video on demand. old. street. view. calm. welcome back to see the story coming out of the top stories of. charles refuted all charges against him as he appeared at the hague tribunals the former bosnian serb general claims he was just defending his country many experts say the number of those killed in this revenue was fabricated to accuse him of genocide. has been a raging at an ammunition dump in central russia for almost twenty hours triggering a chain of explosions the accident has caused dozens of injuries and forced

thousands from their homes. and russia condemns an international proposal to legalize drugs simply playing into the hands of the narcotics cartels moscow says the report by the global commission on drug policy would be rail the global fight against drugs. my colleague bill gawd is here in half an hour's time but for now it's a cross talk to chart and people discuss the so-called humanitarian mission in libya and the legitimacy of military action against us. say twenty years ago the largest country. would have been. challenged. where did it take.

you can. stand. alone in welcome to 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 it would appear u.s. presidents can go to war at will. keep. it crossed out the war powers act i'm joined by robert naiman in our band he is policy director at just foreign policy in denver we have david kopel he is an adjunct professor of advance constitutional law at the university of denver and in

london we crossed the leslie video morry 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 my 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. weeks more than ten months after obama's promise to put a time limit on u.s. military intervention in libya they made a lot of campaign continues to live off of u.s. support beyond the fact that the campaign has morphed into an indefinitely protracted mission 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 of gravity from being involved in the foreign military action for more than sixty days

without congressional authorization and obama has so disregarded this law as 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 new 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 a member of the senate foreign relations committee who has called in a bomb and to respect the act that president did not she could separate from the war began with. nor really has there been much discussion of war powers there defending his position obama has slipped into double speak saying he was put

suppresion has entailed a non-kinetic support only and that nato was ultimately in charge of the mission elements 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 plus the last threshold were even if obama were to go to congress so the most likely have a little trouble securing a vacuum this would land him with yet another war on his watch and expose his foreign policy and by partisan wrangling muscle charnel for cost our. ok i do it to david first in denver before we talk about the policy and patients always with look at the legality of it and that's one of the reasons 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 sure 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've 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 followers 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 that 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 what that really means if it's double speak and if so but is this is this what obama is doing is saying it just 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 nine hundred eighty three 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 then it becomes something very different altogether. so there is legality in terms of the security council resolution nato as you know voted online say to extend the operation for ninety days so there was 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 is going to be completely reversed saying we're just doing what the in 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 as a 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 authorized it congress didn't except that there was a fight and eventually there was congressional authorization so the united nations nato none of this replaces the constitutional requirement or the war powers resolution requirement that the president. 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 firms 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 defined in the past is good

u.s. law there is the one nine hundred eighty 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 irrelevant there is need oh that's irrelevant and furthermore nato is not something separable from the united states 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. to say that there's a u.n. security council resolution were to see that nato approved this you know do define 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 in 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 it's that the british and the french have been out in front of this intervention taking the lead the u.s. is absolutely playing a crucial role and that there hasn't there's been some ongoing concern 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 names that a lot of attention is totally. go ahead robert and 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 i'll ohio representative dennis kucinich and i 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 aide agreed to a vote they renege why look at the press because they expected it to pass that's why the house leadership pulled a vote on the work 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. robbery drug let me jump in here let me jump in here a good short break an afro short break we'll continue our discussion on presidential war powers day with r.t. .

more than a month. in one of the most extreme environments on the planet this is antarctica and people have to be aware that they're far away from civilization sean thomas discovers flight makes antarctica so special and attractive for many life in antarctica is a boat and plans an. expedition to the bottom of the earth mark says. the close up team has been to the golden grand region thank you for turning point i'm learning more to. this time the party goes to the region where half of the area is occupied by a nature preserve the for the young generation the transit in their ancestors now found

where the mysterious city on the deadlocks will come from republicans north of santiago russia kazakhstan are cheap. place you can see. and. want to. welcome back to cross talk on people about to remind you we're discussing the war powers act. and you can see. ok i'd like to go to david down in denver right before the break we had a bit of a heated discussion here and you just really want to break and there's i'm going to give you a 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 an 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 west germany or at the time or any of our other nato allies 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 then how can i say i mean there is actually the concept of francisco no one second humanitarian intervention is 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 whether we're taking that if there are 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 says one of them that the. you have to get the consent of congress is because that puts the american people behind it and the reason that the american people or dale deserted us and so

was congress is because the president has unfolded constitutionally proper procedure of making the case to the recently the american scene and all the listening with ministers to go on the record it's going to lesley go ahead leslie going to london yeah 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 for a 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 is not right if there's a turn it's because of what's happening on the ground it's because khadafi so in power because it's gone on for as long as it has and because there's a problem between the goal of protecting civilians and regime change which is in

a sense what the new goals 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 the diplomats reason with the very say we're going to get. go ahead dave and then i want to go to iraq 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 a declaration of war in congress when you american people would never support this intermediate limited kind of intervention that is being done. 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 into when 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 invasion we get the attack on the libyan army the khadafi dictatorships

illegitimate armed forces but without a rationale really explain to the american people or without the difficulty of being a parent and a good way you when you've got a democracy where democracy wins wars is by winning public support from the bad home first when you have public support behind you then you have the support to stay in over the long term and already are out and when you go in without the public support then you have the problems that we're having now ok i don't go to robert and what is limited kinetic action mean to you i have no idea what that term means listening 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 was an excuse in iraq or some history excuse so what's the excuse this time in longer what is that when you say which of the war and what do you excuse to use what is the excuse of an excuse when you have a very there's

a house 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's going to be this horrendous massacre in benghazi and were intervening too. to we have this limited intervention to prevent this massacre that was a lie in fact at the very day that president obama gave his speech to the nation. where he said you 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 force just so this is how it went on 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 is miranda rights there's a reason why it can become emerge to 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 errol thank you yeah i thought of the administration to be i think actually a lot of the industry. went sour and greg hartley authorization for it to be ok leslie go ahead go ahead yeah i mean i it's i understand given 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 grays that one 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 protect and security council resolution areas . because its hands have been tied to do you know the mission for defines the robots is a bit but to say that this has been an 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 of doing business you know you understand what it is now the g. is ok david atlee do you would you want to jump in there go ahead. 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 our patient 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 in the in the illegitimate khadafi tyranny can we say a word about their 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 of libya to the war there was talk of as you begin to have that kind of extended debate within congress it's already happening and you're either you're either divided my call to make a decision is what you have the sixty one you under the war powers act. has said he has heard natalie you're sorry 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 only legal democracy and i say that and you know you are here in london so why do why you would care oh i can see why you would like here i don't live in the now that is where i live in america i'm in the united states citizen and i'm a member of the p.s.u. only in the united states and here is not is a life but in your head issue for us yes we are the member of the american peace movement this is a life and death issue for us the ability 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 why it was what are we talking about he led us to the leaders to war so you are opposing my democratic right to liberate my now my max rights is an american citizen already david lewis i'd like to go to you but i'll give you the

last for an answer to this program where you aren't talking you know i don't care tauriel carve out an american citizen abroad come on come on guys i want just a 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 i.g.m. in syria another country is just another cover to contain intervene in other countries because that it looks like a great power for these liberal interventionists to go down well you know 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 that president obama hasn't even obeyed that robert nigh and people like us should have had 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 empire radical regimes in tripoli were seizing american sailors kidnapping them holding the paralysis. 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 the

permission and that that led 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 their 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 cross-talk rules.

and the. wealthy british style. market.