No-Fly Won't Fly Constitutionally

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1837:no-
fly-wont-fly-constitutionally&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

No-Fly Won't Fly Constitutionally        

Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in 
Libya.  Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, 
pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we 
could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime.  Let us be clear 
about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of 
Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya.  Establishing any kind of 
military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing 
troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-
aircraft systems.  The administration has stated that nothing is off the 
table as they discuss US responses to the unrest.  This sort of talk is 
alarming on so many levels.  Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the 
table?  Apparently so.  

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter 
of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the 
sole authority to declare war.  This week I will introduce a concurrent 
resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that 
Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming 
how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though 
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist.  Frankly, it is not 
up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” 
zones, or send troops.  At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.  
Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too 
much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in 
hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by 
the rebels.  This is not our fight.  If the administration wants to make it 
our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote.  I 
would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed. 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests 
of the American people.  Again, we have not been attacked.  Whatever we may 
think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in 
Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country.  Neither the 
coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and 
therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none 
of our business.  How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a 
dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and 
defend the Constitution?  We must also understand that our intervention will 
undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya.  
Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and 
further radicalize people in the region against us.  These are terrible 
reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

Finally we need to consider the economic cost.  We don’t have the money for 
more military interventions overseas.  We don’t have the money for our 
current military interventions overseas.  We have to rely on the Fed’s 
printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars.  
That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in 
Libya’s civil war. 

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot