The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama: Crimes Foreign, and Domestic (Pt. 1)

PART I: Crimes Foreign

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4, U.S. Constitution 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”—Presidential Oath of Office 

The case for the impeachment of President Barack Obama is an extensive one. While many lesser arguments exist in addition to those detailed in this two-part feature, we have chosen to focus on the most egregious offenses. We begin with his unconstitutional use of US military forces without Congressional approval. We’ll look at Syria and Benghazi and then finish with the president’s drone attacks.

Libya

Despite warnings from members of Congress, President Obama involved the U.S. in a military operation to oust former Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi in the spring of 2011. Obama engaged U.S. forces in this NATO effort to oust the Libyan dictator without any consent from Congress. Many of the very rebel forces which the U.S. armed and aided were actually anti-American Muslim extremists.

Defenders of the president evoked the War Powers Act, which allows for the POTUS to mobilize the military without congressional approval if a direct threat to U.S. national security is present. However, the President refused to classify U.S. planes firing missiles into major cities as acts of war.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) derided the president’s Libyan military adventure in an op-ed to The Washington Times. Paul wrote that Obama had usurped Congress, violated the War Powers Act and squandered over $700 million of tax payer money by involving the US in an undefined, unchecked war. The junior senator from Kentucky concluded that since the conditions for evoking the War Powers Act were absent, the president had no authority to take the actions he had taken and Paul demanded an explanation.

“Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict. That deadline has come and gone, and only last night did Mr. Obama belatedly begin providing Congress and the American people with answers. The mission in Libya does not comply with the requirements outlined in the War Powers Act. Therefore, I demand an explanation.”—Rand Paul

Obama himself agreed with Senator Paul on this issue—at least he did in 2007 when he was running for president and chastising Bush-era foreign policy. “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” then-Senator Obama stated plainly.

The anti-war, constitutional scholar of 2007 seems far removed from the man who presides over the office currently.

Obama knew he could not use the War Powers Act as justification because a case could not be made that a direct threat to the US existed in Libya. Evoking the WPA would also necessitate that his actions be reviewed by Congress. The usurpation of congressional authority alone is a crime, as congress possesses sole authority to declare war. The President simply refused to acknowledge that military involvement in an active civil war was actually a war.

Even some staunch Democrats were surprised and expressed opposition to the actions Obama unilaterally took in Libya. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) rightly described the president’s actions as illegal and said he hoped members of Congress were looking into whether the matter was an impeachable offense.

The ousting of Gadhafi had a considerable destabilizing effect on the country. More than two years later violence continues to plague the country.  The resulting hotbed of unrest also set the stage for Obama’s biggest foreign scandal: the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the resulting cover-up.

Benghazi

On September 11^th, 2012 a mob formed outside the U.S. consulate in Libya. That crowd eventually overtook the consulate, resulting in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens.  Stephens, along with information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were brutally murdered.

The violence was savage; Ambassador Stephens was tortured and sodomized before being left for dead by the crowd. The incident brought immediate criticism of the administration’s security policies, as critics saw the attack as blowback; a harvest Obama had sown a year earlier by involving the U.S. in the effort to overthrow Colonel Gadhafi.

Initially, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the crowd in Benghazi had been a reaction to a protest in Cairo over an obscure anti-Islam internet video. Rice was succinct: This was a reactionary event linked to an internet video, and it was not premeditated nor was it related to U.S. policy.

Her statements were in direct contradiction Libyan officials and would later be further undermined by whistleblower Gregory Hicks, deputy to Ambassador Stephens.

We now know that the original briefs from the CIA were rewritten 12 times by the White House, removing any language related to terrorism, prior to their dissemination to Congress and Ambassador Rice prior to her appearances on Sunday talk shows that weekend.

The al Qaeda flag was reported to be flying all across the region in the weeks leading up to the attacks.

Video- Susan Rice on ABC

The speculation is that in order to shield themselves from culpability and to deter criticisms of their Middle East policies, the Obama administration misled the American public over the cause of the incident, initially laying the blame on the obscure internet video.

Representatives Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) accused Obama of misleading the public over the events due to his concern about his reelection.

Evidence suggests even more serious ulterior motives exist.

Rumors began to spread that CIA operatives were using the U.S. consulate in Libya as base of operations for running arms to Syrian rebels. The rumors were verified by CNN through anonymous agency sources.  It is now know that weapons sent to Libya by the US were then smuggled to Syrian opposition fighters.

Senator Rand Paul grilled then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the State Department’s handling of the events, and over arms dealing accusations during a Senate committee hearing concerning the attack. When pressed about whether the attack was the result of a protest or not, Clinton became noticeably irate and snapped, “what difference does it make?”

Video Senator Paul grills Secretary Clinton

The administration was forced on the defensive, suggesting they never truly blamed the incident on the internet video. But statements from Susan Rice and White House spokesman Jay Carney clearly attempted to do just that.

 “We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” –Jay Carney September 14^th, 2012

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.” –Susan Rice, CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley” September 16^th, 2012

“Our belief, based on the information we have, is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.” -Carney September 18^th, 2012

Those talking points were widely disseminated by Rice and others the weekend which followed. She made rounds on television talk shows to repeat that the U.S. had no evidence this was a planned attack and believed an internet video attacking the prophet Muhammad had sparked the violence.

Video Clinton: “What difference does it make?”

In addition to obscuring the cause of the attack which left four Americans dead, the administration has had to answer tough questions about additional security measures that weren’t taken. Also they had to respond to allegations that Navy Seals were ordered to stand down and not respond when the crowd overtook the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.  Numerous requests for additional security were made to the State Department but were not responded to, says a report by the Department’s own accountability board.

