this might do to us or our children or our children's children you know our congress here in the united states legislatures throughout the will devote all these different laws tax laws and corporate was what could be more important than deciding on the moment a genetic future of life on earth. welcome back here with our t.v. let's take a look at the top stories served as andrea to the e.u. faces more conditions following the arrest of its bosnian serb army general previously seen as key to joining the club rock a lot it will make its first appearance in front of the international tribunal in the hague later today. and major fire at an ammunition dafoe in central russia turns the skies red by setting off a chain reaction of artillery shell explosions around thirty people. killed the

minister into an album of discord between germany and spain after millions of euros in revenues lost following false accusations the spanish vegetable was the root of the deadly european eat cold i'll break. georgia berries the victims of a savage police crackdown that left hundreds of other protesters in hospitals it caused an uproar among human rights organizations from around the world would now demand for residents out they should really account for the incident. so the top stories i'll be back in about thirty minutes time and next on our team we bring it across the bay show pete all about and he's guest discussed u.s. actions in media. twenty years ago in the largest country. to see.

what had been. the true janitor. where did it take them. to keep. a low in welcoming cross-talk i'm peter lavelle under the war powers act the president must get approval from congress within sixty days after ordering u.s. forces into combat now the president barack obama nor any other president has formally acknowledged being bound by this restriction would appear u.s. presidents can go to war at well. you can. still. get crossed out the war powers act i'm joined by robert naiman in our band he is policy director at just foreign policy and denver we have

david koch how he is an adjunct professor of advance constitutional law at the university of denver and in london we cross to leslie and your morrie she is co-director at the center for international politics of conflicts rights and justice at the school of oriental and african studies my focus is crosstalk that means you can jump in anytime you want i very much encourage it but first let's have a look at a short report about whether or not obama's foreign policy is in line with the law . i said at the outset that this was going to be a matter of days and weeks more than two months after obama's promise to put a time limit on u.s. military intervention in libya the major left campaign continues to live off of u.s. support beyond the fact of the campaign has morphed into an indefinitely protracted mission and america's participation in a very well be a violation of the us constitution under the war powers act introduced in one thousand seventy three over president richard nixon's veto us armed forces are

prohibited from being involved in the foreign military action for more than sixty days without congressional authorization and obama has stoically disregarded the sloss existence every president has expressed some concerns about its constitutionality but interestingly not a single president has questioned the sixty day rule and neither has most of the u.s. congress which seems to have been neglecting its responsibilities along with obama's defiance of the law senator john mccain has even gone so far as to dismiss the law altogether saying the president has recognized the constitutionality of the war powers act and nor do i and there doesn't seem to be any great movement towards acting but some lawmakers have attempted to have sway on the issue like republican richard lugar member of the senate foreign relations committee qwest called them obama to respect they act the president did not seek their ration of war began with . nor really has there been much discussion of the work powers there defending his

position obama has slipped into double speak saying the u.s. ports patient has entailed a non-kinetic support only and that nato was ultimately in charge of the mission elements that did not make up for the fact that the so to speak nato led mission will have cost the u.s. seven hundred fifty million dollars by the end of september many white house officials say u.s. involvement in libya is to. small scale to test the last press hold the even if obama were to go to congress so the most likely had little trouble securing a bathroom were this would land him with yet another war on his watch and expose his foreign policy and by partisan wrangling muscle charnel for cost r r. ok i do it to david first in denver before we talk about the policy implications all this with look at the legality of it and that's one of the beams why we've asked you to come on the program so i'll ask you is president barack obama in violation of the law in violation of the war powers act short he's an

obvious violation of the war powers act is the introduction said. the war powers act which became law in one thousand nine hundred seventy three says that within sixty days of introducing u.s. troops into combat except in a situation such as when the united states itself is attacked the president must receive approval from congress the president. should of done that immediately the soon as the decision was made to go into libya he should have started making the case to the american people and to congress and instead he rather contemptuously in his briefings to congress said i'm going in and i'm going to give you some details about what i'm doing but i'm not asking permission and although presidents since the richard nixon when the war powers act became law have often said that they are not required to follow it that they consider to be unconstitutional in practice

