Uh, there will never be an authorization from the UN to use force against Syria because of Russia's veto power. There will be no mandate from the UN.

If there is to be intervention, and it unfortunately looks inevitable now, it will only come as a result of what national leaders decide. In effect, that means Obama and maybe Hollande. In the absence of a UN resolution I bet Obama will use some declaration by the Arab League as justification for whatever kind of strike he decides on. Not the US Congress as the Constitution demands, of course. No, that's absurd. Why bother following the Constitution when you know there will be no political or legal consequences for your blatantly ignoring it?

I mean: the UN report on the attacks, not the security council vote necessarily, although that interests me as well, but only after the report.

They won't get a UN resolution, but if they wait and the inspectors' report says what they think it will say, they may have an easier time building a "coalition of the willing".

Invictus...War Powers Act...the President has the authority to use military force without Congress approving it, for a limited period of time. I'm not saying I like it or that it's a good thing...but it's not a violation of the constitution for the Commander in Chief to use military power.

@Krellin - I just said that same thing in another thread.

Lol War Powers Act...

"So guys, hey, come up... yeah come up here, listen, so ehm.. I sort of started without you, what do you think?" :D

France, and the UK may be central to making this an 'international' coalition; but the big local ally is Turkey - read some of what the Turkish press are saying about this intervention. Large border with Syria, massive concerns over security and Kurdish rebels who they're just about making peace with... And meanwhile US action will almost certainly use bases in Turkey to launch from.

The UN report, is great, lots of talking; Turkey has an actual interest in the action. Syrian chemical weapons could be used against Turkey in the coming weeks, so they are currently distributing gas masks.

There is no rush from the UK, it's been two years of the international community doing nothing, of Russia/China preventing UN action (China for their own reasons, and Russia to protect it's ally) now suddenly they want to do something because they think that chemical weapons means they have to, or they will manage to end this war quickly and the public will support them... It is in some ways a turning point for the UK. BUT Cameron didn't just rush into action, he just asked the parliament for permission to act once they had evidence, but at this stage waiting for the evidence seems like it is just a formality - troops are being put in place, military actions is being readied.

The final decision may wait for 'proof' or at least the inspectors getting out of the country, but it looks like it's going to happen now regardless of what the inspectors report.

"All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations"

it is not really a power of congress if they can't enforce it...

Obama ignored the War Powers Act in Libya. Why should we expect different now?

And no law can change the president's Constitutional powers. Unless he is responding to an attack or imminent attack he needs Congressional authorization to use force. Period. The intervention in Syria is not in response to attack or preemption of an imminent attack, so he needs to go to Congress. But he won't. And he'll face no sanction. And it will be clear, once and for all, that there are no longer any limits on an American president's ability to wage war at his discretion. This is a travesty.

@Invictus,
First off, I agree with you that the War Powers Act is an atrocious abdication of Congress's responsibility to serve as a check and balance on executive authority.

However, the War Powers Act does grant the president the authority to carry out military action for up to 60 days with an additional 30 day withdrawal period, subject to notifying Congress of the action within 48 hours.

You're correct that it does require, "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The real problem is that multiple presidents have set precedent that expands this definition by categorizing an attack on vital US interests as an attack on the United States. I find this precedent egregious, and think that Congress both could and should change this by passing a law defining an attack as only an attack on US territories, possessions, or military, NOT on economic, political, or humanitarian interests.

Lastly, @ora, Congress COULD take action over violations of the War Powers Act... but I'm pretty sure that so doing would require Congress suing the president before the Supreme Court. They've traditionally been afraid to do that because they're afraid SCOTUS would side with the executive, giving a much stronger mandate to the president. Thus, they've traditionally been content to use it merely as a bargaining chip.

Huh... I'm wrong. Members of Congress *did* sue over violations of the War Powers Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Clinton

DC district court ruled that it was a political question not a legal one, and thus that the court had no jurisdiction.

I actually don't find the idea that an attack on American interests as the basis for presidential action egregious. For example, we have no formal treaty obligations to Israel. If a foreign army were at the outskirts of Tel Aviv I think it's entirely appropriate for the United States to use force, and the need for speed in a situation like that would preclude Congress getting involved. I wouldn't dismiss economic interests either. What if a state or terrorist group destroyed Nigeria's ability to produce oil? Again, no treaty relationship exists but it's hard to say that that wouldn't be a serious attack on American interests, since we get a significant amount of our oil from West Africa.

You're simply putting too much emphasis on the War Powers Act. It's likely unconstitutional, for one. A statute cannot change the constitutional powers of the presidency, and the president cannot launch a war without Congress' approval unless it is in response to an attack or imminent attack. Syria has not attacked us or our allies or interests and shows no signs of getting ready to, so Obama must get Congressional authorization if he wants to go in. Bush did this in Iraq, and even got supererogatory authorization to go into Afghanistan.

Keep in mind I'm just saying exactly what the candidate Obama himself said in 2008.

@Invictus,
Without the War Powers Act, the constitution is generally read to give the president unlimited discretion to use the military as he sees fit, provided he frames it as a police action rather than as a war. Korea and Vietnam, for example, were never declared wars.

