office of Legal Counsel), the president had the ability to act without Congress’ power because the power to deploy troops abroad was nothing new, and that previous president had done so. They gave examples with President Johnson’s deploying the armed forces into the Dominican Republic in 1965.” They also made the point that the objective was on humanitarian efforts than security ends.
President Obama did something quite similar to his justification was that it was based on humanitarian efforts as the situation in Libya was a threat to international peace and security. He wrote a letter to Congress detailing his objectives. When re-questioned and accused of overstepping his constitutional powers, his administration presented national security concerns, for their justification in providing aid to the Libyan rebels. His OLC also claimed that Obama had the authority to intervene as long as he did so to protect national interests.
Based on Hamilton, who favored the executive definition of powers, presented in the Constitution. The president does have the executive power when it comes to acting on his/her Judgment on whether deciding if the country is under obligations to make War or not. Because of this, Presidents can have a say when determining to initiate hostels, as long as don’t overstep on Congress’s power to declare war. As president, they have the responsibility to preserve Peace and protect united states national interests until war is declared. So because of this if the president truly feels their act for intervening a war can be justified than I feel they are doing the right thing.
LikeLike
The attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent fear of another attack gave the Bush administration to justify its unilateral executive action of war powers. The Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administration, according to the reading, echoed the same arguments used by the Bush administration following 9/11. The Clinton administration engaged in military action by assessing that he was simply conducting U.S. foreign relations and that his power as “Command-in-Chief” allowed him to do so. The administration also used NATO and the UN missions in Bosnia to defend their unauthorized military actions. They argued that without military force NATO was unlikely to prevent constant fights in Bosnia. They also argued that the President’s general power as a matter of historical practice allowed him to enforce military power without explicit military authorization.
The Obama administration, in a similar fashion, argued that failure to enforce military action in Libya would result in a humanitarian catastrophe and international peace would be threatened. As the Clinton administration argued, failure to enforce military force in Bosnia would have resulted in a threat to international peace. Both administrations also benefited from slow-paced congressional efforts to enforce their alleged constitutional power to declare war or approve military action. These reasonings, to best my unbiased knowledge, are some-what convincible. Both leaders openly argued that waiting for Congress to do something would have resulted in more international catastrophe. As former president Nixon argued in his veto of the War Power Act that the act was bad policy and impractical. This act transferred war powers from the president to congress. During times of distress, the complexity of Congress is not good. Nixon explained, years after leaving office, that had the War Power Act been in effect during the Yom Kippur War, Israel would have lost the war. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had begged Nixon for aid. Meir argued in her book that had it not been for the immediate Nixon help, Israel would have been perished. Imagine if Nixon had to wait for Congress to pass a bill that allowed him to aid Israel, how long would have taken Congress to act? Too long in my opinion.
LikeLike
To add to my point, there are current members of Congress that even oppose supporting Israel. Rep Ilham Omar recently argued that support for Israel is all about money. She has also recently criticized international efforts to recognize a different government in chaotic Venezuela. It this a congress that the executive should rely on? These questions, I guess, will remained unanswered
LikeLike
Great point about Nixon here, Luis. I’ll ask you to say more about it in class.
LikeLike
In any case, I’ll give you this objection to think about re: the specific historical case… If you read Kissinger’s account, he claims that the Israelis threatened to use their nuclear arsenal on the Arab states if the US didn’t come to their aid. This might prompt us to ask: Do we want the president responding to blackmail without informing Congress?
Moreover, a military defeat for Israel would only have resulted in what ended up happening at the end of the 70s: the return of the Sinai Peninsula, which was seized from Egypt during the ’67 war. Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, and other historians seem to agree that the Arab states had neither the will nor the capability to “liberate all of Palestine” in 1973, notwithstanding their public rhetoric. At most, Jordan might have taken back the West Bank and Syria the Golan.
LikeLike
The Clinton Administrations justified their decisions to engage in military action without the explicit approval of Congress, in the way that they relied on the concept “Constitutional authority.” When Congress tried to argue for approval prior to action, Clinton opposed this by stating that the Constitution allows this. In other words, Clinton was claiming his power “to conduct U.S. Foreign relations” and his role as “Commander in Chief” (Burns, p.8). According to Clinton’s Administration, these specific powers and roles justifies his involvement in military action, without prior consent from Congress.
