Will Obama Administration allow strict 'Sharia law' to be imposed on the freed Libyan people?

So the six month time limit under the War Powers Resolution Act for the President to either withdraw from “military intervention” in the Libyan civil war or receive Congressional approval came and went without much adieu.

True to form and our prior analysis, (see here and here), that leaves the progressive presidency of Barack Obama on record as entirely at one with the policy of the more conservative Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 Presidencies in his assessment that the War Powers Act is something that can not only be unilaterally deemed “unconstitutional” by the Executive branch, but can, for all practical purposes, be ignored altogether, (how's that for the “Rule of Law” instead of men?!)

We shall leave aside that the actions of this Administration in doing so have arguably given this landmark culmination and compromise in our constitutional framework stemming from the political activism of the 60's “peace and flower” movement less respect than any previous one in history except perhaps Bill Clinton's, (and noticeably different from either of the Bush's, who in fact sought, and received, Congressional approval for the war in Afghanistan and both Iraq actions), and that this is the very sort of thing that used to tie liberal panties in a string, (remember all that media focus on the alleged “cowboy recklessness” of George W. Bush?)

Be that as it may, it is small potatoes compared to the bomb dropped this week, (no pun intended!) that the victors in the Libyan “civil war,” the so called “National Transitional Council,” intend on imposing Sharia law as the basis for the new Libyan Constitution. Excuse me?!?

Please tell me that we did not place our brave American servicemen and women in danger and spend almost 10 billion American taxpayer dollars in this impromptu― and some say extraordinarily bungled hesitant and late entry of the Obama Administration into the conflagration weeks after the rebels asked for help, see here― to simply replace one form of tyranny for another over the Libyan people.

It would be a cruel irony indeed if we replaced one brutal dictator with the entire oppressive legal framework of Sharia law that routinely denies women the most basic rights and brutalizes everyone who doesn't adhere to its tenants, (including denying Christians and Jews, who would inevitably be the minority in such a government), the right to worship and share their beliefs freely, see here and here).

  So ominous and, yes, dare we say un-Democratic is the likely result of Sharia law that it has even come up in the American Presidential race to replace Barack Obama in 2012, (see here, here, here, here and here).

For those unenlightened Sharia law is a strict implementation of Islamic law that does not allow women to vote or own property, bans all music and consumption of alcohol, and executes homosexuals and Christian converts from Islam alike, (see details here). 

  In short, it would be a disaster for the Libyan people who have so long yearned for freedom and make a mockery of our sacrifice to free them from Gadaffi's grip, (of course, judging from Obama's own history and attendance at Islamic Madrassas in Indonesia where he spent the majority of his formative years, we don't expect the Administration to care about the results that imposing strict Sharia law would have on the Libyan people's freedoms, not to mention our countries own legal traditions, see here). 

  Accordingly, perhaps it should come as no surprise that Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the President of the National Transitional Council and the de facto (if temporary) ruler of Libya, should state that Sharia will form the "basic source" of Libyan law going forward and that laws in opposition to it will be nullified. 

  Indeed, contrary to the former Libyan Constitution of 1951 which under Article 11 guaranteed secular and equal rights to all regardless of religious affiliation but now seems likely to provide greater freedoms than the "new" Libyan Constitution will to its citizens, it has become abundantly clear that the new and imminent Constitution, (which is expected within 60 days of elections for a national legislative body, i.e., "Public National Conference" scheduled to occur within 8 months), will be based upon “Sharia law,” see here and here.  (And this in spite of the political left openly mocking those who warned of the possibility of influence from radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood in the nations being convulsed by the "Arab Spring" resulting in a less than an apple pie and American-flag- waving-outcome, see here, here and here).   

 The Congress and State Department ought to do everything it possibly can to discourage this turn of events and convince the new leadership of the Libyan “republic” that America will take an extremely dim view of Sharia law being imposed and that such an outcome would unequivocally result in a cutting off of any financial or reconstruction aid Libya might otherwise expect in the post “intervention” period.

And while we're at it, we might also send them a bill for our investment to date in freeing them from Ghadafi's iron grip.

After all, if we're going to act like the world's policeman, it's only fair we be compensated for it. jp

Obama Administration backtracks on key claims of Bin Laden assault and disputes value of Bush era intelligence

 Last Sundays announcement by the President of the capture (and death of 9/11 terror mastermind Usama Bin Laden) at the hand of Special Ops and ultra classified "Seal Team Six" in Pakistan was inspiring.  Unfortunately, in light of subsequent public statements by Counter-terrorism Advisor to the President John Brennan this morning on Fox news and other national news outlets, as well as at a White House news conference yesterday afternoon with White House press secretary Jay Carney, in which he made certain statements which both contradict earlier statements of the Administration and other facts on the record regarding the Bush Administration's interrogation policies and to what extent they contributed to the success of this nation-critical security mission, we feel compelled to write a further response to these events and express our deep concern over an apparent attempt on the part of the Obama administration to unduly minimize the prior Administration's contributions in order to manipulate these events for partisan advantage.  (Especially onerous after such gracious and congratulatory reactions to the news by both former President George Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney, see yesterday's post).

 In the same news conference yesterday at the White House in which Obama's press secretary stated "the fact is that no single piece of information led to the successful mission that occured on Sunday, it simply strains credulity to suggest that a piece of evidence that may or may not have been gathered... eight years ago somehow directly led to a successful mission on Sunday," the top counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan backed off his initial claims that Osama Bin Laden was armed with a "knife or gun," used one of his wives as a "human shield" to deflect the assualt by U.S. Navy Seal special forces, and that the raid resulted in her death, (she was actually only shot in the leg when she rushed the commandos).   He also backed off claims that Bin Laden was offered a chance to surrender before the elite U.S. commando squad killed him with two gun shots to the chest and head, bringing to an end his reign as head of the world-wide Al-Qaeda terror network and exacting justice for the 9/11/01 world-trade-center attacks.  The 2001 terror attacks caused 3000 American citizens to be killed by the suicidal ramming of the trade towers with fully-fueled jetliners piloted by young Mid-Eastern and mostly Saudi nationals who received their flight skills largely by the beneficence of American flight schools.  Adding to the denials of Mr. Carney were the comments of Mr. Brennan, who affirmatively and openly denied that certain Bush Administration policies, (namely the Bush policies of "enhanced interrogation" of terror suspects and enemy combatants), played any significant role in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, a sentiment he repeated this morning on Fox news, to wit:

What allowed us to get to the Abbottabad compound was many years of pain-staking analysis as well as collection, putting together bits and pieces of information, some of it came from individuals who were in custody, some of it came from human sources, other technical means, but there was no single bit of information that was instrumental...-  John Brennan, Obama Administration's Chief Counterrorism Advisor, May 2, 2011, emphasis added.

  This followed incredulous claims by attorney General Holder-- which we shall deal with on another day-- that he "didn't know" if enhanced interrogation techniques under the Bush Administration led to "any actionable intelligence" helpful to apprehending terrorists engaged in jihad against the U.S., see here and here, in spite of it blatantly contradicting the express statements yesterday and repeated today by Peter King (R-NY) member on the House Intelligence Committee and Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee to the contrary.  Indeed, Congressman King was adamant today in reaffirming his initial statements, stating that "The initial information on the courier was obtained by waterboarding back in 2003.  I've spoken to people who... have first-hand information... I'm telling you that people who were on the ground, people who are in a position to know, they told me that."  Peter King, (R-NY), May 3, 2011, Watch video here.

 Regardless of the controversy-- which we expect, (and indeed hope), the U.S. Congress will get to the bottom of in investigative hearings in due course-- we find the claims of counter-terrorism advisor Mr. Brennan and the Administation highly doubtful at best, and at worst blatantly false, in light of what we already know about the information the Bush Administration received from its interrogation policies during George W. Bush's Presidency, (more on this below).  First however, from the Administration's Chief National Counter-terrorism Officer's own words, we know at least the following:

 First of all, as National counter-terrorist Advisor Brennan explicitly said of the information that led U.S. intelligence to the Bin Laden compound, "some of it came from individuals who were in custody," leading to the obvious questions, what information, from what individuals, and where in custody?  If we didn't know better, this sure sounds like it could comport with the "enhanced interrogation" policies and intelligence that we already know was gleaned from the Bush Administration; indeed, rather than disproving the contribution of Bush-era policies, such words, depending on what exactly they refer to-- reference the old trick of political operatives not wanting to get 'nailed down' saying something with which they could later be accused of lying in some Congressional Committee hearing while at the same time not wanting to be particularly helpful-- could actually, without explicitly coming out and saying so, confirm what Mr. Brennan couldn't directly say.  Otherwise, why the shocking vagueness and lack of specificity to this answer?  

  Indeed, the complete lack of verifiable detail in his answer, as well as mere logic, indicates the probability that Mr. Brennan falls into one of two categories:  1)  He is not being truthful in his answers for fear it might embarrass or reduce the "gravitas" and positive political impact to President Obama if it got out that, in fact, the success of this critical mission was actually owing to the enhanced interrogation policies of the Bush Administration his boss so vehemently opposed when he was a Senator (and subsequent candidate for the Presidency himself), OR 2) His lack of candor and verifiable detail is due to an ongoing need to protect valuable intelligence assets. 

  Judging however from Mr. Brennan's failure to assert any such need to protect intelligence assets, (though he doesn't say so and in all fairness isn't further pressed on this), we rather think that the latter possibility is more remote owing to the fact that Osama Bin Laden is now dead and that any living human intelligence source for the information now knows, or will know, this fact and/or is likely to have already divulged any relevant information, (or will not divulge any more due to their seeing the results and/or fear that if they become subsequently known as a "rat" it could endanger their lives from other al-Qaeda operatives if they eventually fail to be convicted or get freed from American custody as dozens of other Guantonamo detainees have).  In light of this we think it at least equally plausible that the White House's Security Chief falls into the first category.

  Indeed, taken together with what we already know about the information the Bush Administration received from its "enhanced interrogations" of top Al-Qaeda operatives Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003 and Abu Faraj al-Libbi in 2007, (before Obama was even President), we find the former category much more pursuasive for the following reasons.  

  As we established yesterday, the joint CIA-Military interrogations of both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libbi were responsible for the key information regarding the identity of the trusted " human courier" of Osama Bin Laden's that ultimately led U.S. authorities to the Pakistani compound in Abbottabad in which he was hiding.   

  Indeed, even if the Obama Administration's claims about surveillance of the Pakistani compound or "other confirming intelligence" gleaned from the unknown detainees which Mr. Brennan referenced in yesterday's press conference and/or even the Pakistan government which may have more explicitly identified this key link in the process of finding Bin Laden's hide out are true-- which this last we find particularly dubious in light of the failure of the Pakistani's to notify us of the sprawling compound located less than a mile from the Pakistani equivalent of America's "West Point"--  it still proves the Bush Administration must properly be credited in large part with the capture/death of bin laden.

 This is so because, regardless of subsequent "corroborating intelligence" regarding Osama Bin Laden's courier and the subsequent extensive surveillance of the compound, such investigation and surveillance never even would have gotten off the ground in the first place if not for the Bush Administration's enhanced interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libbi yielding the critical " nick name"  identity of this trusted human contact of Bin Laden's. 

