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

[bshole]

Wow, the Chinese are asking all the same questions that I am. We were told there was :"evidence" but not provided a single scarp of said evidence. China opposes strikes and supports talks. China is wrong and America is broken.

Because Tucker Carlson’s rant this week against bombing Syria and potentially starting a third world war made total sense. For once, I was actually wishing US President Donald Trump would follow the advice being offered to him by that television channel he watches so religiously, much to the exasperation of his critics who despise it.

Carlson noted how both Democrats and Republicans were in a bipartisan tizzy, with the mainstream media in tow, pushing for military intervention by the United States over the latest suspected chemical weapon attack in Syria.
:
“How would it benefit Assad using chlorine gas last weekend? Well it wouldn’t,” Carlson argued.

“Assad’s forces had been winning the war in Syria. The administration just announced its plans to pull American troops out of Syria, having vanquished ISIS [Islamic State]. That’s good news for Assad. About the only thing he could do to reverse it and to hurt himself would be to use poison gas against children.”
:
The fact is, chemical weapons in this horrific civil war have been used by both the Syrian military and rebel groups – some of whom are really nasty extremist outfits and nothing like the champions of democracy they are regularly portrayed as by the West. This sort of talk, by the way, is instantly condemned by the mainstream narrative as heresy, facts and legitimate doubts be damned.
:
That would be a very alarming escalation indeed, and far more informed commentators than me, as well as senior officials involved, are warning of the real threat of a third world war.
:
“We are prepared to sustain this response,” Trump said, and this time he has war junkie John Bolton as national security adviser to convince him of the need to risk a global conflict.

Carlson also asked important questions that the jingoists baying for blood have no cogent answer to: “Would it make America safer? Would it make the region more stable? Let’s see, how exactly did regime change work in Iraq and Libya? With Assad gone who would run it, exactly? Do we have another strongman in place to install or is it our hope that a stable democracy will magically appear in the wake of this protracted civil war?”

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight...orld-war-may-be-coming-and-its-starting-syria

 

[bshole]

Statements from the world...

The leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn said there was no legal basis for British strikes against Syria and such action would encourage others to behave in the same way. "The consequences of any country taking unilateral and action that has no legal basis are that it's an encouragement for others to do exactly the same and reduces our ability to complain when others do that," he said.

China call ir a violation of international law and I agree. I would like to see the leaders of France, England and America indicted for this crime.

On the attacks, Chinese Foreign Ministry said it believed political settlement is the only realistic way to resolve the Syrian issue and called for a fair probe into Syria's suspected chemical weapon attacks. It added that any military action that bypassed the UN Security Council violated the international law.

 

[realibrad]

Well, Congressional Republican cucks just let him do it anyways, so who cares about their approval?

Exactly. There are many things that can be done and Congress can do nothing to stop it. It's stupid to think otherwise.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Donald Trump thinks not! Well, at least in 2013 when a dirty Kenyan was in charge he thought it...

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!"

And my favorite Trump quote on Syria, especially considering the past week:

"No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools."

And he learned. Obama did it repeatedly, so Trump learned that it was okay. See, that's your problem. When Trump isn't like Obama the left bitches about it and when Trump is exactly like Obama the left bitches even more. How can you criticize Trump for emulating Presidents that you like?

 

[ivwshane]

And he learned. Obama did it repeatedly, so Trump learned that it was okay. See, that's your problem. When Trump isn't like Obama the left bitches about it and when Trump is exactly like Obama the left bitches even more. How can you criticize Trump for emulating Presidents that you like?

Wow

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Wow

Yeah, the truth is a bitch, huh?

Syria is Obama's mess. He used the War Powers act to bomb Syria, Trump is using the War Powers act to continue bombing Syria. What part of that do you dispute?

 

[HomerJS]

Yeah, the truth is a bitch, huh?

Syria is Obama's mess. He used the War Powers act to bomb Syria, Trump is using the War Powers act to continue bombing Syria. What part of that do you dispute?