Similarly, the Obama Administration justified their decisions to engage in military action without explicit approval of Congress, in the way that this was already practiced by past Presidents. The argument was that throughout history, presidents have utilized military force despite congressional agreement and this implies Constitutional interpretation (Burns, p.12). That is to say that, Obama’s Administration justified his involvement in military action without Congressional consent because he was continuing what other presidents have done as well, in terms of claiming the “wide constitutional powers as Commander in Chief” (Burns, p.13).
These reasonings seemed convincing to a certain extent, because it all depends on interpretation. With Obama’s administration, since these occurrences have consistently happened with past presidents, the current presidents are going to imply it is logical to do as well, if it is not seriously addressed. With Clinton’s Administration, they are looking at it from the point of view of what they are given and the capacity they have with it, in terms of the Constitution. Meaning, they are focused on their individual roles in the government and are taking action with that.
LikeLike
The Clinton Administration justified its decision to engage in military action without the explicit approval of Congress by stating that the President’s “constitutional authority” provided him with all of the legal ground necessary to initiate combat. This reasoning was not convincing as the Clinton Administration did not refer to a specific part of the Constitution that granted the President this “legal ground.” The Clinton Administration did not even acknowledge the war powers Congress has and how the President’s actions seem to overpower congressional authority. As for the Obama Administration, it presented vague national security concerns in regard to the Libya crisis to justify its military action. Furthermore, the Obama Administration claimed that U.S. actions would demonstrate to “the people of the Middle East and North Africa that American stands with them.” The Administration also stated that American participation was needed given its unique military capability. Similar to the reasoning of the Clinton Administration, the reasoning of the Obama Administration was not convincing either. Unlike the Clinton Administration which claimed “constitutional authority, ” the Obama Administration claimed national security concerns that were not genuine.
LikeLike
Instead of courting Congress, Clinton consistently asserted his power “to conduct U.S. foreign relations” and his power “as Commander in Chief.” The OLC stated clearly that “the President has determined that, without this substantial contingent of United States troops, the NATO force is unlikely to be able to prevent renewed fighting in Bosnia.” If the peace agreement were to fail, it would “injure America’s national interests,” plunge European countries into “violence and atrocities of the sort not seen in Europe since the end of the Second World War,” damage the credibility of the UN Security Council, and diminish the effectiveness of its peacekeeping mission.
According to the OLC, the president had the authority to act unilaterally because “the power to deploy troops abroad . . . is the most clearly established exercise of the President’s general power as a matter of historical practice.”
Yoo mentions “ that Clinton did not require authorization to “send the air force into combat in Bosnia or Kosovo, because his commander-in-chief and executive powers already gave him sufficient constitutional powers to do so.”
Obama determined that he had to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.” In the letter, Obama linked Libyan instability to instability in the region and claimed it had “dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.” Obama went on to cite the UN Security Council Resolution as authorization to do what he did and that as Commander in Cheif he has that power.
Overall I think both Obama and Clinton just kept justifying their actions by saying they have the right because they are Commander in Chief and they have that power, so I didn’t find their arguments very convincing. They also both justified their actions by saying that the issues going on in both Bosnia or Kosovo and Libya would have dangerous consequences on the U.S. which is why they needed to intervene.”
LikeLike
The OLC provided a great deal of background information to demonstrate the long-standing commitment of U.S. forces to NATO and the UN missions in Bosnia. The OLC stated clearly that “[t]he President has determined that, without this substantial contingent of United States troops, the NATO force is unlikely to be able to prevent renewed fighting in Bosnia.” If the peace agreement were to fail, it would “injure America’s national interests,” plunge European countries into “violence and atrocities of the sort not seen in Europe since the end of the Second World War,”damage the credibility of the UN Security Council, and diminish the effectiveness of its peacekeeping mission.
According to the OLC, the president had the authority to act unilaterally because “[the] power to deploy troops abroad . . . is the most clearly established exercise of the President’s general power as a matter of historical practice.”