 
 Moreover, and equally salient, due to President Obama's blanket opposition to enhanced interrogation or rendition of enemy combatants-- not to mention closure of the Eastern European 'black sites' where the enhanced interrogations were conducted by CIA operatives and his attempted closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, indeed, his first act as President was to sign an Executive Order calling for Gitmo's closure-- no interrogations at all, enhanced or otherwise would likely have taken place sufficient to yield this critical information which ultimately led to Bin Laden as there wouldn't have been anywhere to conduct any questioning at all if Obama's preferred detention policies favoring the handover of enemy combatants to the civilian federal justice system for trial and closure of interrogation facilities had been the prevailing policies at the time following 9/11 instead of the Bush Administration. (Indeed, due to the Obama Administration's policy preference for terror suspects like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libbi to to be processed through the criminal justice system no differently than common criminals, see here or here, such policies would likely have resulted in these suspects-- upon being read their "Miranda rights" which our nation's Attorney General Eric Holder has suggested is appropriate for some terrorist suspects like the Times Square bomber or Christmas day bomber-- simply "lawyering up," resulting in no ability for useful intelligence to be gathered whatsoever, (a fact unaffected by Obama's subsequent backing off of such "preferred policies" and approach to terror suspects, but see here).  And this is so even if rendition and waterboarding were only used in these and one other case.  (Indeed, as far as we are concerned if such practices saved even one American life from these terrorist scum who respect no war treaties or conventions and don't fight under any nation's flag it would be worth it!)  See also GAO report on enhanced interrogation techniques and their results here.

 In light of these facts, we find it incredibly arrogant, not to mention dishonest and ungrateful, for the Obama Administration to not only act like this victory in the war on terror was all their doing but to continue to do so even after being on the receiving end of such gracious and pubic comments as have been made by both former President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, (which we cited in yesterday's post).

 
 As troubling as this is however, even more troubling is what all this portends vis a vis the apparent M.O. of this Administration, (we knew we could count on the President to prove his Administration was "transparent" in at least one area of his Presidency!)  Indeed, the lapse of the Obama Administration into the familiar pattern of conduct which by now has become almost expected is clear: Smear, distort and attack your political adversaries' policies, then co-opt and claim credit for them when they yield results which could help you politically, (even though you have previously undermined them at every chance you could). 

 Such political tactics share more resemblance with the logically flawed red herring, "strawman" and "ad-hominem"  arguments-- favorite logical fallacies of the left in all matters legal or political-- utilized most recently in the budget showdown with the Republican House over deficits and government spending which resulted in a last minute 'bi-partisan' compromise successful in avoiding a government shutdown, only to see President Obama subsequently, (the very next day!), turn around and slam Republicans and their chief budget policy wonk, Congressman and House budget committee Chairman, Paul Ryan (R-WI), see our post about it here.

  And while we don't know the efficacy of such tactics in the long run-- even if the American people's forgiveness and/or absentmindedness of such things is legendary-- especially so far in advance of the 2012 elections, (indeed, a year and a half is almost an eternity in politics), if history is any guide a lot rides on such "practical" considerations as the economy, the outcome of Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme court, and whether Obama can avoid any further terror attacks in coming months, all largely unknowns at this point in time.  On that score perhaps a final note about the politics and policies of the Obama Administration going forward is in order.

  Since we know the President is personally deeply opposed to enhanced interrogation techniques against the war on terror that were so helpful here-- as candidate Obama informed us in no uncertain terms in his 2008 campaign-- what could be behind the President's suddenly more strident anti-terror rhetoric and his insistence on claiming sole credit for the capture of Bin Laden and pledging anew his commitment to fight terrorism in the face of the approaching 10 year anniversary of 9/11? (Indeed, and amazingly, Obama even quoted the Pledge of Allegiance at his news conference, a political prop no other Administration has succumbed to in recent memory... We are still waiting for the liberal press corp and Congressional Democratic leadership who so mercilessly pilloried Republicans for reading the Constitution to kick off the opening of the 112th Congress to denounce this clear act of political demagoguery ;). 

 Of course, we wouldn't dare be so cynical as to wonder aloud if any of this could possibly have anything to do with the President recently kicking off his 2012 re-election campaign-- or would we?-- even in light of the known edge for Republicans on national security issues and the President needing to look more "decisive" of late, (something he has been universally criticized for from both sides of the political spectrum for everything from delay in repealing the DOMA to invading Libya... Just saying...).  But for those still unconvinced perhaps a review of our previous post(s) on Obama's dithering is in order.  We welcome you to do so by just clicking on that link.

  But all things considered, and politics aside, we should like to say that besides the death of Bin Laden there is at least one good outcome of all this in our body politic, and that is an unquestioned boost for the idea of the importance of human intelligence to our country's safety, (something the Administration has not always been so strong in, as above mentioned).

  Regardless of the political calculus that may lie behind President Obama's pro-military stance of late and public acclamations re: the role of human intelligence in the Bin Laden affair, it has at least resulted in a much-needed morale boost to the U.S. intelligence community by calling attention to the critical role intelligence plays in our nation's security. In this regard hopefully such public proclamations by the Administration will make such ideas politically impossible to retreat from in the future and translate into concrete policies that both parties could support to enhance and rebuild our national intelligence capabilities.

  In any case, and regardless of the motives of the present Administration in denying credit where credit is due, (i.e. the Bush Administration policies that made the Bin Laden victory possible), one thing is beyond question: Our armed forces, particularly the special ops experts making up "seal team six" which actually carried out this daring operation-- in addition to their civilian intelligence analysts and commanders-- deserve a debt of gratitude from all of us for their sacrifice and service to our country.

