A Letter to Congressman Scott Rigell

Dear Congressman Rigell:

President Obama has launched our country into an unprovoked war with Libya without consulting Congress or explaining his actions to the American people. Now we are involved in three simultaneous and perpetual wars with Islamic nations.

As others have said (including previous statements by Vice President Biden), this is an impeachable offense. Is there any end to this war mongering madness? Obviously, this war will turn out to be a repeat of the still ongoing Iraq war, regardless of claims to the contrary.

I find it disturbing that your website makes no mention of this, when it should be front page headlines. Now it is time to take a stand and decide whether we live in a dictatorship or a republic. If we still have a republic, it is imperative that you draft articles of impeachment and start immediate hearings. If you want a dictatorship, then no action is necessary.

Sincerely,

Larry E. Bavry
Editor, ThePrimeDirective.net

Update on Monday, March 28, 2011 at 10:38PM by Editor

Just to remind you, here is what Joe Biden thinks.

Update on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 12:01PM by Editor

Shortly after this article was posted, Congressman Rigell posted this article on his blog:

Weekly Blog: Rigell on America’s Engagement in Libya 

Washington, Mar 24 - 

As the U.S. Representative for the Congressional district with the largest concentration of military installations in the world, I am deeply honored to represent so many of our fine men and women in uniform. Time and time again our armed services have answered the call of duty with professionalism and bravery, and their current actions in Libya are no exception. 

So it is with this in mind that I take issue with the President of the United States consultation with the United Nations about military action in Libya, and the lack thereof with his own Congress. International counsel is certainly a wise course of action before military engagement, but this should have been in addition to seeking congressional input prior to the deployment of any U.S. military personnel or capabilities. 

This action by the White House demonstrates the deep need for a spirited and respectful debate about the relationship between the President and Congress and the use of military force. The Constitution states that Congress alone has the authority to declare war, but military acts that could be deemed acts of war are warranted to the President. The War Powers Act attempted to clarify that relationship; however, the fact that the Act remains to this day a point of debate should tell us something. Identifying that proper balance between the President’s ability to act directly and Congress’ oversight role remains elusive.

In the case of Libya, this debate is an absolute must. The President showed no signs that he was forced to act out of urgency, and if he had time to confer with the UN, he certainly had the opportunity to call a joint session of Congress to allow for public debate. 

Furthermore, our national security and American lives were not at risk. This suggests that our action in Libya is for humanitarian, or “nation building” purposes. While this is a noble and important mission, does that reason in and of itself, meet the constitutional threshold for military action and a bypass of America’s legislative branch? This question must be asked in a thoughtful and deliberative way. 

And who are we replacing Ghadhafi with? We need look no further than Egypt and the potential for the Muslim brotherhood to realize that a removal of a dictatorship does not guarantee a better regime in return. Does this forward America’s best interests? 

Although this issue runs the risk of being politicized, I would like to stress that this is not a partisan issue with me – it is a constitutional issue. I have in the past also had serious concerns with prior Republican presidents and their use of military action.  

Our actions in Libya should have commenced with the President calling a joint session of Congress. Once called by the President, the Speaker could call for two days of debate and a potential resolution supporting military engagement. Through this, the President would know, and the world would know, that the American people are with him.

I’m certainly not calling for restrictions on the President’s authority to act without congressional approval when our nation is under attack or the threat is imminent. The President must always possess this power as Commander-in-Chief and I for one do not contend with this Constitutional responsibility incumbent upon him.

However, if Congress is not consulted on actions such as these, it is my duty to raise these constitutional concerns.

Once again, I praise and honor our men and women for this sacrifice they are undertaking and it is on their behalf that I stress the need for a broader discussion on our current actions in Libya.  We need to honor the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution by being willing to respectfully debate this critical topic. Their devotion, bravery, and commitment demand from us nothing less

Update on Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 6:08PM by Editor

Rep. Charlie Rangel weighs in on the issue: