The continued US involvement in NATO’s aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia violates both the Constitution of the United States and the 1973 War Powers Resolution and could land President Bill Clinton in legal trouble, according to legal experts.

Lawyers Michael Ratner and Jules Lobel used this argument in representing Republican Representative Tom Campbell of California who this week brought a lawsuit against Clinton. A hearing for the case, Campbell v. Clinton, is expected to begin in Washington in June.

“There’s no question that he’s in violation of the War Powers Resolution,” Ratner said of Clinton. “Twenty years ago, that would have been treated as definitely impeachable.”

Under the resolution, passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, no president can use US troops without Congress’s explicit authorisation for more than a 60-day period.

The only cases where the use of force can continue, according to the resolution, are if Congress “has declared war or has enacted a specific authorisation”, has extended the 60-day period or is “physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.”

None of those conditions applied in the case of the conflict over Kosovo, the lawyers argued. “The imperial presidency has reappeared with a vengeance,” they said.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) attacks on Yugoslavia, which began Mar. 24, involved US forces from the outset and had gone on for “60 days plus 48 hours” without the appropriate authorisation, Campbell argued Wednesday.

Clinton and the heads of the other 18 governments in NATO have refused to admit that they are even at war with Yugoslavia over Kosovo. “Legally, there have been no wars (in Europe) since 1945,” a British Foreign Office spokesman said this week, noting that neither Belgrade nor NATO had declared war.

But some politicians have let slip the idea that the air strikes are in fact part of a war.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons recently, “Obviously, with the war on, I haven’t been able to attend two or three Cabinet meetings” – a statement which his advisers quickly labelled a slip of the tongue.

“I don’t think it’s significant what they call it,” Ratner countered. “When you have hostilities of a large magnitude and long duration … under any set of circumstances, that is war.”

In any case, he told IPS, the War Powers Resolution simply refers to the use of US forces in “hostilities,” which he said was clearly the case in the daily bombing of Yugoslavia.

Clinton could have had political cover from Congress for the US involvement in the strikes, but failed to get it April 28 when the House of Representatives deadlocked, 213-213 in a vote to approve the air strikes. On the same day, the House overwhelmingly refused to authorise war against Belgrade.

The defeat occurred even though House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, supported the actions of the Democratic president.

Only 26 of the Republicans, who control majorities in both houses of Congress, joined Democrats in approving the air strikes, while the remainder – led by vociferous Clinton opponent Tom DeLay of Texas – voted against them.

Under the War Powers Resolution, Clinton therefore was obliged to “terminate any use” of US troops, Ratner contended.

Yet there are few signs that the White House will do anything of the sort, with NATO forces having stepped up attacks on Yugoslavia – including strikes on the country’s water supply and electrical power grids – in recent days.