market. find out what's really happening to the global economy for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines to cause a report on our. international news twenty four hours a day from the top stories now at huff post in the russian capital right coming up a chance for a future of the genocide charges against him during his appearance of the hague tribunals the former bosnian serb general claims he was just defending his country something that's a just the number killed in the thread and it's a massacre was fabricated. a farm has been raging at an ammunition dump in central russia for twenty four hours now triggering a chain of explosions the accidents is caused dozens of injuries and forced thirty

thousand from their homes. and accusations are flying as hysteria around a new bug that's crippled the european vegetable market gathers pace that infection has already claimed eighteen lives and forcing countries including russia to ban imports of vegetables from the e.u. . well next as promised cross talk debate program peter lavelle and his guests discuss the so-called humanitarian mission in libya and the legitimacy of nato military action that after that i'll be back with a full summary of today's. twenty years ago in the largest country. to see. how did. you get

a job. where did it take to. kick . start. to. follow 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 neither 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 well. you can. cross talk 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 koch how he is an adjunct professor of advance constitutional law at the university of denver and in london

we crossed the leslie in your morning she is co-director at the center for international politics of conflicts rights and justice at the school of oriental and african studies all right folks this is cross talk and 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 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 and america's participation in a very well be a violation of the us constitution under the war powers act introduced in one thousand nine hundred eighty three over president richard nixon's veto us armed forces of behavior from being involved in the foreign military action for more than sixty days without congressional authorization and obama has so they disregarded

this laws 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 quest called in a bomb with respect they act. present it nicely decorated in a war began with. nor really has there been much discussion of the war powers there defending his position obama has slipped into double speak saying u.s.

participation hasn't tailed 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 cross hold even if obama were to go to congress so the most likely have a little trouble securing of the bottom well this would land him with yet another war on his watch and expose his foreign policy i'm bi partisan wrangling muscle charnel for crossed our. ok i do it to david first in denver before we talk about the policy and put in patients all this let's 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 surety he's an obvious violation of the war

powers act is the introduction said. the work 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 as 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 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 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 what that really means if it's double speak in itself but is this is this what obama is doing is saying it isn't 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 you

know the security council resolution one thousand nine hundred eighty 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 then it becomes something very different altogether. so 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 greece having encumbered on its for foreign policy and obama is going to be completely reversed saying we're just doing what the united nations security council as agreed to in just you know american law on the constitution that 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 they don't 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 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 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 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 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 not a diversion to see that there's a u.n. security council resolution were to see that nato approve this you know david if 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 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 or 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 what 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 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 that so while he hasn't explicitly asked for an authorization from the so it's not range that a lot of attention is totally off because there are. go ahead robert and then i want to go to david before the break 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 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 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 and after a short break we'll continue our discussion on presidential war powers daves arche .

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 make sense articles so special and interactive for many the wildlife in antarctica. and the flood zone. expeditions to the bottom of the earth are. the close up team has been to the golden grand reach thank you all the 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 the

forgotten where the mysterious city of a deadlock welcome could the republic of north or south korea russia close the car keep. playing keep the. story. and. welcome back to cross talk on people about to remind you we're discussing the war powers act. and it is. 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 war willian 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 hawaii 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 west 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 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 whether you attack with robots or with life pilots war is still a war we are engaged in a war with libya and that i say that military air is actually is a concept efferent this is the no one second the 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 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 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 the listening with interest to go on the record it's going to leslie go ahead leslie 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 find the war powers act and keep very carefully and certainly to 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 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 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 to protecting civilians was going to happen about charities and what they don't actually say we're going to get. go ahead david and 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. 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 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 invite 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 going to the people here based on parity and again where you when you've got democracy where 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'm not going to robert what is limited kinetic actually mean to you i have no idea what that term means but 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 was an excuse in iraq there's been a screw excuse so what's the excuse this time and wrong or what is the pleasing which of the right what excuse what is the excuse has been extinguished and good writers are often 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 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 we have a limited military mission to protect civilians we're not doing regime change or not. moving to the same day the new york times reported that the white house was saying that their goal was to remove gadhafi through military force 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 is miranda rights there's a reason why can't the framers 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 the industry. went sour and pressure on the authorization were 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 you do is to it's not something to just pressure and security council resolution areas. because its hands have been tied to do you know the mission for certain kinds of evidence 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 theology do you understand what it is now the g. 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 mostly 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 their reality of what that would look like you have to remember that 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 and this is why you got the sixty you know in one of the war powers act. has said he has not only yourself but you're going to 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 i was a moderate so 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 wouldn't be here i know we should i live in america that is where i live in america i'm in the united states citizen and i'm a member of the peace the united states and here in this is a life and you get this you for us yeah absolutely no member of the american peace movement this is the 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 to live with what are we talking about the united used to be illegal as a war so you are opposing my democratic right to liberate closing my never i max rights is an american citizen now. david lewis i'd like to go to you but we're going to give you the last question answered on this program which you aren't

talking to not a territorial card on an american citizen abroad come on come on guys you know what this is 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 just another cover to 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 but 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 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 the

permission and that led to the successful war and the end of the pirate heretical 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 not legal though we've run out of time folks many thanks to my guest today in your van a denver and in london and thanks to our viewers for watching us here on r.t.c. you next time remember across topples. case. you can.

download the official t.m.p. cation choke i phone i pod touch from the i choose apps to. sheesh life on the go. video on demand on cheese money food comes.