I think you're reading the War Powers Act wrong. It doesn't expand the powers of the president; it limits them.

No, you're the one who's wrong here. Vietnam was authorized by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Korea was authorized by an UN resolution, an improper method under the Constitution and even under the UN Charter (since states are supposed to follow domestic constitutional procedures when it comes to using forced under a UN mandate), but since Congress continued to provide funding it was deemed to be authorized after the fact.

The War Powers Act is not this hugely important thing you think it is. It is just a statute it CANNOT limit the president's constitutional powers. It just provides some formal procedures to keep Congress informed on the conduct of a war. It is not the issue here.

Obama needs to get authorization from Congress if he wants to go into Syria. Since Syria has not and is not about to attack us his office does not have the power to launch a war without the authorization from Congress. But he won't, and he will pay no political or legal price for it. Our the American presidency has finally become what it's been steadily evolving into since the middle of the twentieth century: the Warlord of Earth. One man can now, purely on his own judgement and decision making, use force anywhere around the world wherever he wants. That should trouble everyone.

He'll get a NATO resolution authorizing force, and will treat that as he would have treated a UN resolution. You're entirely right that neither is constitutional, but the UN is what Truman used to qualify Korea as a police action instead of a war.

You're also technically right about Vietnam. the Tonkin Gulf Resolution did authorize it in 1973... 18 years after we sent our troops in and 2 years before we withdrew. So, yeah, one-tenth of the war was authorized.

At any rate, War Powers isn't the big problem. The big problem is Truman's precedent of distinction between a war and a police action under international auspices. I think that's a HUGE stretch of the original powers granted in Article II.

... Oh wait... Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was 1964 not 1973. My error. Still... *half* the time of the war was unauthorized.

@Invictus,
At any rate, I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I think we both read the constitution as requiring congressional approval for the time of thing Obama's contemplating. I think we both dislike what's going on here, and even more so we dislike how it's going on.

I guess where we disagree is on the question of whether this is a new problem.

It is not a new problem. It's just that now not even the motions are being gone through. Libya killed limits on presidential war powers. Obama went in on just a UN resolution, exceeded it, and did not follow the War Powers Act. Every previous president had followed the letter of the act even while claiming it was unconstitutional, the Obama administration ignored it entirely. Now he's getting ready to go in to Syria without a UN resolution (since Russia would veto it) and without getting authorization from Congress, which is what he really needs as a matter of domestic law. If it happens that way, it will be a lawless war and a decision that, looked at in isolation, absolutely ought to get him impeached.

This is the new part, hecks. This war would be illegal both under domestic and international law. Domestic because there is no Congressional authorization, international because there is no UN resolution authorizing force. It's unprecedented. It's dangerous. And it will happen and no one will really make the noise against it they need to.

@Invictus,
In Kosovo, Clinton carried on a bombing campaign in excess of 60 days with only a NATO mandate, no UN mandate and no congressional mandate. Would a NATO mandate satisfy you?

I guess my problem with the War Powers Act is that by attempting to limit the president's ability to wage war without authorization, it tacitly acknowledges that that ability exists in the constitution in the first place, which I'm pretty convinced it doesn't. By trying to rein the excess in, they accidentally legitimized it.

And as far as actions that violate international law, the US has certainly participated in a few of those in recent years. So is your problem that past actions have violated either one or the other, but not both?

No. Why should a military alliance's decision to use force have any weight in international law?

As for Kosovo, it was almost a perfect analog to the current scenario. However, there is now even less international support, less domestic support, and the conflict is not directly related to another one we already go involved in more or less properly (Bosnia).

All that will satisfy me is Obama going to Congress. That applies to any president, past, present, or future.

"So is your problem that past actions have violated either one or the other, but not both?"

My problem is that the likely action in Syria would violate both. I can tolerate going in on a UN resolution without Congressional approval, as bad as that is. I have no real problem with using force somewhere based just on Congressional authorization. After all, the Constitution is what really counts if I have to choose. But having neither is lawless, and I cannot support naked abuse of the rule of law.

Believe it or not, I agree. I don't read anything in Article II that gives the president any power to initiate military intervention, even under international auspices and even when attacked. After Pearl Harbor, a very urgent moment that was perhaps the clearest example of an attack on the US in our history, what did Roosevelt do? He went to Congress and made the Infamy speech asking for authorization to declare war. *That's* how it should be done. You may lose a day or two, but that's constitutional republicanism for you.

And moreover, if Obama had gone to Congress when Syria became an issue two years ago, three things would have happened. 1) We'd have had this conversation *then*, instead of now with a manufactured pretense that the urgency is sudden. and 2) going to a Republican-controlled Congress asking for authorization would have sent the message to Syria that we're serious *far* more effectively than making speeches about red lines. 3) People who really, really didn't want to see a war would have mobilized all possible resources to negotiate a solution. I don't know that a negotiated resolution was possible, but you can bet your ass people would have tried hard to find it.

When you do fuck all for 2 years while 10s of 1000's of people are massacred, rushing to any decision smells of desperation. They are not sending a clear message to Assad that maybe it is time to stop, let's listen to what Syrias neighbours are looking to do, they are more likely to be affected by on-going conflict in the region than the guys on Capitol Hill, why are politicians so rubbish !!

Hillarious...good Liberals arguing for strict interpretation of the Constitution...ohhhh...until it comes to the Commerce clause...which apparently allows the government to do damned near *anything*....lol

Moronic...

The President authorizing use of force in Syria for a limited action is Constitutionally acceptable because he has *not declared war*. it is a police action...you may not like this...but too bad. the Constitution does not prohibit the President from commanding the military....it says that onyl Congress can declare War. These are two separate things, closely related, but disctinctly different

@Krellin,
I've always interpreted that as meaning that Congress says when we fight and the president says how. The whole "Police Action" distinction seems pretty manufactured to me.

Besides, you should be happy. We're good Liberals criticizing Obama. Hooray for us for being so enlightened as to question that same leader whom you yourself have so frequently accused us of following with a blind and slavish devotion.

Are you calling me a liberal? That's... an interesting way to interpret my views. I do schizophrenically switch between textualism and originalism when it comes to constitutional interpretation, but those are both conservative methods.

"The President authorizing use of force in Syria for a limited action is Constitutionally acceptable because he has *not declared war*. it is a police action...you may not like this...but too bad. the Constitution does not prohibit the President from commanding the military....it says that onyl Congress can declare War. These are two separate things, closely related, but disctinctly different"

That's one of the most uninformed things you've written here, krellin. Which is saying something.

For one, you're fetishizing the old, formal "declaration of war" from the 18th and 19th centuries. The Founders did not intent to just let the president run rampant all over the world so long as he didn't say the magic words "declare war." It's been well established for centuries that presidents need authorization from Congress to use force not in response to attack or imminent attack. Jefferson's actions in North Africa, for example.

You also buy into the phoney distinction between "police action" and war. "Police action" was dreamed up by Truman to justify him blatantly ignoring the Constitution and not going to Congress to approve the Korean War. It is not a term that has any weight in law.

The issue here is whether a president lawfully can initiate war absent an attack or imminent attack on the United States, its allies, or interests without Congressional authorization. It's abundantly clear that the president cannot do that legally. It could, and likely will, still happen and nothing will be done to stop or punish it. But that doesn't make it legal and certainly doesn't make it right.

There seems to be a couple things people aren't getting here.

1) Intervention in Syria was never possible two years ago because of Russia.
2) Peace in Syria was never possible two years ago because of Assad.
3) We aren't trying to end it by intervening now. We're trying to show not Assad, but every leader in the world that you do *NOT* fuck with chemical weapons. They were outlawed in the Geneva convention and should never be used again.
4) I would like to see Russia and China try and block a UN Mandate if the team comes back and definitively say he used chemical weapons. That breaks international law, which is the card the both of them have been using against the US (in addition to the sovereignty one). At that point, should there be actual freedom of the press in those countries (not likely) they would start getting heat from their own people as well.
5) Again, we're not trying to end the conflict.

Okay, I stand corrected on the public opinion in China. Apparently, they're all selfish nationalistic assholes.

http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20259993-chinese-wary-of-us-acting-as-policeman-in-syria?lite

If we're not intervening to try and end the conflict then we shouldn't do anything at all. We will own the outcome in Syria the second the first missile hits its target, don't pretend otherwise. Once we're in, we're in for the long haul.

@Viccy

Although in principal I feel that there's such a thing as punitive action, in this conflict, yes, once the first missile hits soil you're in.

12160.info/m/discussion?id=2649739%3ATopic%3A1301676

@Viccy

Although in principal I feel that there's such a thing as punitive action, in this conflict, yes, once the first missile hits soil you're in.

So, you don't believe anything should be done to show other leaders of the world that the use of chemical weapons is not to be tolerated? To show that "hey, next time you're in a war with someone, feel free to use these banned weapons of mass destruction because no one gives a fuck anyways"

Something should be done. Ideally, you'd have a UN resolution that calls on all members to go in and remove Assad and place Syria under international administration as was done in Cambodia. Not likely to happen with Russia wielding a veto, though. Also not likely when only the United States military is physically capable of fighting such a war, and it is unpopular in the region and there is no domestic support for intervention.

We're not choosing between good and bad options in Syria any more. We're choosing between shitty and shittier ones.

"We're not choosing between good and bad options in Syria any more. We're choosing between shitty and shittier ones."

I'm well aware of that. In fact, I wish the US would wait two weeks before striking so it could get a mandate. The problem is that Assad is using this time to reallocate his military units. To schools. To hospitals. To highly concentrated civilian areas. Most likely we've already lost our window of opportunity, so my opinion it would be best to wait for the UN to state that he used chemical weapons and get as much help as possible.

@goldfinger - taking out tanks and aircraft, runways, radar stations... There may be many good targets still available - particularily shooting down and aircraft while in the air (unless he straps civilians to the wings...)

I'm not sure about the objectives of a strike, but I'm not sure if we're going to go as far as shooting down planes. I would imagine we would try to deny Assad the capacity to launch another chemical attack, which would mean weapons stockpiles, launchers etc.