Changes

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons.  Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref>  The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons.  Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref>  The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama announced U.S. military forces had commenced operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. The Charter of the [[United Nations]] however, in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that if a no-fly zone were imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against its neighbors, that state may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone itself as an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. The Charter of the [[United Nations]] however, in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that if a no-fly zone were imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against its neighbors, that state may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone itself as an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",

{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

Nato's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama ordered intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan rebels.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the rebels.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Nato's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan rebels.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the rebels.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.