Argument: US intervention is not consistent with other aspects of US law

Firstly, Libya did not attack US soldiers and did not harm US citizens. Given that this is true, then engagement with Libya to begin with goes against the spirit of US law. Given that the situation is not an emergency for the U.S. circumventing congress in order to prosecute the war is incredibly harmful as it undermines one of the core institutions in U.S. democracy.

Further, the use of international organisations such as the UN and NATO to circumvent congress has bad ramifications for the future as in doing this the U.S. government has significantly lowered the burden required to go to war should it wish to do so in the future.

This is problematic because the decision to go to war should never be one that is taken lightly. Should the U.S. wish to go to war again then it might end up in a situation such as Vietnam, the conflict that inspired the creation of the war powers act.1

Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011

Candidate 1: "The intervention was necessary in order to protect US interests in the region

If it can be proved that the intervention was incredibly important to the US for both its own interests as well as for its moral imperative then the US bending the War Power Act can be seen as a legitimate exception to constitutional rules that has to be borne despite the harms such a breach might cause.

Violence and insecurity within the Libyan region would negatively affect US security. Firstly through the fact that poverty and conflict often breed religious radicalism and can often result in terrorism which directly harms the US as the most visible world power. Secondly, the US intervening is necessary to show members of the Middle East and North Africa that it is willing to support the region during a time of taxing transitions from old dictatorships to often weak democracies. Further, it shows that the US is compassionate in that it is unwilling to stand by and allow regions to descend into humanitarian crises.

The intervention also prevented a flood of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia.1 Egypt itself is currently undergoing democratic change and such a crisis might have forced that process backward. Tunisia is undergoing a similar transition and America needs to show support for these countries so that the governments that are established in the future will view America in a positive light.

Finally such an intervention is necessary owing to the role that the US and the people of the US feel that it should take in the world. Standing aside whilst a humanitarian crisis unfolds goes against the ideals that the US stands for. Further, given this revolution is likely seeking a democratic government it seems inconsistent that the US would not help countries aiming to become more like the US. 2,3

Wauquiez , Laurent, ‘Libya/no-fly zone/sanctions/refugees – NATO intervention/Arab reaction’, France in the United States, 8 March 2011,

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011

Text of Obama’s Speech on Libya: “A Responsibility to Act.” NPR.org 28/03/2011"
Candidate 2: "Congress was appropriately and openly consulted

Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future.”1

Further, even if this is not true Obama did consistently consult congress regarding the mission, with Obama’s justification claiming: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff."

Finally, the Senate was also consulted and passed a resolution that condemned the gross and systematic violation of the rights of the Libyan people by Gadaffi. As such, a large portion of the U.S. governing body was consulted by Obama and as such, a small amount of discretion in this area can be tolerated. 2

United States Activities in Libya, p.7,

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011"
Candidate 3: "Humanitarian reasons prompted swift intervention

The US intervention in Libya was necessary because Gadaffi had shown and has shown before that he is willing to kill and abuse citizens en mass in order to preserve his power. The U.S. intervention was necessary in order to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of towns by Gadaffi’s air forces. Such bombing attacks led to significant civilian casualties.1

Following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 the United States placed on itself a moral mandate that ‘never again’ would such massacres be allowed to continue without intervention. Had the uprising been put down, reprisals by Gadaffi would have been swift and likely resulted in many innocents being killed. 2 The United States had to step in.

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TESXT)’ AP/The Huffington Post, 28 March 2011,

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011"
Candidate 4: "The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." 1

As such it is justifiable to say that the conflict in Libya do not amount to legal hostilities. Secondly, the U.S. gave control of the operation in Libya to NATO on April 1st 2011. As such the U.S. government is not in violation of U.S. laws as it is not the U.S. prosecuting hostilities should they be considered to be happening. It is instead NATO doing it. Given that NATO is part of U.S. spending and that NATO commitments require contribution from all member states in some way, the U.S. does not have to justify the engagement in law as the U.S. is not culpable for its participation, NATO is.

Further, whilst regime change was a consequence in Libya, it was not the military objective of the campaign in Libya, which was to simply limit Gadaffi’s ability to use aircraft to visit harm upon his citizens. Regime change was just a happy coincidence that benefitted the people in Libya. As such the conflict did not amount to “hostilities” as U.S. participation in said conflict was incredibly limited. 2

BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011"
Candidate 5: "The US has the authorization of NATO, the UN and has acted in concordance with the mandates that these organisations have put up.

The US does not harm the powers of the US constitution by helping the UN and NATO in this area because the US committed to these organisations with the knowledge that it might have to compromise sometimes in order to fulfil the responsibilities it has taken on within these organisations.

Libya is simply an example of one of these compromises and this does not harm the constitution any further than the US initially did by entering into these agreements and institutions. 1, 2

Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011

Stone, Daniel. “Is the Libya War Legal” The Daily Beast. 22/03/2011"
Candidate 6: "Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy.

Secondly, a UN resolution that allowed the use of air power by countries to protect civilians.1 This means that fears of conflict escalation are unfounded and given that the UN resolution exists, the war powers act is not weakened significantly as it would still mandate a UN resolution to prevent conflict escalation.

Even if the U.S. government sought regime change however, it has moral legitimacy in doing so because of the demand for such changes from a large number of members of the international community.2

Lynch, Colum, ‘Security Council passes resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya’, Turtle Bay Foreign Policy, 17 March 2011,

“War Powers Act.” Cornell University Law School."

Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy.

Secondly, a UN resolution that allowed the use of air power by countries to protect civilians.1 This means that fears of conflict escalation are unfounded and given that the UN resolution exists, the war powers act is not weakened significantly as it would still mandate a UN resolution to prevent conflict escalation.

Even if the U.S. government sought regime change however, it has moral legitimacy in doing so because of the demand for such changes from a large number of members of the international community.2

Lynch, Colum, ‘Security Council passes resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya’, Turtle Bay Foreign Policy, 17 March 2011,

“War Powers Act.” Cornell University Law School.