they have consistently followed it so for example when president bush wanted to invade iraq he said i don't need to get permission from congress i don't believe that the i have to follow the war powers act but he did anyway he before any troops started fighting in iraq president bush went to congress and received congressional authorization to use force that's consistent with what the united states constitution says. which is that the president is the commander in chief of the united states military and it is congress that has the power to declare war so congress makes the decision about whether there will be a war and then the president is responsible for the details of the conduct of the war ok leslie it's very interesting i mean people don't call these things wars anymore so i suppose that's kind of wiggle room for the president isn't it i mean this is a humanitarian intervention quote unquote and we might want to talk about without really means if it's double speak in itself but is this is this what obama is doing is saying that there's a this war powers act simply doesn't apply yeah i mean i think it's very

complicated there's a lot of law that's governing this particular intervention and of course as we know the security council resolution one thousand seven hundred three is that is the most important arguably that's really governing this particular intervention so i think it's a tricky it's a tricky maneuver but i mean the other the other thing that's not been mentioned is that this was handed over to nato and so arguably once it was handed over to nato and the u.s. has taken on a more limited role although some people are contesting how limited that role really is and it becomes something very different altogether. so if there is legality in terms of the security council resolution nato as you know voted on wednesday to extend the operation for ninety days so there are there's a lot of different law at stake in this particular intervention it's not just the war powers act robert i find it very interesting is that the united states historically tries to stay away from international law at least having it encumbered on its foreign policy and obama has gone completely reversed saying

we're just doing what the united nations security council as agreed to in just you know american law and the constitution hasn't played into this at all i mean that's rather odd situation isn't it considering american foreign policy and the united nations it's not such a departure from the united states uses international law invokes international law when it's useful and ignores it when it's an obstacle. the first iraq war was authorized by the united nations security council and the first president bush used as an argument that he didn't need congressional authorization that well the united nations security council has the rights that congress didn't except that there was a fight and eventually there was congressional authorization so the united nations they don't none of this replaces the constitutional requirement or the war powers resolution requirement that the president get explicit congressional approval

unless the unless the united states or its armed forces are under attack and as was pointed out there are multiple provisions of the war powers resolution one of them affirms that the president must get authority to advance unless there's an attack on the u.s. and its armed forces and another one affirms that u.s. forces must be withdrawn in the absence of an attack if there is no congressional congressional authorization within sixty days and that provision has expired and it's not true you know there are some there is. a kind of misdirection that happens with saying oh well you know presidents have not except that the worst power war powers resolution is constitutional there are multiple provisions and they're separable so if one provision is unconstitutional or arguably unconstitutional that doesn't mean that every provision is unconstitutional and in

particular the sixty eight provision which has not been defied in the past is good u.s. law that was in one thousand nine hundred justice department memorandum that said this is constitutional and no president no executive since one thousand nine hundred has ever reputed. that memorandum so that's good law. people will make all kinds of arguments of course and say well you know if there is a u.n. security council resolution that's a relevant there is need oh that's irrelevant and furthermore new is not something separable from the united states the united states pays something like two thirds of its budget u.s. forces are in combat u.s. forces are undertaking military missions that's the language of the war the law u.s. forces in combat it's absolutely not a dive to see that there's a u.n. security council resolution or to see that nato approved this you know david i know about you in denver ok leslie jump in that's what the point of this program is

going yeah i mean i think i think we have to be a little bit careful here to differentiate different types of different ways of using military force and this particular intervention we're talking about intelligence surveillance unmanned. unmanned sorties we're not talking about sending military troops in on the ground to fight a ground war so which is not to say that there isn't this question the war powers act but in terms of the use of the military there are degrees and this is very much and it's not just nato which the british the french have been out in front of this intervention taking the lead and the u.s. is absolutely playing a crucial role and there hasn't there's been some ongoing consent i mean obama has gone back to congress to say i'm still doing this i hope that you'll support me i believe that i'm consistent with the war powers act so while he hasn't explicitly asked for an authorization it's not it's not claims that a lot of attention is totally the opposite of. go ahead robert and then i want to go to david before the break zach says that yeah i'm sorry i'm sorry david it's

just the opposite the opposite is the case this week ohio representative dennis kucinich had a resolution that was supposed to be voted on yesterday under the war powers. act under the war powers resolution directing their forces be withdrawn the house leadership had agreed to a vote they were in big why look at the press because they expected it to pass that's why the house leadership paul the vote on the war powers resolution they do not have the consent of congress for this the only reason that the house hasn't explicitly voted to repudiate this is because the house leadership hasn't allowed there was a there were two votes during the amendments last week on the national. robert robert well let me jump in here let me jump in here we go to a short break an afro short break we'll continue our discussion on presidential war powers day with r.t. .

they live not only next to the border of the cars. but also on the corner of peace and war. they are responsible not only for themselves. but also for their loved ones. they are ready to take any risk. the close up team has been to the golden grand richard thank the turning point

a moon or more to. this time r.t. goes to the region where half of the area is occupied by a nature preserve. where the young generation transition their ancestors stepped on where the mysterious city on the deadlocks welcomed the republic of north to set yet russia close on a car keep. it . secret. welcome back to cross talk on people about true mind you were discussing the war powers act. the k.k.k. . still. ok and i think go to david denver right before the break we had a bit of a heated discussion here and you just really wanted to break in there so i'm going

to give you that chance now go ahead. sure none of these euphemisms justify what president obama has been doing to violate the constitution the of the security council resolution for the united nations certainly means that the libyan intervention is legal under modern international law but that doesn't change the constitution the constitution doesn't say the president can go to war whenever international law allows that the constitution has a separate procedure for american authorization to call it a kinetic military action is just a orwellian euphemism and the fact that the united states does not have ground troops doesn't mean it's not a war under some sever seven thousand nine hundred forty one imperial japan did not send any ground troops into why they bombed our military and the united states rightly recognized that as an act of war and likewise nato doesn't change things either nato is a defense treaty which the united states has with our allies in europe and by ratifying the treaty the united states senate affirmed that if say by germany or at

the time or any of our other nato allies who are ever attacked in their european territories we have the legal obligation to immediately defend them but the nato treaty does not authorize or commit the united states to non european non north american interventions we certainly have the option to do that and likewise even if the united states were the fact that we are sending unmanned drones to attack and bomb the libyan military doesn't change things what do you attack with robots or with life pilots what war is still a war we are engaged in a war with libya and that i say there has been a very narrow that actually is a concept different this does not know one such a humanitarian intervention is a noble motive and that's one of the reasons i support the substance of this but that doesn't change the fact that it's a war where there were taken that if there were to take the oil or to protect the people the conduct of what the united states is doing is still a war and the reason the important reason the constitution. as one of them there

you have to get the consent of congress is because that puts the american people behind it and the reason that the american people are now deserted this and so was congress is because the president has unfolded constitutionally proper procedure of making the case to the recent in the american scene and all the listening with interest to go on the record it's going to leslie go ahead leslie going to london yeah i mean i find it a little bit surprising that a legal scholar would be willing to put all military interventions in the category of war without defining it when you're being very careful about how you define the war powers act if you're going to define the war powers act and keep very carefully and certainly the term you've got to differentiate between different types of war i mean i think we are the war powers act is significant here but we're getting away from some of the really crucial questions about this intervention and to say that the united states people are backing away from it because it hasn't been authorized by congress i think it's not right if there's a turn it's because of what's happening on the ground it's because gadhafi is still

in power because it's gone on for as long as it has and because there is a problem between the goal of protecting civilians and regime change which is in a sense what the new goal has become and that's really where a lot of the debate is and that that really has to do more with the security council authorization for this particular intervention which is really limited it to protecting civilians it was going to happen about charities and what they did everything going to. go ahead david and then i want to go to robert i mean i don't know if you equate the american put the american people not the american people never supported it in the first place at least according to opinion polls and that's why the constitution has this procedure that says before you go to war make sure you get the people to support it as shown by of a declaration of war in congress when you american people would never support this intermediate limited kind of intervention that is being done by the way nato is is tied somebody's hands behind its back the american public tends to be in favor of wars that america goes in to win and the president would have had to go to the

people and say here is our plan here's what we're going to do and instead we get an invader we get the attack on the libyan army the gadhafi dictatorships illegitimate armed forces but without a rationale really explain to the american people or without going to tell you again apparently and again when you when you got to see if the way a democracy wins wars is by winning public support from that at home first when you have public support behind you then you have the support to stay in over the long term and party all right and when you go in without the public support then you have the problems that we're having now ok i'd like you to robert what is limited kinetic actually i mean to you i have no idea what that term means what is it mean to you robert. well it's part of this borrowed from the military it's one of their euphemisms it's all totally irrelevant it's totally irrelevant whether you call it a war or a humanitarian intervention there's always an excuse and you know there is an excuse in iraq there's

