State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, whose opinion forms the basis of Obama’s assertion, testified in defense of the Obama Administration's definition of "hostilities," saying that "we are not in hostilities" with Libya because "exposure of our armed forces is limited, there have been no U.S. casualties, no threat of U.S. casualties" and "no exchange of fire with hostile forces."
But as Tea Party Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) pointed out in a Facebook update early Wednesday, under this definition of hostilities, the Obama Administration is actually claiming that it could go as far as dropping a nuclear bomb on Libya, and that would not constitute hostilities:
'Under the President's astonishing and indefensible definition, the United States' dropping a nuclear bomb on Libya would not constitute "hostilities."
Think about that.'
Dropping a nuclear bomb would meet Harold Koh's criteria for not legally putting America in "hostilities" with Libya, as regulated by the War Powers Resolution. Because dropping a nuclear bomb would clearly be an act of hostility, the Obama Administration's definition is obviously unserious.
Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page