  In our perspective, no amount of politicking will, or can, change that. As we said in our last post on this subject, our hat is off to these American heroes for keeping our country safe. Moreover, whatever else is revealed in the days ahead, we also agree with President Obama on at least one thing, that "our country is safer as a result of the death of Osama Bin Laden." And on that closing note, all I can say is Amen! jp

Osama Bin Laden killed by CIA, U.S. "Special Ops" Navy Seals in Pakistan!!!

  Tonight, May 1, 2011, President Obama declared that Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 world trade center attacks on America and head of Al Quaeda worldwide, was killed in a "firefight" between CIA and NSA-directed U.S. "special ops" Navy Seals and Bin Laden security personal today at a privately-owned compound in Pakistan, see here, (NOTE: this is being published at just after midnight and technically May 2nd).  The news began circulating shortly before 10pm Eastern that the White House had informed national news media of a "big" news item to be released in a quickly arranged and highly unusual late Sunday evening news conference.

  According to news reports and President Obama's address to the nation on the meticulously and jointly-planned CIA-NSA Special forces assault early Sunday morning, the operation utilized Blackhawk Chinook attack helicopters which landed the highly-trained Navy Seals inside the compound upon exhaustively-confirmed human intelligence of Bin Laden's presence, (indeed, one might even say the cautious nature of our President which we have often criticized was on full display, thankfully to no ill effect here).  In the ensuing 40 minute gun battle in which residents of the sprawling compound resisted American forces, Osama Bin Laden was killed by gunshot wounds to the head and the chest by U.S. Navy Seals after being given a brief chance to surrender, and, according to at least some reports, after one American helicopter was shot down by pro-Osama snipers on the roof in the initial attack, though with no American casualties, (see below).  The Administration awaited the return of conclusive DNA tests on Bin Laden's body to release the information of the attack and his demise. 

   Bush Administration 'enhanced interrogation techniques' vindicated?

  The "human intelligence" information that led U.S. forces to the conclusion-- in conjunction with further and ongoing CIA investigations in recent years that narrowed suspicions re: the occupants of the million-dollar compound located in a private resort setting near military facilities often called the 'West Point' of Pakistan in the Abbottabad district-- was originally provided from joint CIA-military questioning of enemy combatants pursuant to policies of the Bush Administration which were heavily criticized by candidate Obama in 2008 and in large part banned under his Presidency, details here and here.

  The Bush-era 2003 capture and subsequent waterboarding of Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed the "nick name" of a trusted "courier" to Osama Bin Ladem, (who had ceased using all modern technology in favor of human to human communications to avoid detection by U.S. intelligence authorities).  This alleged Al-Qaeda courier's area of operations in Pakistan, as well as real identity, was subsequently confirmed by further Bush-Administration-authorized enhanced interrogations-- now banned by the Obama Administration-- of Guantuanomo-held enemy combatant Abu Faraj al-Libbi in 2007.  It is the discovery of the true identity of this trusted associate of Bin Laden's, as well as his further tracking by U.S. intelligence subsequently over the last four years, that led the Obama Adminstration to the discovery of the compound in Pakistan where Bin Laden was found and killed.

 Thus, whatever role the Obama Administration played in following up on this Bush-era information vis a vis U.S. intelligence agencies, however "augmented" it may have been with more recent and extensive "on the ground" human intelligence and surveillance of the reclusive compound in Pakistan by CIA operatives over the last six months, there can be no doubt that the success of the Obama Administration's efforts to find (and kill) Osama Bin Laden was directly tied to information gathered by Bush Administration's interrogation policies, (the very policies that Obama has expressly banned and personally renounced as being 'unreliable' and 'against our principles.'  Of course, President Obama mentioned none of these facts in his evening news conference but only his re-affirmation of the Bush-era policy authorizing the assassination of Bin Laden as if it were his own).

  As for the mission itself to actually take down Bin Laden-- which to his credit Obama did authorize--  the President gave the final go-ahead on Friday April 29 at 8:20am before leaving to view Alabama's devastation from recent storms in the South.  Originally planned for Saturday night, the operation was moved to Sunday due to inclement weather in Pakistan.  But to deny the critical role, and indeed, contribution to the entire mission's success that the Bush era policies had played, was, we feel, dishonest in the least and pure partisan one-up-man-ship for the purposes of Obama's personal political gain in the worst, (more on this below).  

      On the compound in which Osama Bin Laden was hiding    

 The sprawling 16 acre compound, seen in video here burning from the crash of a U.S. helicopter into the compound, (see below), was said to be well-constructed and defended-- replete with eighteen foot barbed-wire-topped walls, more details here-- and was located geographically less than 40 miles from the capital city of Islamabad on the outskirts of affluent suburb Abbottabad, just 100 yards from a Pakistani army base, (sure to raise thorny questions of why the sprawling compound, built in 2005 and eight times bigger than any other structure in the area, was not noticed by the Pakistani military and/or government sooner, especially in light of the 3 billion in annual aid we provide Pakistan).  The total American military operation on the ground was made up of 24 Navy seals directly involved in the assault.

