viewers are to america's you tube channel has now more than fifty thousand subscribers now with these figures we have surpassed the new york times in terms of their you tube subscriptions and here are some of the highlights the most popular r.t. america items that have been very successful though the wiki leaks apache helicopter we did an extensive coverage of wiki leaks all during that time our interview with immortal technique is another one of the highlights it's been very popular and we were on the scene at the wisconsin protests all during the labor union protests that we saw earlier this year providing you with coverage and we want to thank you so much for watching it all and for continuing to please do and not going to do it for now for more on the stories we cover go to our t. dot com slash usa and our you tube channel you tube dot com slash our to america i'm lauren lyster stay tuned for more news and analysis.

pleasures the same i understand the feeling of them let me be and look you're from the mark of the example the president must get approval from congress within sixty days to ordering u.s. forces into combat now the president. will. bring you the latest in science stimson knowledge from around the world. we've done the future of coverage.

download the official tea allocation q i phone the i pod touch from the i choose i'm still. life on the go. video on demand. my blog. r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. machine on the call. you can. 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 that well. they can. live. cross talk the war powers act i'm joined by robert naiman interurban he is policy director at just foreign policy and denver we have david kopel he is an adjunct professor of advance constitutional law at the university of denver and in london we cross the leslie binyam henri she is co-director at the center for international politics of conflicts rights and justice at the school of oriental and african studies cry 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 ten months after obama promised 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 seventy three over president richard nixon's veto us armed forces of a bit from being involved in the foreign military action for more than sixty days without congressional authorization and obama has stoically disregarded this laws of 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 us 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 with some lawmakers have attempted to have sway on the issue like republican richard lugar a member of the senate foreign relations committee quest called an obama to respect the act that the president did not seek their ration of war began with. nor really has there been much discussion of war powers act defending his position obama has slipped into double speak saying he was put suspicion has entailed a non-kinetic support only and that nato was ultimately in charge of the mission all elements that did not make up for the fact that the so to speak made a lead 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 threshold were even if

obama were to go to congress so the most likely have a little trouble securing of that point were this wild land he would never mother wore on his watch and expose his foreign policy and by partisan wrangling. for cost our. ok i'd like to go 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 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 well 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 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 are 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 the kind of wiggle room for the president as an enemy 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 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 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 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'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 foreign policy and obama's gone completely reversed saying oh 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 that's a rather odd situation isn't it considering american foreign policy and the united nations it's not such a departure from the past 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 get explicit congressional approval unless the you know 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 their 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 news direction that happens with saying oh well you know presidents have not except that the worst our 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 that was 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 a relevant there is need oh that's irrelevant and furthermore nato 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 wall the law u.s. forces in combat it's absolutely not a guy to say that there's a u.n. security council resolution were to see that nato approved this you know if i know if you're 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 of 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 data which of 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 spend some ongoing concern i mean obama has gone back to congress to say i'm still doing this i hope 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 none of this is not claims that a lot of attention is totally. go ahead robert and then we'll 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 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 the robbery drug let me jump in here let me jump in here quickly short break in africa short break we'll continue our discussion on presidential war powers day with r.t. . twenty years ago this country. to certain places of.

subsists which had been committed. to ghana jerks where to take the. wealthy british scientists some time to. market. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cause or for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on our key. players in the. story. and. welcome back to cross talk on people about to remind you we're discussing the war

powers act. can see. ok i'd like to go to david in denver right before the break we had a bit of a heated discussion here and you just really wanted to break and there's i'm going to give you the 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 on the subset are 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 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 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 war is still a war we are engaged in a war with libya and the price of the military there is actually in the concept of francisco no one sec 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 civil to me listening with interest to go on the record it's going to leslie go ahead leslie go ahead 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 your 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 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 it and that that really has to do more with the security council authorization for this particular intervention which is really limited to protecting civilians it was going to going to happen about treason with every sort of it. go ahead dave and then i want to go to robert i mean i don't know if you equate to the american for 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 invade 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 to have parity and again what you when you got to smart is 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 korea right and when you go in without the public support then you have the problems that we're having now ok thank you robert what is limited kinetic action 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 was an excuse in iraq it was in history excuse so what's the excuse this time in longer what is that what he's saying would you go boy and what do you think you skiis what do you think you said an exterior humanitarian those are all said 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 the very day that president obama gave his speech to the nation.

or 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 going on in support 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 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 think all of the administration

to be oh yeah i think actually a lot of the administration you should tell our viewers once our in great part of the authorization order 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 then the reason that's intention is because it's very difficult protect civilians without getting rid of gadhafi and that's that's the greys around that people are beginning to talk about but it's very difficult in terms of you do is do what you think is pressure and security council resolution areas. because its hands have been tied as we know the mission to protect civilians in the event is a bit but to say that this is 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 is now the g.o.'s ok david atlee do david you want to jump in there going. 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 we're increasingly worried 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 did libya but 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 got to make a decision that's what you got the system to go into under the world powers act. it has said he has said here and not only yourself you're getting any younger 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 lately the murder so you know i say that and you know we are here in london so i can tell why you would care oh i can see why you wouldn't be here i think 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 with the united states and here in this is a life that would be bad for us yeah absolutely i'm 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 to have a say are we talking about the united used to be a leader was a war so you are opposing my democratic right to liberate my never i max rights is an american citizen i am already able to do it i think go to you but we're going to give you the last question answer do it on this program or shut your ink talking you know on the territorial card on an american citizen abroad come on come on guys i want 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 like yemen 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 certainly the war powers act is generous in how much we're making it allows the president unilaterally in terms of that sixty day window to 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 i 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 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 in denver and in london and thanks to our viewers for watching us here on r t see you next time remember across topples.

i tell marvin here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

the official. line called touch from the.