I am a current 22 year old Connecticut resident and have lived in Connecticut for nearly my entire life. I am currently attending community college for Criminal Justice. As of lately, however, I feel unsure about this decision. While I believe there will always be a place for criminal justice, I feel this field has become drunk with power following September 11, but this is not the focus of why I am writing to you. I am writing on behalf of many friends and family members who are both civilian and military, along with myself. We are incredibly concerned with President Obamas' recent decision to attack Libya, and I am demanding an answer to the questions I pose here. I understand that President Obama has stated this is not a war and we are not deploying ground troops. Regardless of what the President says, I have a few questions. Firstly, how does Washington define "war?” Is it simply the actions of two or more nations attacking each other and declaring war? Is it an assault on a nations military?
From what I’ve read and seen, the US and its’ coalition have launched missiles into Libya and deployed aircraft for bombing sorties, and the UK has deployed the SAS into Libya. If attacking and destroying a nations military complexes, vehicles, and personnel does not constitute an act of war, then what exactly IS war? These attacks, unfortunately, have claimed the lives of several civilians in Libya as well as injured numerous amounts of others; despite how accurate the military may try to keep these bombings. If any country were to purposely inflict harm against America, we would surely consider the harm an act of war and thus retaliate. How is it, then, that our President is allowed to commence these attacks against Libya’s military and still claim this is not a war? Simply because it is under the guise of protecting civilians? If we are so concerned about the loss of life, why has the government vehemently refused to take a second look into the September 11 attacks, despite the discovery of new irrefutable evidence, which contradicts the official report?
The imposition of this no-fly zone over the entire country of Libya, I feel, is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Is the President so bold as to suggest such action because he is a prominent figure in the UN?
I have one question I would sincerely like you to take time and elaborate on an answer for me, if you will. How is President Obama able to completely bypass Congress for committing Americas resources and the use of military force in a foreign nation? What, if anything, is actively being done to question and investigate the legality of the Presidents actions? And if not, for what reasons? If the President is able to completely bypass Congress for military action and run to the UN for permission, then I believe our government needs to rework its systems of checks and balances. This leaves an incredible amount of power in one mans control. I feel America has recently been abusing its status as a global superpower.
America still somehow retains the image of standing for justice, but Congressman, where is the justice in the actions of our military posing with murdered civilians for a picture? Where is the justice for an illegal war in Iraq, after it has been proven that Iraq was neither responsible for 9/11 nor possessed weapons of mass destruction? Where is the justice for the prisoners who were abused in prisons which were to be held unaccountable to the United States, despite being run by our military? And where, Congressman, is the justice for the American people who are being robbed blind to pay for these illegal wars, for the murder of men, women, and children, while corporate fat cats are lining their pockets with gold? Tell me, with America’s debt bubble near bursting, how can we afford to continue spending money on military action which is completely irrelevant to the interest and security of our nation? I do not intend for these questions to be an attack on our nations ability to lead, but please understand that, being a lower class citizen, these issues are incredibly pressing to my family and I. Are the Presidents recent actions truly in Americas’ best interests?
Sincerely,
THIS WAS CONGRESSMAN LARSON'S RESPONSE:
Dear David,
Thank you for contacting me about the unrest in Libya. The anti-government protests that broke out in Libya on February 15th are the latest in a broader movement across that region where citizens are demanding a representative government. I am heartened to see this call for democracy by people who have been repressed by their rulers for so many years. At the same time, we have spent nearly a decade bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and further military involvement in the Middle East is extremely concerning. I would like to share with you an Op-Ed on this topic that I published on CNN.com.
Obama should have given Congress more say on Libya March 22, 2011|By John B. Larson, Special to CNN
It's a story we've heard many times before. An African nation is in revolt against a brutal dictator, who is using his military to attempt to crush the uprising. However, this time, the war in Libya is front-page news in America because our military, and our international allies, are actively engaged in combat to try to end the violence.
There is no question -- Col. Moammar Gadhafi is committing atrocious acts of violence against his own people. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be commended for working with the United Nations and our allies to shape a strong international response.
With that said, I am very concerned that the president committed America's military to operations in the region without true consultation with the Congress. Call this what they will, we are waging war -- while still engaged on two other fronts -- which will likely require substantial resources over a long period of time.
Following the Vietnam War, Congress adopted the War Powers Act to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces in the absence of congressional approval.
While I understand the president is acting within the letter of the law, I stand by the intent of that act: "To insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities."
I know the administration conferred with congressional leaders from both parties -- and I am gratified by that -- but I feel strongly that, as an equal branch of government that was clearly intended by our Founding Fathers to be involved in decisions on the use of military force, the full Congress should have been more informed and involved in this decision.
Given our current fiscal constraints, and our military's current responsibilities, this decision truly deserved -- and still deserves -- a robust debate about questions such as:
-- What is our mission? -- How long will the mission take? -- What is our exit strategy? -- What is the cost? -- And why Libya, but not the Ivory Coast, or other conflicts around the globe?
I know President Obama has thought those questions through, and I know he can answer them. I know he didn't take this action lightly. He consulted with our military leaders and the international community. Duly elected representatives of the American people need to be consulted as well. His responsibility to the nation is to justify why this action was necessary and what the scope will be. As a Congress that represents the nation, we can't commit these resources without an explanation.
Make no mistake. I am an ardent supporter of President Obama. It's the Constitution, however, that lays out the importance of consultation with the people's House. And I believe that using our military against another nation, even a brutal regime like Gadhafi's, requires that Congress both be informed and exercise our constitutional authority.
I have called for the president to come before Congress, and I sincerely hope he responds.
I will closely monitor the situation in Libya as events continue to unfold. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.
