Categorized | News


Who said this:

“But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.”

And this:

“In this broad context, if the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a Congressional debate on a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,”

Cong. Ron Paul?  His son, Senator Rand Paul?  Senator Richard Lugar?  Any Democrat?

The answer is Senator Lugar!  Yes, believe it – it’s in this article!  Thanks to the Indiana Tea Party patriots and sovereignty/liberty activists challenging the senator in 2012.  Ron Paul, who all the in-the-know Republicans laughed to scorn in 2007 and 2008 when he said you need a declaration of war to attack another nation, is right again.

Britain, France and Lebanon led the UN effort to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.  The UK may now act militarily, according to this article (thanks ConservativeHome!) and so might the US.  (President Obama said no troops for now.)

There’s one small problem – well actually two:  Who authorized the UN to declare war on a nation during a civil war?  Second question:  Where’s the authorization from Congress?  Not even one of those recent “Give the President authority” resolutions.  Make no mistake:  military action is war.  It’s an attack on a nation that did not attack us.  I do not in any way condone Libya or its leader.  But he was reaccepted back into the community of nations when he came clean about his weapons and renounced terrorism.  We have no present quarrel with Libya; Qaddafi ought to be put on trial in the US for the Lockerbie bombing but he has not even been indicted on that yet.  War means the Libyan government can capture and kill invading/attacking armies.

NRO’s editorial calling for intervention says this:

We should establish both a no-fly zone and a no-drive zone in the approach to the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi to prevent Qaddafi’s armored vehicles from entering the city. The no-fly zone is unlikely to tip the military balance in itself, but Qaddafi’s air force has been a factor in his fight against the rebels. Coupling a no-fly zone with an effort to stop his advance on the ground should save Benghazi and allow the rebels time to recoup.

This is a call for war.  How long would our intervention continue?  What is the exit strategy?  Since we broke Libya, we’d have to fix it.  While potholes eat hubcaps in Richmond and schools continue to lag behind, taxpayers will rebuild Libya.  Never mind trillions in debt.  NRO also shreds the Constitution:

We should consider the request by the rebels and the Arab League all the authorization we need, and assemble a coalition of the willing that should include as much Arab cooperation as possible.

All the authorization we need?  The Constitution says the Congress shall declare war.  While I agree occasional, limited military strikes in imminent defense of American interests are justified under the Command in Chief clause, I do not agree that intervention is justified here in a civil war between two dubious groups.  This dissent by Andrew C. McCarthy is thorough in its criticism:

I appreciate that it is hard to say, “Butt out.” Qaddafi is a monster and his opposition is murky enough (for now) to be portrayed as “rebels” and “freedom fighters.” But I fear we’re being swept away by emotion and by what we should now know is the vain hope that making sacrifices for besieged Muslims is going to make the ummah like us better. It is essential to attack Islamic terrorists who plot against America, but our humanitarian military efforts in the Islamic world have been a disaster — at staggering costs in lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t have. We should be working on how to get the nation disentangled from Islamic countries, not leading the nation headlong into another conflict that we cannot win. With great respect, I believe the editorial is profoundly mistaken.

NRO is not the only so-called conservative calling for intervention.  So is Senator Lindsey Graham:

Asked what he learned from the briefing, Graham said, “I learned that it’s not too late, that the opposition forces are under siege but they are holding, and that with a timely intervention, a no-fly zone and no-drive zone, we can turn this thing around.”

Asked exactly what the first wave of attacks would look like, Graham said, “We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces.”

He also said there cannot be 535 Commander in Chiefs but rather one!  But it sounds like Senator Graham is Commander in Chief!

“They have my authorization. You can’t have 535 commander in chiefs,” Graham said. “I would like to have a vote in the floor when we get back saying they did the right thing. But that shouldn’t restrict the president from taking timely action.”

Thankfully, there are others who said no.  Here is a voice in the MSM (Time), and Cong. Michele Bachmann also opposes intervention.  Perhaps this will bring the Ron Paul followers and the Tea Party together.  Fight spending and fight for liberty and sovereignty.  That would be a political coalition that can win.  But for now, intervention is war.  Let’s not go there.






About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!