   On 'civilian' casualties and 'the 'burial' of Osama Bin Laden

  In addition to the death of Bin Laden, also killed in the attacks were personal members of Bin Laden's family and entourage, including his oldest son and one of his wives which Bin Laden allegedly used as a "human shield" in a cowardly effort to save his own life.   Bin Laden's body was then seized by U.S. forces, undoubtedly photographed, and treated in accord with "Islamic practices"-- i.e., wrapped in a white sheet and interred within 24 hours-- and being accorded a Muslim burial ceremony replete with attendant Imam off the U.S. aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson, ostensibly to eliminate any chance of a "shrine" arising to the terrorist leader at any land-based burial site that could serve as a rallying point to foment further terrorist acts or martyrdom propaganda and "protests" from supporters of the 9/11 mastermind, (if there could be any?!)   In a Monday afternoon press conference split between White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and White House National security personnel, Obama Administration National Security adviser John Brennan refused to elaborate on what specific Muslim authorities were consulted on what constituted "proper" burial Muslim burial practices, but indicated that there was a Muslim "imam" present in response to a direct question on that point by Mara Liason of NPR and Fox News.

  Speculation leading up to the news conference was rampant before leaks of the substance of the impending news conference came out about half an hour before President Obama's speech, (somewhat surprising in light of the stellar success of the Administration keeping news of the highly sensitive operation under wraps).  News in the U.S. appears to have first been leaked by persons using the 'twitter' service, in "tweets" from Keith Urbhan, a former Chief of staff for Donald Rumsfeld at around 9:45pm May 1 and a Pakistani neighbor of Osama Bin Laden's who tweeted about the unusual affair of helicopters overhead in Abbottabad and "window shaking" bangs beginning at 1am local time (he subsequently connected the dots upon announcement of the U.S. President's news conference).

  Finally a note on our coverage of this issue overall.  While we here at the ACLP have often been critical of the Adminstration's policies, (especially pertaining to its views of constitutional authority, abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law), we are also duty-bound to give credit to the Administration where it is due, (even as we ask, if we can do this in Pakistan, why not in Libya and other places around the world when necessary?  Sure is cheaper in blood and treasure than full scale wars!)

  Even if Obama didn't give fill credit to an ever-gracious George W. Bush and his Administration's policies that produced the intelligence enabling the success of this operation, (see below and subsequent post), we still are grateful for Obama's decision, however belated, to go after Bin Laden.  (He could, after all, just have chosen to ignore the intelligence and let this killer continue to go free).  Of course, to what extent the President's doing so was motivated by the unpalatable thought of the political backlash in light of the rapidly approaching 2012 elections if potential inaction on his part was subsequently revealed, in much the same way as Clinton's failure to seize Bin Laden in 1996 was, we shall never know.  Even still, we are grateful for the capture of this terror mastermind regardless.  (NOTE: For whatever can be said of the downfalls of the American party system, it's moderating influence on partisan politicians is legendary and undoubtable in its desirable effects!)

    The ACLP rejoices with the American people over this victory in the war against terror!

  Accordingly, the ACLP welcomes the news of this blow to the Al Quaeda organization at the heart of terrorist attacks against America over the last 18 years, including the first world trade center attacks, the Yemen attacks against the U.S.S. Cole, and the bloody African embassy attacks, (now why couldn't we do this in Libya?)   However, and more ominously, the assault raises many questions for another day about the reliability of Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror, the Administration's inconsistencies and unwillingness to acknowledge the critical contribution of Bush-era policies and intelligence to the mission's success, and the obvious and frankly offensive political correctness of the President's actions regarding the religious 'niceties' provided Osama Bin Laden inherent in his U.S. taxpaid and Islam-approved 'sea burial,' (niceties which weren't offered to the American victims of the world trade center bombings on 9/11).

  For today however-- and mindful that the war on terror is bigger than any one Administration-- it is enough to rejoice with the American people at this wonderful victory of American against the forces of evil that would destroy our civilization.  Indeed, we think a quote from former Vice-President in reaction to these events is apt.

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of American forces is a victory for the United States and a tremendous achievement for the military and intelligence professionals who carried out this important mission.   Their tireless work since 9/11 has made this achievement possible, and enabled us to capture or kill thousands of al Qaeda terrorists and many of their leaders.  I also want to congratulate President Obama and the members of his national security team.  At this moment when bin Laden has been brought to justice, we especially remember the sacrifice of the young Americans who've paid the ultimate price in defense of the nation, as well as the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11.  Al Qaeda remains a dangerous enemy.  Though bin Laden is dead, the war goes on.  We must remain vigilant, especially now, and we must continue to support our men and women in uniform who are fighting on the front lines of this war every day.  Today, the message our forces have sent is clear -- if you attack the United States, we will find you and bring you to justice.

Statement of former Vice-President Dick Cheney on the killing of Osama Bin Laden by U.S. forces in Pakistan.

  The President's news conference: An exercise in self-gratification and denial of credit where credit is due; Bush's policies and the amazing work of the U.S. intelligence community juxtaposed against the gracious reactions of Cheney and Bush.

  The President's Sunday news conference, originally scheduled for 10:30pm Eastern Time, was repeatedly delayed, reportedly as the President called U.S. political leaders to tell them the news and put American security forces and leaders around the world on high alert for any retaliatory attacks from Al Qaeda, (which in spite of the death of its well-known leader, still continues to pose a threat to U.S. national interests).

 The death of Bin Laden was a reminder to those who would harm our nation that although American justice may be slow, it is ultimately sure, and can only be a boon for the morale of a nation still reeling from economic recession and a divided body politic.

  Politically-- even though the action was taken in large part in response to a many-years-old directive of former President Bush that Bin Laden should be taken "dead or alive," a designation making legal all government agencies and armed forces to assassinate Bin Laden-- the death of Bin Laden follows reaffirmation by the Obama Administration of this national directive and is as likely to re-invigorate the political debate over the value of so called "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, much criticized by the political left and banned by President Obama in 2009, as it is to provide a boost for the re-election prospects of Barack Obama, (especially in light of the fact the intelligence gathered which led to Bin Laden's courier was a direct result of the very Bush policies that Obama has eschewed!)   No civilians or U.S. forces were injured in the operation, (although one of the helicopters assigned to the mission experienced an unplanned "hard landing" or was shot down by Bin Laden security forces, depending on which account you believe).

  Jubilant and triumphant celebrations broke out among crowds who spontaneously gathered at Times Square and in Washington D.C. outside the White House singing patriotic songs and celebrating the news, singing such patriotic favorites as "the Star Spangled Banner" and the patriotic anthem "God Bless America."

  The location of the custom-built walled compound where Bin Laden was killed-- in a large city in which the Pakistani military retain a military base rather than in the mountainous border region with Afghanistan which had been popularly reported to be the locale where Bin Laden had been hiding in recent years-- also raises questions as to whether and how long the Pakistani government knew of Bin Laden's presence and Pakistani support of American aims in the region generally during a time of rising tensions between America and Pakistan over the war on terror.  Nevertheless, President Obama credited the support of the Pakistani government in the human intelligence pinpointing Bin Laden's location.

  The initial intel leading to the successful assault was allegedly received last August and came from CIA led interrogations of Gitmo detainees in Cuba, a factor sure to moot any continuing insistence from the political left that the military camp at Guantanamo Bay housing "enemy combatants" be closed, (long a campaign promise of President Obama opposed by many in both parties).  While the four military equipped Blackhawk Chinook helicopters involved in the assault on the Osama compound took off from American military bases in Afghanistan, the U.S. government did not give details of the planning or mission itself to Pakistan government or military forces prior to its execution, sure to cause some controversy among elements of the Pakistan populace and political parties there.

  Calling it a "testament to the greatness of the America" and even quoting the Pledge of Allegiance in his announcement to the nation, the President stated the successful mission was a testament to the fact that America "can achieve whatever we put our minds to" and the importance of "standing up for our values abroad."  The President also emphasized that America, while dedicated to protecting the interests of the free world, is not at war with the religion of Islam generally, (but only against those who choose terror against America and her citizens).  Politically correct assurances aside, this was undoubtedly a great victory for America and her allies in the global war against terrorism.

 President Bush, reached by President Obama by telephone with the news prior to his nationally-televised speech, expressed gratitude for our armed forces and condolences to the victims of 9/11, stating,

"This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done."

    The announcement of the Obama Administration must surely have been a bittersweet moment for the former President, as the failure to capture Bin Laden during George W. Bush's tenure as leader of the free world was seen by many as one of the most singularly embarrassing lapses of the Bush Administration, (which had made capture of Bin Laden and security of the nation an ongoing priority during the two terms of his Presidency).  The former President, ever gracious, also personally congratulated President Obama on the news.   Former President Clinton, criticized for allowing Osama Bin Laden to slip through his hands in Africa in 1996 due to distractions with his affair with Monica Lewinski, see here, was also personally notified by Obama.

Our hats are off to our intelligence community and the brave service men and woman involved in the planning and execution of this daring intra-Pakistan raid which resulted in achievement of one of the nation's number one security objectives!   jp

Updated May 2, 2011, 4:13pm
Updated May 3, 2011, 2:00pm, NOTE: Strikethroughs are matters of which the factual veracity, due to subsequent public statements of National Security Adviser John Brennan and other Obama Administration officials, are no longer trusted to be accurate.  SEE NEXT POST

Obama's Libyan War and the War Powers Act- Part Three. Unlawful application of the U.N. and NATO charters?

  As the now Nato-led "coalition" remains divided over what next steps should be taken in Libya, (see here, here and here), and the Libyan military excursion under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 drags on with no end in sight, (so much for being a matter of "days or weeks" as President Obama promised, see here and here), it's finally time to get back to our examination of the basis in law-- or not-- of the legality of President Obama's decision to attack Libya to protect the Libyan rebels and civilians on the ground from pro Ghadaffi forces.  We've already established, in line with our four primary questions we set out to answer, see here, that the President in this case belatedly acted at the behest of the United Nations Security Council with no clear end game or understanding of what American interests would be served absent specific authorization for regime change in Libya, (which the U.N. resolution does not address).  


  And we've seen how President Obama has thumbed his nose at the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 and cursorily examined some of the claims made in his speech to the nation on the subject and briefly alluded to what an inherently and inexplicably hard-to-define and inconsistent justification for war application of the "Obama Doctrine" really is, (and for those who missed the previous parts of this discussion I refer you to the prior posts here and here, also here and here on this blog for Obama's dithering and its effects on both the Libyan and American people). 
 
  But as the debate continues over the constitutionality of this "military action," (see also here and here), one which seems more and more destined for quagmire in what some on the left have already "affectionately" begun calling "Obama's war of choice," see here and even claimed justify impeachment, see here-- indeed, it would be hard for Obama to blame this one on George W. Bush or to avoid such calls in light of the left's previous and vociferous criticism of the Iraqi wars--  what remains is to address in more detail the American interests at stake in Libya and answer the last two questions most salient to our discussion of legality vis a vis the way in which this action was begun.


  Namely, under what basis in international law under the relevant U.N. and Nato treaties could the Libyan action taken by the President be legally justified?  (We leave aside for now the complete reversal of then Senator Obama who stated in no uncertain terms in December of 1997 when asked if President Bush had the authority to bomb Iran without seeking explicit authorization from Congress that, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," see here and here). 


  First, however, as alluded to above, we begin where we left off with a recap of this new development of interventionist doctrine proffered by the Obama Administration before addressing the more weighty issues pertaining to the substantive questions remaining in our inquiry below.

         In a nutshell, and all things considered, the so-called Obama doctrine, (which really isn't "Obama's," see below), seems to consist in the idea that American military intervention, and by implication, international intervention as well, is justified whenever genocide or extreme human suffering of a people may be engendered at the hands of (or inaction of?) one's own government.

  Initially, we should point out that it is not as though this is an entirely "new" doctrine.  Indeed as pointed out by one of our readers recently, (see comments to prior post here), other President's have relied on similar reasoning in ordering intervention or involvement of American military force in various foreign conflagrations in recent history, (although both Bush's Iraq wars were initiated after seeking and receiving Congressional authorization pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.  Moreover, as the article linked above in U.S. News and World Report-- and as used to be heard on the schoolyard-- "two wrongs" don't make a "right.")  And it is not as if we are the only ones who have noticed President Obama's inconsistencies and contradictory statements on the Libyan war, see here and here.


 Further, even President Clinton, who used a modified-- if slightly less forthright-- version of this doctrine to justify American and Nato intervention in the war in Kosovo and former Yugoslavia at least communicated with (and was subsequently subject to) various votes in Congress which saw the legislative branch refuse to stop American involvement in the Yugoslavian civil war, (for full details and history of Presidential compliance see here).  Thus it is not at all clear you can fairly compare the two in practice, (at least Clinton "consulted" with Congress within 48 hours pursuant to the W.P.R.A.'s reporting requirements and "both chambers of Congress supported action but not by legislation authorizing the use of force," even if "the House and Senate could not come to consensus on any single measure," (see here and scroll down to Yugoslavia/Kosovo).     


  And it remains to be seen if Obama, pushing up against the "60 day reporting period" designated in the War Powers Resolution Act will in fact comply with its more substantive terms by approaching Congress with the statutorily-required "report" on the Libyan intervention and seeking the Legislature's approval or disapproval, (even if he didn't do so within 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act, that is, if he even had the authority under the Statute to use military force absent American forces or interests being in danger of imminent attack, as former Senator Obama himself pointed out, see above).    

     But philosophically speaking, it would appear that, constitutional or not, see here, justification for war is now no longer just limited to the "old school" reasons for protection of American troops or citizens in immediate danger-- such as in Reagan's lightning fast "war" in Grenada--  or to situations in which clearly defined and critical "national interests" are at stake, (e.g. the wars in Iraq, even if available intelligence at the time from both U.S. and other allies was ultimately proven flawed. Indeed, in light of Libya only producing less than 2 percent of the world's oil you don't even have our nation's energy needs in event of war as a justification).    


  In short, such bothersome considerations of strategic national interests of America or its allies seems to have gone the way of the dinosoar along with such practical considerations as having a clear-cut mission, overwhelming force and logistical support, command and control to allow full support and protection for our troops and capabilities, and an understanding of the criteria for establishing when we've "won" sufficient to cease hostilities or an "exit strategy" when our objectives are not possible to meet.   

 Moreover, and key to the exercise of the Obama Doctrine, it seems armed force is justified-- even if not always prudent-- against other nation-states, 1) At the behest and approval of international bodies like the U.N. Security Council and/or 2) when murder and "great" human suffering of a repressed populace is about to take place.

  The trouble of course, as above mentioned, is that such a rationale fails the first and most important "old school" test for war, namely, that of our "national interests" in Libya, (although we acknowledge such an inquiry cuts both ways).

 For example, one could argue that by delaying the decision to intervene President Obama seriously undermined our ability to quickly prevail with minimal risk and thus nullified one of the legs in a comprehensive and initial determination, at the same time as he heightened our national interests in this troubled African country in other ways.  Indeed, one could cogently argue that now that we are involved in Libya, however tangentially, our national interest vis a vis preventing the rise of a newly emboldened Mid-East hotbed of Anti-American terrorist activity requires our finishing the job.  


  For now however, a more comprehensive analysis of such questions will have to wait even as we acknowledge an even more thorny one, namely this:  If the requirement for clear and vital national interests to justify military invention is no longer required for the use of American military force, might not one rightly ask, "What about all the other places in the world where people are being butchered or oppressed at the hands of their government such as in Sudan, Syria, or N. Korea? Are we going to attack there too?"  Undoubtedly, such questions raise difficult problems to any rational implementation of the Clinton/Obama doctrine. 


  Nevertheless, having shown that the Obama Administration's exercise of this doctrine is philosophically, if not in practice, an arguably poor justification for war and/or unlawful under the U.S. Constitution and relevant laws-- in particular the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, (aka the 'War Powers Act') and Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution-- we leave for now a more searching examination of what, if any, specific and vital American "national interests" in Libya could have justified our intervention and proceed to consider matters more in line with our purposes here at the ACLP.  Namely, whether this expanded doctrine as apparently practiced by the Obama Administration-- and by logical extension the Libyan military action specifically-- could be considered legal under any applicable theory of "international law," (e.g. the U.N. Charter and/or any other relevant international treaties or agreements of which the United States is a signatory, e.g.,  the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO).  I will begin with the latter and move on to the United Nations as time allows (before a final determination of whether a 'Part Four' in this series will be required).

  NATO, (short for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), is the international treaty and military defense organization founded on April 4th, 1949 as an expanded successor to the 1948 Treaty of Brussels signed between Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and Great Britain, see wikipedia. 


  The signatories to the 14 article Nato treaty-- which is explicitly defensive in nature under article One of the Treaty and often refers to the supremacy and envisioned involvement of the United Nation's Security Council for its goals and contemplated actions, see here-- recognized the need for the industrial and militarily powerful United States to be a signatory to balance and effectively protect Western Europe in the post-WWII period from the threat of a militarily superior and expansionist Soviet Union (and threats of another cataclysmic world war generally).  