Syria was a NATO operation under Obama. I dispute all of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations

 

[senseamp]

Exactly. There are many things that can be done and Congress can do nothing to stop it. It's stupid to think otherwise.

They can impeach. But their whole platform for 2018 is vote for us so Trump doesn't get impeached for his crimes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure if anyone really addressed this but Trump has the authority under the Constitution to make a strike in Syria. He also has the authority under the existing AUMF because no one will frigging get rid of it.

It's also proper under the War Powers Act.

 

[realibrad]

They can impeach. But their whole platform for 2018 is vote for us so Trump doesn't get impeached for his crimes.

You can impeach for just about anything. Clinton was impeached and nothing came of it. Obama might have been impeached but he would stay in office.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, the truth is a bitch, huh?

Syria is Obama's mess. He used the War Powers act to bomb Syria, Trump is using the War Powers act to continue bombing Syria. What part of that do you dispute?

Bombing Syria would not have solved Syria. Obama could not have fixed Syria.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I clicked your second link and from your article I got this:





According to the article you provided. The opposition is engaged in "terror tactics in civilian areas". These are the guys with the good guy sign painted on them. What do I think happens if we aid them in taking power? They will genocide the living shit out of their opponents.

I do not believe this is worth engaging Russia over. I do know that Trump is getting MASSIVE pressure from everybody to engage. If he does engage, which is highly likely, I believe it could become perhaps the biggest disaster in American history involving full on conflict with Russia, Turkey and Iran (very unlikely but possible). It could be a conflict where REAL and consequential numbers of Americans die.

Here is a novel idea. How about presenting the WORLD with incontrovertible evidence that the Syrian government did this and not the rebels? Don't tell the world you have evidence, prove it. I am past ever believing my government on matters like this. Iraq cured me of that.

I will ALWAYS support a UN humanitarian mission to Syria but not this, never this.

Oh fuck, that's what you got out of the info posted? It's the "opposition" that's the real problem? I give up. Assad is a fucking kitten. That "opposition" really only exists because Assad created the situation where they could flourish and beat out the original moderates.

 

[bshole]

Oh fuck, that's what you got out of the info posted? It's the "opposition" that's the real problem? I give up. Assad is a fucking kitten. That "opposition" really only exists because Assad created the situation where they could flourish and beat out the original moderates.

I do not believe there are any "good guys" in this conflict. At least I have seen no evidence of it. According to the UN, all parties to the conflict have involved themselves in atrocity. Currently I see Assad as the best chance to end the bloodshed. The primary beneficiaries of this bombing are ISIS. Could this be purposeful? Could America want ISIS to come back so that we can bomb them with million dollar ordinance? I have zero faith in American foreign policy and don't accept America's proclamations on the world stage as truthful.

It struck me as chilling to see Pelosi's statement after the strikes which indicate a thirst to directly engage Russia. It is unfathomable to me that the Democratic Party is the side baying for direct engagement with a nuclear armed opponent. That is completely fucked and I have no doubt that Trump will be MORE than happy to give them EXACTLY what they want.

“This latest chemical weapons attack against the Syrian people was a brutally inhumane war crime that demands a strong, smart and calculated response. One night of airstrikes is not a substitute for a clear, comprehensive Syria strategy.

“The President must come to Congress and secure an Authorization for Use of Military Force by proposing a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives that keep our military safe and avoid collateral damage to innocent civilians.

“President Trump must also hold Putin accountable for his enabling of the Assad regime’s atrocities against the Syrian people.”

US air and missile strikes against President Assad’s targets could threaten the coalition campaign against the remnants of Isis in Syria.

Under a unique arrangement with Moscow and, indirectly with the Damascus regime, the US and its allies have been carrying out daily airstrikes since September 2014 on Isis targets in eastern Syria — without fear of being targeted by either Russian-made Syrian air defences or by Russia’s fighter aircraft.

The arrangement and the airstrikes were crucial to the coalition’s success in largely defeating Isis by providing aerial back-up to the US-trained Syrian Democratic Forces on the ground

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/isis-could-benefit-if-america-strikes-at-assad-wg5tn6xjq.

 

[bshole]

Oh fuck, that's what you got out of the info posted? It's the "opposition" that's the real problem? I give up. Assad is a fucking kitten. That "opposition" really only exists because Assad created the situation where they could flourish and beat out the original moderates.

I myself would like a draft immediately instituted. It would be very limited. In fact it would be restricted to only the children of those in Congress and the children of the billionaires in the military industrial complex. Since these people have the most to gain from war, they should also be the people with the most to lose from war. They will then to get weigh billions of dollars in profits against the life of their own child. They will have skin in the game on both ends. .

 

[UNCjigga]

Oh Christ, please tell me you're not THAT stupid POTUS ...I don't want to believe it...

 

[cytg111]

Oh Christ, please tell me you're not THAT stupid POTUS ...I don't want to believe it...

Wording counts me thinks? Did he advice them that it was coming so they could brace for impact or did he actually ask them for advice *on* the Syria attack.

 

[bshole]

Wording counts me thinks? Did he advice them that it was coming so they could brace for impact or did he actually ask them for advice *on* the Syria attack.

I am really confused about the left's support of strikes in Syria. The news media and Democrats are critical that it didn't go far enough. Have they completely disconnected themselves from the views of their own citizens?

For example. in Britain less than 25% of its own citizens supported the air strikes. To me the air strikes were a CLEAR violation of international law. Liberals should be opposing this. Ordinary people do not support this. Why would a liberal support the clearly illegal actions of a maniac like Trump. It makes utterly no sense to me.

https://www.verdict.co.uk/uk-public-oppose-syria-strike-as-theresa-may-gets-battle-ready/

 

[blankslate]

I'd say no but every president since Bush 2 in 2003 has used the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
to deploy forces in the M.E.
Ironically every democratic candidate who got far in primaries who didn't win the presidency supported that resolution...
Barack Obama though he wasn't in office on the Federal level at the time voted against the measure and we know how his candidacy for president turned out....

Some may call my statements above a dig at someone besides President Obama but it's not disputable either....

*e2a*
voted against the measure
obviously he couldn't vote against the measure but rather I should have said that he spoke out against action in Iraq when he was a state senator of Illinois
my bad.


________

 

[Jhhnn]

I am really confused about the left's support of strikes in Syria. The news media and Democrats are critical that it didn't go far enough. Have they completely disconnected themselves from the views of their own citizens?

Please substantiate that claim.

 

[bshole]

Please substantiate that claim.

From Secular Talk,The WSJ, NYT and WaPo ran 2 columns opposing and 14 in support. That is pretty conclusive. Got to the 9:20 mark in the Secular Talk video.

Here is Pelosi's statement.

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after President Trump launched airstrikes against the Syrian regime, following a brutal chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma:

“This latest chemical weapons attack against the Syrian people was a brutally inhumane war crime that demands a strong, smart and calculated response. One night of airstrikes is not a substitute for a clear, comprehensive Syria strategy.

“The President must come to Congress and secure an Authorization for Use of Military Force by proposing a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives that keep our military safe and avoid collateral damage to innocent civilians.

“President Trump must also hold Putin accountable for his enabling of the Assad regime’s atrocities against the Syrian people.”

https://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/41318-3/

 

[Jhhnn]

From Secular Talk,The WSJ, NYT and WaPo ran 2 columns opposing and 14 in support. That is pretty conclusive. Got to the 9:20 mark in the Secular Talk video.

Here is Pelosi's statement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtFND9GlL3I

https://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/41318-3/

Please. Pelosi didn't say it didn't go far enough. She said a night of cruise missile attacks isn't a strategy, and she's right. Beyond that, Trump ordered this attack & nobody else. He is responsible.

Oh, and the WSJ def isn't Liberal.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not sure if anyone really addressed this but Trump has the authority under the Constitution to make a strike in Syria. He also has the authority under the existing AUMF because no one will frigging get rid of it.

It's also proper under the War Powers Act.