a history excuse so what's the excuse this time in the wrong or what is the one which of the war was what let me ask you what is the excuse has been excuse me for humanitarian assistance and go ahead robert the excuse was the excuse was the excuse was that this is a limited military intervention to protect civilians that was the excuse the excuse was that there is going to be this horrendous massacre in benghazi and were intervening to. to we have this limited intervention to prevent this massacre that was a lie in fact the very day that president obama gave his speech to the nation. where he said you know we have a limited military mission to protect civilians we're not doing regime change or not. moving the same day the new york times reported that the white house was saying that their goal was to remove gadhafi through military forces let's not so

this is. from the beginning and that's why it's so important and that's why it's so important i mean there's this there's this attempt to try to dismiss these legal concerns as if they're you know mere technicalities oh you forgot to read the suspect his miranda rights there's a reason why the framers who put this in the constitution saying that congress and this is the issue this isn't something that you can dismiss particularly from the united states' perspective those of us who are involved in a long term struggle to try and constrain the aggressive war making of the united states around the world over time yeah yeah yeah i thought of the administration to be allowed i think actually if you look at the industry she. went sour and pressure on the authorization for it to be ok leslie go ahead go ahead yeah i mean i it's i understand given that that my collaborators on this program are legal scholars that

you're sticking to a very strict legal definition but if you really think about if you really look at the level of deliberation that's gone into this level of discussion i absolutely agree with you this is a very problematic mission because of the tension between the goal of protecting civilians and regime change and the and the reason that that's in tension is because it's very difficult protect civilians without getting rid of gadhafi and that's that's the great sound that people are beginning to talk about but it's very difficult in terms of a do is to it's not something to just pressure and security council resolution areas. because its hands have been tied to do we know the missions are going to find the evidence is a bit but to say that this is bad and absolutely aggressive military intervention anything like the scale i mean the comparison to world war two is absolutely absurd we're not in anything like that kind of game here. and there has been a liberation theology you understand what an elegy is ok david atlee do david you

want to jump in there going on. what we should have had in the united states was the debate that robert and i could have had over the substance of this i think the intervention is a good idea and by the way i think i might agree with leslie that the u.n. resolution which says protect civilians by all means necessary other than occupation force authorizes regime change we could have had a clear debate on that in the united states at the very beginning and then gone in with congressional authorization to do everything that is necessary to protect civilians which includes ending the illegitimate khadafi tyranny can we say a word about the reality of what that would look like you have to remember that the the the the french were out ahead of this mission and then the british before there was time to do so as you begin to have that kind of extended debate within congress it's already happening and you're either you're either you've either got to make a decision that's why you got the sixty nine to one of the war powers act. his

safety is here and not only yourself what you're doing is anger and what you're saying is what you're saying is i mean let's be clear what you're saying is that you're opposed to democracy in the united states you know where to mine really you know the legal system margaret you know i say that and you know you are here in london so i could see why you would care oh i can see why you would hear i don't really know but i live in america it is where i live in america i'm in the united states citizen and i'm a member of the united states and here is a life that would be bad for us yeah absolutely i am a member of the american peace movement this is a life and death issue for us the ability of when you take away the ability of congress to have a say in when the united states goes to war you take away the ability of the american people clara's what we tell him when he led us to be a leader to war so you are opposing my democratic right to liberate my now i max

rights and american citizen. already gave it leave it i'd like to go to you but we're going to give you the last quote an answer to on this program where you aren't talking you don't know what the territorial card on an american citizen abroad come on come on guys i want this great debate but i want to go to david before we end the program here david are you concerned that this how the war powers act is being used now can be used against my game and syria and other countries just another cover to intervene in other countries because that it looks like a great power for these liberal interventionists to go down well it's certainly the war powers act is generous and how much we're making it allows the president unilaterally in terms of that sixty day window for president obama hasn't even obeyed that robert nigh and people like us should have the debate about proper intervention in libya the last time the united states had a war in libya was the first and second barbary wars under presidents jefferson and madison when pirates and radical regimes in tripoli were seizing american sailors kidnapping them holding the puranas some. and president jefferson properly

went to the united states congress and said i want to invade libya and send the marines over there but i need your permission to do that first congress gave them permission and let that lead to the successful war and the end of the pirate puracal attacks on the united states president obama should have followed president jefferson go to congress get authorization and then you'll have the backing for a strong and successful intervention that will protect lives and protecting our ok i'm not legal no there are no legal no we've run out of time folks many thanks to my guest today and our band of denver and in london and thanks to our viewers for watching us here on r.t.c. you next time remember across topples.