The OLC deepened and strengthened the legal claim. It stated that Obama had the authority as long as he did so to protect national interests and provided that Congress had not “specifically restricted” him from acting. The OLC went on to say that presidents had used military force throughout history without prior congressional approval, claiming that “historical practice is an important indication of constitutional meaning.” Once again, the OLC argued that the president cannot use force in “an engagement that constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the Declaration of War Clause,” and the operation in Libya fell short of war. Wars for the OLC must be “prolonged” and involve “substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.” Moreover, the OLC argued, the War Powers Resolution echoed this sentiment in providing the president with the capacity to use force in “limited engagements,” ignoring the section regarding the imminent threat, just as Clinton’s OLC did.
I was not convinced by their reasoning because of the fact that they were speaking for Congress inciting that the Presidents should act because of “national security”. To me is all a farce and nonsense.
LikeLike
This is a thorough response, Samuel – thanks! And your stance is certainly clear. But maybe some justifications were more farcical and nonsensical than others – perhaps we can find some grain of validity in the OLC reports in class today. We’ll wait and see if you are convinced!
LikeLike
To justify his actions, Clinton claimed to Congress that his “constitutional authority” gave him the legality he needed to initiate combat. Clinton also constantly cited asserted his power “to conduct U.S. foreign relations” and his power “as Commander in Chief.” Clinton greatly valued his executive power in this situation with Bosnia. This was the argument used to justify his actions. His status as commander-in-chief and his executive powers gave him enough constitutional power to engage in military actions. Another justification was, “According to the OLC, the president had the authority to act unilaterally because “[the] power to deploy troops abroad . . . is the most clearly established exercise of the President’s general power as a matter of historical practice.” These reasoning’s are not the most well argued I have seen, but I completely understand them. The OLC uses precedent to justify that what Clinton is doing is ok. The Commander in Chief and conducting U.S. foreign relations is an argument that touches back upon the scope of executive power. I’m still not sure exactly where I stand on how much power the president should have (tricky issue), but I don’t think Clinton arguing that he can do it because he’s the president is a strong argument.
In Obama’s case, his administration justified his actions by saying it was to, “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.” In the letter, Obama linked Libyan instability to instability in the region and claimed it had “dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.” Like Clinton, Obama cited his power to “conduct U.S. foreign relations. As time went on though, Obama call on extreme measures that would increase the scope and objective in Libya. I am not convinced by his reasoning. I believe he overstepped his boundaries by authorizing deadly drones without gaining approval by Congress to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The exercise and arguable expansion of war powers seen under the Clinton and Obama administrations were simply just another display of executives taking it upon themselves to do what many executives have done throughout history: stake an overwhelming claim over the extent of their war powers (see: Abraham Lincoln).
When Bill Clinton was in office, the Bosnian crisis was brewing, and Clinton believed United States intervention would be of benefit despite “lukewarm support.” As a result, the US helped NATO enforce a no-fly zone and would subsequently engage in combat in the form of airstrikes. Clinton claimed that it was in his “constitutional authority” to initiate and engage in such militant tactics, placing added stress on Congress to be recognized for its own war powers.
In response, several bills were introduced to the Senate floor that would provide Congress with more distinct and recognizable authorities on war powers, but they ultimately died. Clinton, instead of working alongside his Congress, continued to assert that it was within the scope of executive power to “conduct US foreign relations,” especially as “Commander-in-Chief.” He was further supported by the OLC, stating “the president had the authority to act unilaterally because ‘[the] power to deploy troops abroad… is the most clearly established exercise of the President’s general power as a matter of historical practice.’”
Historical practice was once again used in defense of Obama’s utilization of war powers regarding crisis in Libya. The OLC claimed “‘historical practice is an important indication of constitutional meaning.’” This effectively defaulted onto a certain interpretation of the Constitution in which the executive was vested with immense power over warfare and combat in times of high duress in the name of “national security interests.”
While I understand to an extent the need to act swiftly in times of war (because Congress does take a long time to act compared to the President), I feel as if these justifications on behalf of the Clinton and Obama administrations should not apply to conflicts that do not directly involve them. These conflicts that these presidents plunged the US into did not initially involve the US, yet they took it upon themselves to partake in these conflicts sans Congressional advisement or approval. Granted, the US has many alliances and it can be seen as obligatory that a world power like the US comes to the help of states with immense turmoil and distress, but sometimes an obligation should not be seen as a promise, especially if the “good guy” is not so obvious at times.