No he doesn't. Do you even constitution bro?

The constitution expressly states that the president has to get congressional approval for acts of war. Attacking another country is an act of war. Period.
The war powers resolution act which currently gives the president the authority to use force for 60 days without congressional approval is a clear violation of separation of powers and violates the checks and balances the constitution set up. The fact that Congress abdicated its duty by passing a law doesn't make the law any less constitutional.

Additionally, the current authorization for use of force, bush, Obama, and now trump, have been relying on does not cover Syria, which has nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists that resulted or were apart of the perpetrators that committed the 9/11 attacks (also known as the war on terror).

The whole point of putting Congress in charge of declaring war was because Congress represents the will of the people and a war, in which American lives could potentially be at stake, is a burden that America as a whole must agree on and not be left to the whims of just one man. The fact that Congress has been derelict in its duties and past presidents have used such powers doesn't make such use of force any less unconstitutional.


If you want to let trump and Congress off the hook, that's fine, but to call their actions constitutional is ridiculous and an outright lie.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No he doesn't. Do you even constitution bro?

The constitution expressly states that the president has to get congressional approval for acts of war. Attacking another country is an act of war. Period.
The war powers resolution act which currently gives the president the authority to use force for 60 days without congressional approval is a clear violation of separation of powers and violates the checks and balances the constitution set up. The fact that Congress abdicated its duty by passing a law doesn't make the law any less constitutional.

Additionally, the current authorization for use of force, bush, Obama, and now trump, have been relying on does not cover Syria, which has nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists that resulted or were apart of the perpetrators that committed the 9/11 attacks (also known as the war on terror).

The whole point of putting Congress in charge of declaring war was because Congress represents the will of the people and a war, in which American lives could potentially be at stake, is a burden that America as a whole must agree on and not be left to the whims of just one man. The fact that Congress has been derelict in its duties and past presidents have used such powers doesn't make such use of force any less unconstitutional.


If you want to let trump and Congress off the hook, that's fine, but to call their actions constitutional is ridiculous and an outright lie.

If you object to the phrasing then I'll change it from Constitutional to "not been determined to be Unconstitutional" The WPR was not created to permit Presidents to act but to restrain them. The problem with your argument is that you cite something which does not appear in the Constitution, "acts of war". You might not like it and I'm not a fan myself, but the the phrase is "declare war". That leaves open a possible distinction between a military action and war as commonly understood, a protracted engagement. Here's a hypothetical, unlikely yes but that's not the point. In some unknown future we have detected a sub from oh, NK. Let's also say that the Dear Leader at the time is off his nut and we've been following his sub with assets capable of taking it out in shout order. So ten or twenty years down from now we know this sub has nuclear launch capabilities, indeed it has nuclear missles comprable to Russian subs of ten years ago current time.

Our best technology shows without doubt that a missle is being prepped for an estimated five minute launch, and our future toys for sake of discussion are not prone to error.

"Well that's not going to happen" isn't in play here. This is a possible scenario and there are others. You are President and in the Big Chair. You have no time for Congressional declarations. You can't be absolutely sure out 99% reliable information is 100% accurate.

Is the intent of the Constitution to prevent the CIC from protecting the US? What do you do? This isn't about Trump but whether a President can act without a declaration of war.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm not sure if anyone really addressed this but Trump has the authority under the Constitution to make a strike in Syria. He also has the authority under the existing AUMF because no one will frigging get rid of it.

It's also proper under the War Powers Act.

Trump did not attack Al Qaeda but one side in an civil war. That is not covered by the 2002 AUMF. WPA covers imminent threats to the United States of which this isn't.

Show us exactly where AUMF or WPA applies

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Trump did not attack Al Qaeda but one side in an civil war. That is not covered by the 2002 AUMF. WPA covers imminent threats to the United States of which this isn't.

Show us exactly where AUMF or WPA applies

Those are good points fair enough. I will still make a distinction between between "war" and "actions", which is why my first post asked what was precisely meant by war. You might answer the question of whether a President can act with force based on Constitutional authority.