General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Criticized for "Imperial Hubris" worse than Bush and Violating Campaign Promise
A day after President Obama told the American public he was preparing to bomb targets inside the sovereign state of Syria and that he did not need congressional approval to do so, critics are lashing out against what Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, described as "imperial hubris" on Friday.In his scathing op-ed in the New York Times, Ackerman writes:
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the presidents assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.
And as The Nation magazine's Zoë Carpenter reports:
The situation in Iraq and Syria does not appear to meet that standard. Obama acknowledged on Wednesday that [w]e have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland. Meanwhile, intelligence sources say that the threat from ISIS has been grossly exaggerated. Its hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systemsall on the basis of no corroborated information, former State Department counterterrorism adviser Daniel Benjamin told The New York Times.
According to (NYT's) Ackerman, the president has put himself in a perilous position.
And Carpenter says that in addition to defying Congress and his constitutional obligations, Obama should also be worried about the implications for his new strategy under international law. She writes:
Its worth noting that the legality of an extended cross-border campaign isnt only a question of the separation of powers. As Eli Lake noted at The Daily Beast, the White House has not explained the basis for the strikes under international law.
While the administrations current attempt to circumnavigate Congress is hypocritical as well as potentially illegal, its also consistent with the way Obama has exercised US military power before. As Spencer Ackerman notes, hes extended drone strikes across the Middle East and North Africa; initiated a seven-month air campaign in Libya without congressional approval; prolonged the war in Afghanistan; and, in recent months, ordered more than 1,000 troops back into Iraq. Promises of no boots on the ground notwithstanding, Obamas war footprint is large, and expanding.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/12/obama-charged-imperial-hubris-unmatched-even-bush
Response to KoKo (Original post)
Post removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Every country in the world reserves the right to respond if its citizens are attacked or killed.
There is nothing special about this.
malaise
(268,968 posts)Including Iraq?
Every country in the world reserves the right to respond if its citizens are attacked or killed - even when the country has illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign state without the authority of the United Nations?
Why don't we tear up international law then.
This is arrogance and hubris on steroids -and not just from the President - please get serious
.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)WhiteTara
(29,705 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)blm
(113,052 posts).
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)or Spencer Ackermanwho writes for the Guardian. Both are quoted in the CD article.
It's Bruce Ackerman who wrote the NYT's Editorial about Obama's Hubris in going further than Bush.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)malaise
(268,968 posts)Obama is no different - he has no authority under international law but since when did International Law matter to Western powers.
Obama better have a rethink about this one.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)but...the more he says, lately, the darker it looks for endless military actions going forward. Plus his statements just feed the War Beast, and demoralize those of us who want no part of endless wars that we can't pay for causing misery and suffering for innocents caught up in our aggressive actions. The legality of it all has long since gone off the rails as you point out.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)corporations while securing the oil fields for other private corporations.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Bush and gang led us into one war after 9/11 in Afghanistan and lied us into the second war in Iraq. But they did play by the rules of the game. They sent Powell to the UN. They went before Congress. All but one House rep and all but a handful of Senators voted to authorize those wars. A percentage of the American populace, myself included, knew they were lies and propoganda, and yet daily we are admonished here to forgive and forget Senators like Kerry and Clinton who apparently weren't smart enough to know they were being lied to.
Obama is not even trying to play the game this time. He is not going before the UN. He is not going before Congress. He is not presenting legal justification for his unilateral decisions. We do not start a war in two countries just because two of our journalists were killed. Anyone who argues otherwise is using specious logic. Just because there are no 'boots on the ground', it is still war. 'Boots on the ground' is about the Army and Marines. It is the Air Force and Navy's turn now with missile strikes, drone strikes, and airstrikes. Sorry apologists, but that is still commitment of the US military to a three years long war.
Finally, yes, Obama did betray his campaign rhetoric. This act of presidential imperialism goes against what he opined in order to get elected. There is no imminent threat to America here. There is no actual threat to America here. High ranking intelligence directors have said as much over the last few days.
Sadly, it seems Bush and Obama are very much alike. One ignores intelligence of an actual attack imminent on American soil in order to justify war, and the other is ignoring intelligence of no actual attacks being imminent on American soil in order to justify the continuation of that war. I don't like the arrogance of a leadership that will lie to start a war any more than I like the arrogance of a leadership that will just do as they please with regards to war, the people and constitution be damned.