LikeLike
Ana, this is an excellent and well-balanced assessment. I’m particularly interested in pursuing your last point in class today. To what extent should the president act unilaterally to uphold American alliances? The comment about not knowing who the good guys are is potentially very important indeed.
LikeLike
The Clinton administration got involved because after the dissolution of Yugoslavia the ethnic tensions led to a civil war in Bosnia which impelled the UN and NATO to get involved. In 1993, the U.S. helped NATO enforce a no-fly zone. But, by 1994 the U.S. shot down Serbian bombers. Clinton justified it by saying that it was his constitutional authority which allowed him to initiate combat. Additionally, he continued to emphasize his power to conduct the foreign relations and his power as commander in chief. Moreover, the OLC gave background information to show the commitment of the U.S. forces to NATO and UN missions in Bosnia. They claimed that without U.S. military support NATO wouldn’t be able to stop forces alone. Furthermore, they added that with this peace agreement were to fail then it would harm American interests and create violence in Europe and damage the UN Security Council credibility and reduce peacekeeping effectiveness.
The Obama administration justified his engagement abroad by saying that he had to stop a humanitarian catastrophe, address the threat to international peace and security because of the crisis in Libya. Obama related the Libyan instability to the instability in the region and said it had consequences to U.S. national security interests. In addition, he used the UN Security Council resolution 1973 to authorize his power of the Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct foreign relations. Furthermore, he said that the actions in Congress would be “limited in nature, duration and scope” but the operation grew. He also added that the people form the Middle East and North Africa have to know that America supports them.
In my opinion, I think I was most convinced by the Clinton administration because his reasoning mentioned that his involvement was more so because of their ties to NATO which in to me is stronger than getting involved because of a humanitarian issue. Instead Clinton got involved because it of their ties as a nation to the alliance. Additionally, although humanitarian catastrophes are horrible it can get messy for the United States to be involved abroad in sometimes someone else’s fight. Whereas, Clinton reasoning mentions an alliance agreement which usually makes countries automatically involved when something happens to an ally which on paper makes more sense for the U.S. involvement.
LikeLike
The question, with regards to President Obama’s strikes, is not “does he have the legal authority?” Rather, the question is “who and what makes the determination of who is an enemy combatant as opposed to a ‘disgruntled citizen’?” Is it legal for the Executive to order drone strikes against US citizens engaging in ‘war’ against the US on US soil? I.e. can the President order drone strikes against the next Las Vegas shooter? Is he able to do so before the shooter has even fired his first shot – merely for having a stockpile of weapons in a hotel room with a view overlooking a crowd? What if it’s not a crowd, just a busy street?
Are the current targets of drone strikes actually considered combatants under the AUMF – what is their direct connection with Al Queda and the 9/11 terrorist attacks? How many layers are justified to extend from those in direct connection? The families of the taxi driver(s) who drove the bombers to the flight training in Florida – are they authorized targets under the AUMF? What about the taxi driver that drove them to dinner on a random Wed night 6 months before they boarded the flights?
The problem here is not the legality of the President’s use of the AUMF to engage in targeted drone attacks. At issue here is that Congress issued a “declaration of war” that gives carte blanche to the Commander in Chief to target whomever wherever whenever he/she wants.
LikeLike
Sounds a bit like you jumped ahead to Thursday’s readings here, John – but nonetheless the basic points and questions are important. The drone strikes etc. we’ll discuss more then, but today we’ll focus more on some of the “humanitarian” justifications made in relation to Bosnia and Libya. As I said, similar questions (who decides? under what circumstances?) are undoubtedly relevant
LikeLike
Obama and Clinton justify their decision to engage in military action without the approval of Congress because they understand what was happening and how fast they can act. As well, they saw what they can and can’t do in the Constitution. I believe in certain situations the president will act on using military action if affects the people of the United States and international peace. When Obama and Clinton had to think of every possible outcome the good and the bad, you have to make a decision to protect and follow the Constitution and as well what is best for people.
