The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 



    Follow Tom


    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.

      War Powers Act Should be Amended to Cover Drones, Libya-Style Wars

      Congress should update and amend the existing War Powers Act (WPA), passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon’s veto, to cover future American military operations relying on drones instead of ground forces. Republican and Democratic House leaders seriously questioned President Obama’s executive order for the war in Libya, but have not followed up with amendments to protect the crucial constitutional role of Congress – and American voters – in future decisions to go to war.

      The Pentagon budget for Libya, submitted by Obama to Congress, included an initial outlay of $713.6 million for “military operations.” The War Powers Act, however, requires the President to terminate any deployment within 60 to 90 days unless authorized by Congress.

      Democrats like John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich were joined by Republicans like Speaker John Boehner, Walter Jones and Ron Paul in opposing the unilateral military action without Congressional approval.

      The Obama team was internally divided in its rationale for the war, and has refused to disclose key internal legal documents. In their view, the War Powers Act applies only where there is “sustained fighting,” an “active exchange of fire with hostile forces,” or the deployment of ground troops. The US interpretation could be applied in present and future wars deploying only drone attacks without troops on the ground.

      The Pentagon’s own budget language for Libya included a plan to “find, fix, track, target and destroy regime forces;” “suppression of enemy air defense;” “occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets;” and the utilization of massive refueling and intelligence assets on behalf o NATO forces.

      The US claim that these military operations were devoted only to the protection of civilians has nothing to do with the requirements of the WPA.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (2)

      Congress as currently composed is not capable of seriously entertaining any policy change which is not a political attack on Obama

      February 5, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Smeloff

      As I understand the WPA, it was intended as an emergency measure designed to allow for military intervention abroad, pending a Congressional Declaration of War. I don't think we need to amend the WPA; "sustained fighting" and "active exchange of fire with hostile forces" seems to cover it all. What we do need is a Congress with enough backbone to enforce what it says. However, it appears that the only ones subject to rigorous enforcement of the laws are the poor, the middle class, the disenfranchised, the minorities, and the vulnerable in our Nation.

      February 17, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterBill Combs
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.