Gregory Hicks, Stephens’s Deputy who took charge of the Libyan mission after the ambassador went missing, claims that a team of Special Forces were ready to deploy to the aid of the besieged consulate when they were told not to by SOCAFRICA.  No U.S. forces came to help as militants with AK-47’s and grenade launchers penetrated the consulate.

Why was permission refused to U.S. Special Forces to respond? Who was directing and facilitating the smuggling of US arms from Libya to Syria?

One thing is for sure, the cover-up has been directed by the White House, as is evident from their repeated rewriting of CIA talking points.  The smuggling of those arms to Syria was being done without approval or oversight from Congress, which is illegal.

House members have charged that the Obama administration has obstructed investigation into the attack, leaving us with unanswered questions two years later.  The coordinated effort from Carney, Rice and Clinton to obscure the truth of this matter must have been directed from above.

Parents of the victims took to Capitol Hill to testify in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Democrats walked out on them, refusing to provide an audience to accusations of the administration’s lying.

Video- Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith (killed in Benghazi) says Obama, Clinton lied to her: 

Syria

With the mess in Libya still under a microscope, the administration prepared for a rerun in Syria.

In 2012, calls for US intervention were sounded by lawmakers like Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) even before it became known that U.S. weapons were already finding their way into that conflict. Hawks on both sides of the aisle championed the Syrian rebellion as the next popular cause to support in the Middle East. The Benghazi attack deflated some of the calls for further intervention in the region however.

As the civil war grew bloodier, the Obama administration decided they wanted to openly support the rebels fighting to oust Syrian President Bashar al Assad by firing surgical strikes.

Support of Syrian rebels violates international and domestic law.

U.S. law forbids the support of any factions with links to terrorist groups. Because factions of the Syrian rebels have been tied to al Qaeda and other radical groups. President Obama had to waive this law to proceed with arming the rebels.

In a joint press conference with British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu stated that “International law does not allow, does not permit supplies of arms to non-governmental actors and in our point of view it is a violation of international law.”

After nearly a year of debate over US involvement in Syria, in what seemed like a repeat of Libya, the President announced he had decided that the US would take military action to help oust Assad. This time, Congress and the American people answered with a resounding refusal. The public had grown weary of war and soured on another no-win Middle East intervention.

Though the march to war may have been deterred, the President made clear that he believed he had the authority to authorize military strikes without Congressional approval, as he did in Libya. Such authority does not exist and any act of military aggression without Congressional approval is unconstitutional and thus illegal.

The president continues to push the envelope of legality when it comes to foreign policy.

Syria and Libya are linked not just by the weapons which were smuggled through Benghazi to Syrian rebels, but also by the manner in which President Obama has handled both civil wars. In both instances he has maintained his authority to engage in these conflicts without Congressional consent. While he did seek out Congressional approval in Syria, he made it clear he did not believe he had to.

Video: Obama announces intent in Syria

Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia

President Obama has continued the covert and illegal drone war which began during President George W. Bush’s tenure. Operating without Congressional approval or oversight, and against the wishes of the Pakistani government, the Obama administration is violating both international and domestic law. Ben Emmerson, U.N. special reporter on counterterrorism and human rights, stated last May that US drone bombing in Pakistan without that government’s approval was in fact a violation of international law.

In addition to illegal strikes against foreign combatants, president Obama has authorized the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process. 

Anwar al Alwaki and his 16-year-old son were both targeted and killed with drone strikes. Additionally, the White House has now admitted to killing four other American citizens with drones.

American citizens are guaranteed due process under the Constitution; they cannot be executed without being charged, tried and convicted.  This right to due process is paramount to American liberties. Obama’s assertion that he can have Americans killed without any due process sets a chilling precedent.

The White House assertion on this matter, and the insinuation that they could use drones to target Americans even on US soil is what spurred a historic filibuster by Senator Rand Paul and changed public opinion on drone warfare nearly overnight.

Another unsettling fact from Obama’s covert, illegal war in Pakistan is the high amount of civilian casualties. Collateral damage exists in all military action. But the blame falls squarely on the president for the continued authorization of illegal activity which has resulted in a high amount of civilian casualties.

As of May of this year, Obama had bombed Pakistan 301 times, as this Slate map illustrates.

Obama has also illegally bombed Yemen, with both air and drone strikes. The ongoing covert war was considerably ramped up by the president in 2012. Obama has also continued a secretive drone campaign using intelligence and Special Forces assistance in Somalia.

Obama’s actions in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have been committed without proper Congressional approval or oversight, in each instance violating international and domestic law in the process. He uses the military as his own personal force, engaging in operations regardless of the law, and involves the US in situations likely to cause blowback. Each action alone is grounds for impeachment.

The President’s rhetoric regarding Syria further demonstrates his complete disregard for Congress and the Constitution he swore to uphold. The Founders gave Congress, the people’s representatives, the power to declare war.

The President has no such authority. 

Having an executive with the power to wage war anytime, anywhere for any reason is an antithetical to the notion of a government of free people. If Congress does not reassert its authority on these matters and impeach the president, a dangerous precedent of presidential authority will remain; one where a single man has the power to commit the U.S. to war and to kill her own citizens without due process.

PART 2 COMING SOON “Crimes Domestic”

About the Author: Keith Farrell is a frequent contributor to The Libertarian Republic and founder and president of Spirits of ’76 nonprofit organization.  He graduated with a BA from the University of Connecticut in American Studies and Urban & Community Studies.  Follow him on Facebook.