President Obama was justified in intervening in Libya.

I will take the lack of explanation on my opponents part to assume that she is just outlying contentions. I will start my argument by defining some things my opponent left out. Justified (in accordance to the Merriam-Webster dictionary): to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done This alone wins me the argument, seeing how Obama actually went against the law and by the War Powers Resolution by not issuing a report or getting permission from congress in regards to militarily intervening in Libya. National Security- "National security is the ability to preserve the nation's physical integrity and territory; to maintain its economic relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms; to preserve its nature, institution, and governance from disruption from outside; and to control its borders." *Thinking about national security: defense and foreign policy in a dangerous world.* Nowhere in my definition does it grant lawful reasoning to Obama's decision to intervene in Libya. My contentions are as follows 1) President Obama's acted unconstitutionally The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and, implicitly, the power to decline to do so. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (http://www.loc.gov...) stipulates the president must get congressional approval to send American forces to combat zones beyond a 60-day timeframe. In March, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that seizing control of Libyan airspace would be an act of war. But since establishing the no-fly zone, the Obama administration has not specifically stated that the United States is at war with Libya. "When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress," wrote Representative Justin Amash, a freshman Republican of Michigan, on his Facebook page. "No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution." (http://www.nytimes.com...) So it is justifiable that the President may use military force in events of immediate danger to our country, and according to Amash and many other representatives and otherwise, Libya isn't one of those dangers. Some of these representatives are Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California and Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland. 2) Intervention in Libya is going to lead to more and more American intervention. "We had better get this straight from the beginning, or there is going to be a situation in which war lingers on [in] country after country, situation after situation." stated Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. He couldn't be more right. Hillary Clinton states her piece on the issue, saying "We are supporting a mission through NATO that was very much initiated by European requests, joined by Arab requests," Is using the American military for foreign goals a sufficient lawful reason for intervening in Libya? I don't see how it could possible be in the interests of National Security when the ones asking us to do it in the first place was a handful of foreign nations. This is also going to lead to a snowball effect of unjustifiable use of America's resources. Think if you feed a dog at the table. NO matter the morsel you feed him, he will come back, most likely as soon as he is finished with your first offering, begging for more. Eventually, the dog won't even leave the table, sticking around and agitating for every bite. Is that at all justifiable? To lead American down that road? Our fore fathers would have been ashamed. 3) Libya is of no National Interest/Security to the United States Going against his own reasons for justification by not backing those reasons up, Obama stated in his letter to Congress "Preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the best interest of...national security goals." And what exactly are these interests and goals? This is not to mention his statement during his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007. Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that "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." There is clearly no imminent threat to our nation with the cruelness of Moammar Gadhafi, being that it is within their own borders. While this is sad and not desirable, it isn't the job of the U.S. to step in on solely these grounds, making this unjustified and not in our National interests. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country. *Conclusion* So multiple sources point to Libya being a sad story, but not a danger to the United states. How could the President possibly be justified in issuing military intervention without consent from Congress and without the cause of National Security? If you do consider this justified, then you might as well consider it justified for Obama to spit on the Constitution whenever he felt like helping out our buddies by not going to congress, whether its war or anything else. The intervention in Libya shows America to be the hand that feeds, and is actually going against our national security by using money we don't have on something we don't need. I would have continued further on all my points, but I am trying to keep this simple for everyone. I await Pro's response, hopefully more detailed and intellectually put together.