keep going going all i got onto it and that is going to do it for now that's to do it for eight o'clock show for more the stories we covered go to our team dot com slash usa and of course as you heard me say youtube dot com slash r t america follow me on twitter at lauren lyster let me know if our shows and have a great weekend thanks or can incite. others the same understand my letters always remember some of the many of the look in the morning on the exam the president must get approval from congress within sixty days during u.s. forces in the company now the president brought. a camera here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

it's ok. we'll. bring you the latest on the signs and signals from around the world. we'll go live coverage. can.

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 would appear u.s. presidents can go to war at well. can. still. do cross talk the war powers act i'm joined by robert naiman in her bag 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 daniel morey 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 they made a lot of campaign continues to live off of u.s. support beyond the fact that the campaign has morphed into an indefinite when protracted mission and america's participation in a very well be violation of the us constitution under the war powers act introduced in one nine hundred seventy three over president richard nixon's veto us armed forces a bit from being involved in the foreign military action for more than sixty days without congressional authorization and obama has stoically 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 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 a member of the senate foreign relations committee called an obama to respect the act. and present it nicely decorated war began with. nor really has there been much discussion of the war powers act defending his position obama has slipped into double speak saying u.s. participation has entailed a non-kinetic support only and that nato was ultimately in charge of the mission a woman's the do not make up for the fact that the so to speak of 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 two plus the last threshold but even if obama were to go to congress so the most likely have a little trouble securing of that were this would land him with yet another war on his watch and expose his foreign policy and by partisan wrangling was attorney for crossed out. ok i go to david first in denver before we talk about the policy implications 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. powers act sure he's an obvious violation of the work powers act is the the introduction said. the war powers act which became law in one 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 there immediately this is a 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 call 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 kind of wiggle room for the president isn't it i mean this is a humanitarian intervention quote unquote that we might want to talk about without really means it's doublespeak in itself but is this is this what obama is doing is saying it isn't just the 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 insurrection and of course as you know the security council resolution one thousand seven hundred 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 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 gleason having encumbered on its foreign policy and obama's going to be completely reversed saying oh we're just doing it in the united nations security council it is agreed to in just you know american law and the constitution 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 good quarter from the 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 the united nations security council has authorized it congress didn't except that there was a fight and eventually there was a 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 united 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 defined 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 night needy has ever

reputed. that memorandum so that's good law. people will make all kinds of arguments of course to 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 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 law u.s. forces in combat it's absolutely not to die to see that there's a u.n. security council resolution or to see that nato approved it you know again if i go back you and ok leslie jump in that's what the point of this program is go ahead 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 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 but there hasn't there is spend 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 names that a lot of attention is totally. go ahead robert and i want to go to david. 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 repeal 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 a good short break and after a short break we'll continue our discussion on presidential war powers day with r.t. . rachel

martin here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

that. wealthy british. market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cancer for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our cheap. download the official implication. called touch from the choose our. life on the go. video. policies in mind. and feeds in the palm of your. question on the. and you can.

start. welcome back across talking to people about remind you we're discussing the war powers act. and you. say. 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 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 well ian euphemism and the fact that the united states does not have ground troops doesn't mean it's not a war under subsets or seven thousand nine hundred forty one imperial japan did not send any ground troops into hawaii they bombed our military in 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 whether you attack with robots or with life pilots what war is still a war we are engaged in a war with libya and the price of the military air is actually in the concept that francis is the no one sect 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 they have puts the american people behind it and the reason the american people are deserted this and so was congress is because the president hasn't followed the constitutionally proper procedure of making the case he recently created the american seem to be listening to his wrist to go on the record it's going to leslie go ahead leslie go ahead

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 is 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 with 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 gone to the people about charities and with every sort of you get it. go ahead david and i want to go to robert i mean i don't know

if you equate that to the american put the american people know 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. 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 putting i think you're being unfair at the and a good way you when you got democracy 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 pyaar and when you go in without the public support then you have the problems that we're having now ok let's go to robert on what is limited kinetic action 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 a history excuse so what's the excuse this time and longer what is the what is which are the right what do you think you steers what do you think you said excuse me let me writers i'll send you i had 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 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 duffy the same day the new york times reported that the white house was saying that their goal was to remove gadhafi through military force it was 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 technicality said oh you forgot to read the suspect is miranda rights there's a reason why 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 think all of the administration to be i think actually really the industry should you should tell our viewers once our in great part of the authorization board 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's intention is because it's very difficult protect civilians without getting rid of gadhafi and that's that's

the grazer on that people are beginning to talk about but it's very difficult in terms of you do is to if you want to think it's pressure and security council resolution the areas. because its hands have been tied going to you know the mission for times and they're obliged to say that 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 you understand what is an elegy is ok david you want to jump in there go ahead. what we should have had in the united states was the debate the garden i could have had over the substance of this i think the universe 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 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 there's libya before there was talk of use 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 what you think the system going to the war powers act. it has said he has heard not only yourself you're doing is anger at 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 democracy in that i say that and you're in no way you are here in london so i could see why you would care oh i can see why you wouldn't be here i don't live in

the arab world as well as you have in america i'm in the united states citizen and i'm a member of the he's going to united states and here in the middle is a life and you get this you 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 legal issue or so you are opposing my democratic right to liberate thing my now max writes this american citizen now. but i'd like to go to you but i'll give you the last question answered on this program you aren't talking oh no i'm 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 you know certainly the work 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 obey 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 a radical regimes in tripoli were seizing american sailors kidnapping them holding them for ransom. 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 protect and not ok i'm not legal no they are not illegal though 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 our t.v. see you next time remember crosstalk rules. to keep. the. hey tom our been here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

down low key official ante up location. called touch from the i.q. sampson. video on demand. comes and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question.