  Begun with just the original Treaty of Brussels' signatories in addition to seven more countries, the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland-- along with the strategically critical addition of Western Germany in May of 1955-- Nato has grown over the years to include 10 "East Bloc" nations formerly under the dominion of the USSR and now constitutes a total of 28 countries.

  The defensive nature of NATO-- technically a treaty dedicated to the security and freedom of nations in the "North Atlantic" region and encompassing Greater Europe and the Baltics-- is explicitly made clear in Article One of its charter, which states:  

"The parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."  Ch. 1, Art. 1, NATO Charter. 


 Moreover, the Alliance's explicit deference to the U.N. charter and resolutions of the United Nation's Security Council, if not clear from Article One of Nato's charter, is made explicitly clear in Article 7 of the Treaty, which states: 

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.  Art. 7, Nato Charter.


 Article Four states, "The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened," and Article Five explicitly makes clear the military purpose of the Treaty to bind all member states (i.e. signatories) to come to the aid of any individual member state of the alliance in the event of attack or aggression against it by any nation outside the alliance., to wit: 
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Art. 5, Nato Charter

 As such, it is clearly designed as a "defensive" mutual assistance treaty. Furthermore, and critical to our purposes here, Article Five of the Treaty goes on to state, "Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security." 

  Thus we come to a critical issue in our discussion regarding the lawfulness of President Obama's actions, i.e., "Was the attack against Libya legally justified from a perspective of International law?"  (Of course, even if it was, that doesn't establish that the President's disregard of American law and Constitution is legal, as we've already fairly conclusively shown; we are, after all, not "world citizens" but Americans, governed by American law as set out in our Constitution for good reason, in case you missed our touching on this subject here or the debate between Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Scalia see here, here or here for video). 

  But in light of our purposes in the present discussion-- indeed, the President declared his explicit reliance on the U.N. Security council's Libyan resolution to justify his intervention in Libya-- and the fact that we've now seen the Nato Charter specifically reference the United Nation's Charter and the Security Council's supremacy over Nato, we would be remiss not to engage in a quick review of the provisions of the U.N. Charter (i.e. treaty) as well. 

  The United Nations treaty and Charter was signed June 26, 1945 in the aftermath of world wide war in order to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," (Preamble to U.N. Charter), and now encompasses a total of 192 nations, the largest treaty organization of its kind in history.  

 Though the wisdom, fairness or efficacy of the U.N.'s programs, goals, and innumerable "resolutions" are not at issue in today's discussion, we only address its terms because, in lieu of any Congressional vote of approval under the War Powers Resolution Act, the President has previously and expressly cited the U.N. Security Council resolution as authority for his Libyan incursion, see here.  Chapter 1, Art. 1, par. 1, states the overall purposes and philosophy of the treaty as the following:    

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; Art. 1, Ch. 1, par. 1, United Nations Charter.  

 Moreover, at first blush, the treaties provisions regarding the justified use of force against a member state, (or even in general), seem pretty clear to our unlearned minds:

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Ch VI, Art 33 (1.) U.N. Charter

  Additionally, while Article 51 specifically references the right of "self defense if an attack occurs against a member of the United Nations," the whole passage reads as follows:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."  Art 51, Ch. 7, U.N. Charter. 

  Finally, we quote the "first principles" of the U.N., which we find laid out in Article Two of the Charter as follows:  

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.  Chapter 1, Article 2, United Nations Charter. 

 So there you have it, all laid out in black (and green?).  

 In light of the relevant text in the documents themselves, and regardless of what you think of Obama personally, your politics, or your compassion for the Libyan people-- who sadly are the ones paying for the incompetence of Western leaders in dealing with this crisis as well as their own bloodthirsty, corrupt government-- it is not open to serious doubt that the Libyan military "intervention," initially led by the U.S. but more recently "punted" to Nato, has arguably been entirely illegal from the getgo, (at least if you're going on source documents and the President's own words).   As we've said all along, there really is no substitute for the wisdom of the American people through their elected leaders, (which is why the Executive branch was denied by the Founders of the right to declare war without the Legislative branch's signing off first).  Of course, what to do about this whole mess is another matter entirely.  Do we arm the rebels? Or redouble our efforts with a clear mission, put boots on the ground, and oust Ghadaffi once and for all? (Though certainly more painful in the short term it sure beats staying "half-in half-out" for two years while the price of oil skyrockets, and certainly beats appointing "commissions" to investigate what to any thinking person is the obvious reason for the jump in gas prices of late).  

  Of course, ultimately such policy preferences are up to the American people, through their elected leaders in Congress to decide, the President to execute, and ultimately, the American people to ratify (or not) in 2012. 

  

  And it's true that Obama may in fact yet attempt to successfully find his way back on this issue-- as he did in the recent budget compromise-- by setting in place a more firm grasp of our goals, (i.e., regime change), approaching the U.S. Congress for it's wisdom and guidance pursuant to the War Powers Resolution and once again taking the reigns of leadership to use overwhelming force and oust Ghadaffi before any (more) damage can be incurred to the Libyan people or our own long-term strategic interests in the region, (though we aren't quite sure how one could wrest back control from Nato at this point without quite a bit of damage to our credibility amongst allies and enemies alike, even if we are already sustaining such damage based on the indecisive way in which this whole matter has been pursued).  


  But in light of the serious harm the President has already done (and continues to do) to our image and system of laws upon which we are based and the ambivalence of the American people over this poorly articulated and thought-out mission prior to placing the men and women of our armed forces in harms way, we really see no other choice if there is to be a better ending and an upholding of our legal principles.
  
  We urge the President to do so with all haste and hope it's not too late. jp