LikeLike
Both president Obama And Clinton justified there actions through the constitutional privilege which presidents are given. They both asserted that they were the commander and chief of the US army and made it clear to Congress that they were in control of US foreign relations. Clinton was focused on relieving tension in Bosnia, while Obama was focused on ending conflict in Lybia. President Obama made claims involving the UN when justifying his actions toward Lybia. He stated that the conflict in lybia counters the national interest of the US and it is best suited for the US to intervene as a peacekeeping entity. Both of the presidents tend to have asserted their power as president fairly well, only because they were concerned about the nations credibility. If the US did not get involved in these armed conflicts, there would be no point in US playing a major role in the UN. It would put the US to shame if they were unable to tackle problems in other countries while being the most powerful country in the world
LikeLike
I’m glad you emphasized this point of international credibility, Imtiaj – we’ll certainly discuss it further in class. The retort, of course, is this: Why should France or Britain, let alone some other ally, override the Congressional power of war declaration? That, at least, is the view of “legislative supremacists.”
LikeLike
Clinton’s reasoning behind engaging in military power was that he was asserting his power as commander in chief and basically ignored anything concerning with the fact that congress needed to provide authorization. This is basically someone using, “because I said so, I’m the boss,” as an excuse.
With Obama, he wanted to prevent a catastrophe and the destruction of international peace with the events going on in Libya. Obama’s order of drones to be used was a different kind of act of war in my opinion, because he used the drones for bombing. I do believe not consulting congress might have been a misstep in Obama’s actions and I’m not entirely convinced and I do consider this a mistake on his part. None of their reasonings were enough for me to be convinced that enticing a war was logical.
LikeLike
The Clinton and Obama administrations both justified their decisions to engage in military action without explicit approval from Congress by basically saying that the use of such powers was the only option to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security”. In Bosnia, Clinton and his adminsitration helped NATO enforce a no-fly zone and executed air strikes. Years later, Obama would impose his “constitutional authority” to do the same thing in Libya. In my opinion, the reasonings that both administrations offered were not justifiable means for the U.S. to enter foreign conflicts. Sure, this was a way to ensure international peace and “conduct U.S. foreign relations”, but there was no specific justification for stepping in to the Bosnia and Libya conflicts. When asked for a report to Congress regarding elements of the operation in Libya, the Obama administration offered vague national security concerns. No concrete justification. Not to mention, the Bosnia conflict did not amount to “war” as understood in the Constitution. I think what’s worse was not the decision to intervene, but the aftermath of U.S. intervention. The death of the former Libyan leader allowed for the rise of militant groups, such as ISIS, in the country leading to the ongoing refugee crisis.
LikeLike
The president have a lot of loophole in order to exercise its military powers without congressional approval. Presidents have relied on historical precedents to justified their actions. The presidential administration, tend to try manipulated congress by saying that the American interest is in danger as well as comparing it to the scope of world war 2 if not kept in check, therefore justifying their actions. With that knowledge congress would most likely think twice before doing something that may hurt American interest and ultimately its citizen.
LikeLike
This is a fine general summary, Harline – but it would be good to hear more specifics about Clinton and Obama, as discussed in the reading. Nonetheless, we’ll connect general and case-specific arguments in class today.
LikeLike
a
LikeLike
Starting with Clinton, Bosnia was justified by the administration as a “constitutional authority” that gave Clinton the power to go into combat. Additionally, Clinton would rely on his powers to “conduct U.S. foreign relations” and “his power as Commander in Chief” to overlook what input Congress would want to provide. With Obama, Libya was justified that it was necessary in order to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya” because it was believed that it would dangerous outcomes on the United States and its national security interests. Additionally, the administration claimed that it was within the president’s power as “Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to “conduct U.S. foreign relations”. Both Clinton and Obama justified it as a way to express the presidential powers as the Commander in Chief while also using their powers to perform foreign operations and relations. I am personally unconvinced by this reasoning because the administrations fail to gain counsel from other members of the government such as Congress and in theory can start military operations anywhere and claim it is for foreign relations when in truth it may not be. One example of this abuse can be seen during the Obama administrations drone strikes in areas such as Pakistan that led to the death of many civilians.
LikeLike