From The Cable
The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.
House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that “regime change” is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.
”The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi’s military, which includes Qaddafi,” Turner said. “He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined.”
“I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it,” Turner said. “I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they’re exceeding the mission.”
Later in the same briefing, Turner said, Locklear maintained that the NATO mission does not include regime change. “Well, certainly if you remove Qaddafi it will affect regime change,” Turner said that he replied. “[Locklear] did not have an answer to that.”
Obviously, this is not shocking news. And I’m all in favor of killing him. But how can we be trying to kill the absolute dictator of Libya and not be involved in a war, never mind “hostilities.” Also, maybe some of our legal eagles could address this, but isn’t it illegal to try to kill a foreign leader outside of a war?
Jonah,
you guys need to ask Robert Turner, Constitutional Scholar and former Reagan Attorney who advised him on Constitutional War Powers.
Please watch him Debate Dennis Kucinich last week on this issue, he absolutely destroys him and by extension now much of the house GOP
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"you guys need to ask Robert Turner, Constitutional Scholar and former Reagan Attorney who advised him on Constitutional War Powers."
The first words out of Turner's mouth were: "President Obama's position is absolutely clear: we are not engaged in war in Libya, and thus, if the War Powers Resolution were constitutional, it still would not apply."
He lost me right there. We're not at war in Libya? Anybody who needs to concoct those sorts of lies is admitting their whole case is a fabrication.
"On August 17th, 1787, James Madison introduced an amendment in the Constitutional Convention that changed the power to be given in Congress from the power to make war to the power to declare war."
Yes, he did. And as the Notes from the Constitutional Convention make clear, the point of doing this was to allow the President to respond defensively to foreign attacks. It was NOT to grant the President the power to attack foreign countries whenever the mood struck him.
Constitutional Scholar, my eye.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseclearly you haven't read Turner nor followed his argument above.
There is a reason in the over 300+ military engagements, hardly any of them were approved by Congress.
After the WPA, which no POTUS has acknowledge constitutional validity to, Congress tried to force Reagan's hand in Greneda. Way after the fact passed a War Resolution demanding an end date. Reagan ignored them, rightly, and we finally left Greneda 2yrs later than Congress end date.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Also, maybe some of our legal eagles could address this, but isn’t it illegal to try to kill a foreign leader outside of a war?"
No. Presidents, as part of a bipartisan public relations effort to improve our national Self-Esteem and without actually meaning it, have customarily said, via "Executive Orders", that they wouldn't do so. But that's it.
And even if it is "illegal", the illegality is of no consequence because no one will be punished for killing Qaddafi.
If Qaddafi is killed, people will say that the killing was illegal. So to the extent one is in the thrall of the Power of Saying So, that's something, I suppose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's an executive order that bans assignation. Since it's just an EO it can be reversed by another EO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBill Clinton would never have issued an EO banning assignation. Assassination maybe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think someone tampered with their copy of "Congressional Testimony for Dummies". Isn't "regime change" usually the euphemism for assassination instead of the other way around?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the money-quote....
"The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls"
I'm sure that this will be an "international coalition", acting on the explicit authority provided by a UN Resolution, right?
Will we hear the usual suspects demanding war crimes prosecution for a US president that is acting outside the confines of international law and especially against the mandate of the United Nations?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt could be a sticky legal issue...if we were trying to kill the prime minister of Finland.
Qaddafi isn't. He ordered the murder of passengers over Lockerbie, so he cannot expect to be protected by that old Carterism. After Lockerbie, heck, after those disco bombings in Germany, such a "leader" should consider every moment borrowed time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince when is assassination hostile?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseso we are now allowed to assassinate heads of state? Whenever civilain leaders are in the "chain of command" they can be killed however we choose?
Good to know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter reading John Rosenthals article yesterday on NRO External Link
I have to wonder if we should be killing the rebels instead. It becomes increasingly clear to me that we are governed by cowards and fools.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm curious as to how much of that briefing was classified? Or 'For Official Use Only'?
It sounds like the illustrious congresscritter from Ohio just violated security. I really don't care whose side benefits politically - I just want folks to stop talking about things they aren't supposed to. [sigh]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseREGIME CHANGE? Killing Qaddafi is no regime change! The defectors have been in Qaddafi's regime and held the actual powers for 42 years! Let us stop lying to ourselves. The defectors who now constitute the regime leadership are simply running away from the wrath of the common Libyan man and woman and this they've done wisely: by leading the rebels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse