Does POTUS have legal authority to wage war in Syria absent congressional approval?

[JSt0rm]

Without it Obama could only act for 60 days (war powers). What then? I doubt any long term strategic goal could be accomplished in 2 months. That would have been half assing it.

and im sure the gop would of tried to impeach obama.

 

[realibrad]

Without it Obama could only act for 60 days (war powers). What then? I doubt any long term strategic goal could be accomplished in 2 months. That would have been half assing it.

60 bombing would have been quite a lot. It would have been more than enough of a punishment.

 

[realibrad]

and im sure the gop would of tried to impeach obama.

For what? Obama had the authority to take action, just as the ones before did. There is no way they would start that over that action because it would limit them next time.

That is not the point. The point is that Obama had the power and did not act after drawing a red line. This is one of the few mistakes that I believe Obama made. But, for you to say the Republicans blocked him is factually wrong.

 

[HomerJS]

60 bombing would have been quite a lot. It would have been more than enough of a punishment.

The Civil War in Syria was not a direct threat to the US. If we were going to invade a sovereign country and drop bombs the entire country should have been behind it. That includes Congress.

Even though humanitarian conditions did not meet the requirements for Obama to wage war under War Powers Act

 

[JSt0rm]

60 bombing would have been quite a lot. It would have been more than enough of a punishment.

and what if all the generals told obama what they wanted to do and it was longer then 60 days? Should he go with realibrad's armchair generals advice of 60 bombings will get it done?

 

[JSt0rm]

That is not the point. The point is that Obama had the power and did not act after drawing a red line. This is one of the few mistakes that I believe Obama made. But, for you to say the Republicans blocked him is factually wrong.

He did act. He want to congress to get authority to go to war over it. And the republicans didnt do it because black man. Enjoy your dumpster fire party.

 

[HomerJS]

He did act. He want to congress to get authority to go to war over it. And the republicans didnt do it because black man. Enjoy your dumpster fire party.

They didn't do it because Obama requested it. That sums up Republicans in Congress during Obama's terms

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

He did act. He want to congress to get authority to go to war over it. And the republicans didnt do it because black man. Enjoy your dumpster fire party.

Besides that, if he did act via war powers, they'd be complaining just as loudly about further abuses of power.

 

[UNCjigga]

Congress has the authority to declare war, but I believe the President along with joint chiefs reserve the right to execute surgical strikes and other limited engagements (<100 days) without having to formally ask Congress or wait for their approval.

 

[realibrad]

The Civil War in Syria was not a direct threat to the US. If we were going to invade a sovereign country and drop bombs the entire country should have been behind it. That includes Congress.

Even though humanitarian conditions did not meet the requirements for Obama to wage war under War Powers Act

It would have been nice to have congress behind us, but it was not needed. So when someone says the Republicans blocked Obama, that is wrong.

 

[realibrad]

and what if all the generals told obama what they wanted to do and it was longer then 60 days? Should he go with realibrad's armchair generals advice of 60 bombings will get it done?

You are trying to come up with a justification for a statement that is wrong. You said the Republicans blocked Obama. That is not true.

Now, if you want to play hypothetical games, then the Republicans would have to say no to extending our stay there, and that would have been far more damaging to them. So, how likely do you think it is that they would vote to "cut and run"?

 

[realibrad]

He did act. He want to congress to get authority to go to war over it. And the republicans didnt do it because black man. Enjoy your dumpster fire party.

Oh, he did? So what was the response that Obama said would happen when that red line was crossed?

 

[realibrad]

They didn't do it because Obama requested it. That sums up Republicans in Congress during Obama's terms

Yep, which shows they are hypocritical bitches. Sad that it did not get more of a backlash.

 

[realibrad]

Besides that, if he did act via war powers, they'd be complaining just as loudly about further abuses of power.

Maybe, maybe not. If that is the stance, the Obama let Assad stay in power for political reasons which is shitty.

 

[JSt0rm]

Oh, he did? So what was the response that Obama said would happen when that red line was crossed?

We dont know what his response was going to be because it was blocked by congress. Just because obama acts like an adult and didnt drag the country into some shit without congressional approval doesnt mean he didnt act. We should be so lucky to have leaders like that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Maybe, maybe not. If that is the stance, the Obama let Assad stay in power for political reasons which is shitty.

