
	
	by Eric Blair
	
	March 11, 2012
	
			from 
			ActivistPost Website
	
	 
	
	 
	
		
			| 
			 
			Impeachment proceedings begin in the 
			House and the Senate over Obama's brazen use of aggressive military 
			force without congressional authority.  | 
		
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	Since 2005, 
	
	Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the 
	impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. 
	
	 
	
	After their demands to lawmakers to 
	
	uphold the 
	rule of law against Bush were largely ignored (except by 
	Dennis Kucinich who 
	introduced 
	
	impeachment articles too late in 2008), they renewed their effort 
	to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign nations without 
	congressional approval. 
	
	 
	
	Now, some lawmakers seem to have finally decided to 
	take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.
	
	Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional 
	authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year. 
	Official 
	
	impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and 
	Senate.
	
	Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an 
	Impeachment Resolution in the House 
	
	H.CON.RES.107.IH stating:
	
		
		"Expressing the sense of Congress that the 
		use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear 
		authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high 
		crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."
		
		"Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s 
		exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of 
		the Constitution:
		
		Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the 
		Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in 
		response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the 
		United States, the use of offensive military force by a President 
		without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates 
		Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, 
		clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable 
		high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the 
		Constitution."
	
	
	President 
	Barack Obama becomes only the third 
	sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and 
	Bill 
	Clinton. 
	
	 
	
	Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing 
	an office holder without the Senate's approval, and Clinton for perjury and 
	obstruction of justice. Both were acquitted by the Senate.
	
	Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his 
	impeached predecessors and it's still unclear what legal defense he will use 
	to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been 
	inconsistent and vague from the beginning of 
	
	the Libya assault.
	
	Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the 
	Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in 
	
	a 
	14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states 
	vaguely:
	
		
		We conclude... that the use of military force 
		in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to 
		fall within the President's constitutional power. 
		
		 
		
		At the same time, 
		turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that 
		anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to "war" in the 
		constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the 
		Declaration of War clause.
	
	
	The memo goes on explain why the alleged 
	situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.'s national interest, cites 
	previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional 
	approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no 
	deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.
	
	However, in no way were national interests under an "imminent" threat by 
	hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an 
	international mission is irrelevant to the Act. 
	
	 
	
	Furthermore, Obama has 
	maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of 
	full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of 
	unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.
	
	The New York Times 
	
	quotes directly from 
	
	the 32-page report Obama sent to 
	concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline passed,
	
		
		“U.S. operations do not 
	involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, 
	nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
	
	
	Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn't a real military conflict that 
	Congress should concern itself with. 
	
	 
	
	However, at the same time, the White 
	House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion 
	for these non-hostile military activities.
	
	Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, 
	Obama's Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did 
	indeed constitute military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending 
	U.S. tax dollars on war rested in "international permission":
	
	 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	This impeachment comes on the heals of other 
	Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for 
	assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. 
	
	 
	
	Where, also last week, 
	
	Attorney General Holder 
	sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern 
	University by claiming "judicial process" was not the same as "due process" 
	under the Constitution.
	
	Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states,
	
		
		"No person shall be held to answer 
	for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or 
	indictment of a Grand Jury."
	
	
	And as 
	
	Wikipedia defines due process:
	
		
		Due process is the legal requirement that 
		the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a 
		person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects 
		individual persons from it. 
		 
		
		When a government harms a person without 
		following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process 
		violation, which offends against the rule of law.
	
	
	The Obama Administration has clearly "offended 
	against the rule of law," and it appears his only defense lies in somehow 
	changing the definition of words. 
	
	 
	
	It's not a strong legal position to be in 
	and it seems that, for the first time in history, a sitting president may be 
	held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.