By Cliff Kincaid

In a modern military version of the old saying, "The end justifies the means," commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have hailed the U.S. military "victory" over the Serbs. On Fox News Sunday on June 6, Brit Hume said it was "quite a triumph for President Clinton." Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard said Clinton deserves credit. He "stuck with the bombing and it seems to have worked," he said. Mara Liasson of National Public Radio said Republicans not willing to give president credit "look like they’re not happy that U.S. won a victory." Juan Williams of the Washington Post said he saluted president Clinton and that there was a "happy ending" to the war.

A happy ending when thousands have been killed by NATO and probably less than half the refugees will ever return home? Those were the comments of a group of inside-the-beltway commentators who seem to have no feeling for those caught up in a brutal war. Fred Barnes actually criticized the media for giving too much attention to the civilian casualties that resulted from the bombing.

In addition to the dead and wounded, none of the Fox Sunday panelists mentioned the legal implications of what has happened. Many experts say that Clinton violated U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, and international law by conducting this war. Although Slobodan Milosevic has been indicted by a U.N. tribunal, a legal complaint against Clinton and other NATO leaders is pending with the same court.

In addition to that serious legal action, a federal lawsuit filed by over 20 members of Congress against Clinton over violations of the War Powers Act was about to be heard when the peace deal was announced. The case appeared to be solid, based on the fact that Clinton had continued the bombing campaign past the time when he was authorized to do so. But the federal judge hearing the case will probably dismiss the suit now that a deal has been announced.

The indifference to these legal problems will undoubtedly carry over to coverage of the international security force that will go into Kosovo. No commentators have questioned how the 7,000 U.S. troops committed to the force can legally report to the British commander, Lt. General Michael Jackson, who will reportedly be in charge. A lawsuit is already pending over the courtmartial of an Army Specialist, Michael New, for failing to wear a U.N. uniform and report to a foreign comamnder in Macedonia.

The Constitution requires that top U.S. officials, including cabinet officers, Ambassadors, and military commanders, be approved for their posts by the U.S. Senate. The president has evaded this requirement in the past by giving some officials recess appointments. These include Bill Lann Lee for the post of civil rights chief in the Justice Department and openly gay James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg. In the case of our military, Clinton appears to be directing them to serve under foreign commanders on the basis of a secret presidential decision directive on U.S. involvement in peacekeeping operations. Clinton issued that directive back in 1994 and the Congress hasn’t yet been provided with a copy.