Oh don't give me that. It's not the US's job to be the world police. Obama didn't 'let Assad stay in power', he's just in power. The US can take a stance to step into international affairs like this, but it's not 'on Obama' that he's still in power, any more than it's 'on realibrad' because realibrad didn't go shoot the shithead in the face.

 

[realibrad]

We dont know what his response was going to be because it was blocked by congress. Just because obama acts like an adult and didnt drag the country into some shit without congressional approval doesnt mean he didnt act. We should be so lucky to have leaders like that.

Lol no again. Congress did not block him. He also did not "act" against Assad. Congress voted no to him asking for permission he did not need if he simply wanted to act.

 

[realibrad]

Oh don't give me that. It's not the US's job to be the world police. Obama didn't 'let Assad stay in power', he's just in power. The US can take a stance to step into international affairs like this, but it's not 'on Obama' that he's still in power, any more than it's 'on realibrad' because realibrad didn't go shoot the shithead in the face.

Then Obama should not have drawn a line if he did not want to police the world. As for Assad, Obama is not the sole reason that Assad is still in power, but Obama had the power to do what he said he would do. Obama was the one who wanted to use the threat of action against Assad. His bluff was called and he took no action. Congress did not stop him, Obama stopped himself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Precisely define war.

 

[IronWing]

Congress has the authority to declare war, but I believe the President along with joint chiefs reserve the right to execute surgical strikes and other limited engagements (<100 days) without having to formally ask Congress or wait for their approval.

"Reserve the right" isn't the correct term. They act outside of the Constitution because no President has been impeached over doing so. Even Nixon's "secret" war in Cambodia didn't get him impeached. It goes back the cravenness on the part of Congress.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Then Obama should not have drawn a line if he did not want to police the world. As for Assad, Obama is not the sole reason that Assad is still in power, but Obama had the power to do what he said he would do. Obama was the one who wanted to use the threat of action against Assad. His bluff was called and he took no action. Congress did not stop him, Obama stopped himself.

And it was probably a miscalculated bluff, if he didn't feel like he could/should follow through, but don't try to pin a shit sandwich on Obama when Assad's the one that slapped it together.

 

[realibrad]

And it was probably a miscalculated bluff, if he didn't feel like he could/should follow through, but don't try to pin a shit sandwich on Obama when Assad's the one that slapped it together.

When I try and pin Syria on Obama? J said Republicans blocked Obama, and that is not true. I corrected him, that was all.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

When I try and pin Syria on Obama? J said Republicans blocked Obama, and that is not true. I corrected him, that was all.

You said Obama 'let' Assad stay in power, which implied it was on Obama whether the shit sandwich stayed on the table or not. That's only true if you presume that Obama should have been police chief of the world.

A more accurate statement would have been 'Obama had a choice, and chose to not take action to remove him from power'.

 

[realibrad]

You said Obama 'let' Assad stay in power, which implied it was on Obama whether the shit sandwich stayed on the table or not. That's only true if you presume that Obama should have been police chief of the world.

A more accurate statement would have been 'Obama had a choice, and chose to not take action to remove him from power'.

I was accepting your premise. You said that if he did try to take action, the Republicans would have complained about abuses of power, and so he did not act out of that fear.

"Besides that, if he did act via war powers, they'd be complaining just as loudly about further abuses of power."

So I accepted that, and took it further.

"Maybe, maybe not. If that is the stance, the Obama let Assad stay in power for political reasons which is shitty."

 

[Fern]

The Republicans did not block Obama from taking action. I'm pretty sure the existing AUMF was considered sufficient by most everyone at that time.

Obama was very vague about what he wanted to do. "Pin prick, not a pin prick something bigger, but not really big etc". He didn't give Congress much to work with. Also, Obama was looking for political cover, which the Repubs were not going to give him. Obama could have acted if he wanted, but as usual dithered until it no longer mattered) (Putin jumped up and acted instead.)

-----------------------------

The President has a Constitutional obligation to protect and defend the USA and her interests and therefore does not need Congressional action in doing so. Is gassing Syrian civilians a threat to the USA or her interests? I'll let others argue about that.

Fern