During President Obama’s first term, I represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s unilateral intervention into the Libyan civil war without authorization of Congress. Our case was dismissed on standing grounds and, once again, an undeclared act of war went by without any opportunity of judicial review. Now, Obama is reportedly debating whether to intervene in yet another civil war — undeterred by the now superfluous constitutional limits on his war-making authority. Israel has also publicly stated that it is considering a preemptive strike on Syria and reserves the right to make such an attack if it feels threatened by events in that civil war. [Update: I discussed this issue as part of my column on the imperial presidency this morning on C-Span]
President Barack Obama said he has been struggling with the decision whether to enter into another war as the 22-month civil war in Syria drags on. Here is what he considers to be the operative question:
“In a situation like Syria, I have to ask: can we make a difference in that situation?”
That is a bit different from the question that the Framers wanted him to ask: “Do I have authority from Congress to engage in a war?” That question is now just a quaint concern for a president who has acquired unprecedented unchecked powers. Once again, the Democrats are silent because it is Obama not Bush who is speaking of war. It is the type of hypocrisy that is not just laughable. It is lethal.
You will notice however that, during all of this public discussion of whether Obama will intervene in yet another war, there is not a peep of protest from Congress that it is supposed to have the final say on whether we go to war. Democrats again, even on war powers, are conspicuously silent — preferring to support Obama as a person than the Constitution on principle.
Of course, now that war is a unilateral power, we will not have an opportunity to debate our participation in yet another war. There will be no debate over the continued loss of American lives in foreign wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be no debate over our continued spending billions on wars that we desperately need to support basic social programs at home. This is precisely why the Framers wanted to force public votes. While polls show the American people have long opposed our continued expenditure of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama and Congress have continued our involvement. Indeed, our slow withdrawal is due not to our leaders seeking to draw down but increasingly hostile relationships with our “allies” who want us out of their respective countries. The disconnect with the American public is alarming. We have taken a balanced and well-reasoned system and turned it on its head. The result is precisely what the Framers anticipated: continued foreign wars carried out on a unilateral basis.
Source: Yahoo
How one does something is sometimes as important as doing something, Mark. The ends do not always or even usually justify the means. As for ignoring the UN Charter and international law, the Bush and Obama administrations have done precisely that when it comes to torture so I think invoking them now as a rational to let the President use his unconstitutionally unilateral expansive war powers helps give America an ethical high ground for dealing with dictators when we won’t even deal with our domestic war criminals. I’m not saying Assad doesn’t need to go. I’m saying there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things and if recent history of Presidential actions teach us anything, it should be that choosing the wrong way has repercussions that are undesirable and, in some cases, simply unacceptable.
Since hostilities began in 2011, 60,000 civilians have been killed in Syria’s civil war many of them at the hands of Syria’s dictatorial leader, Bashar al-Assad. Approximately one million Syrians have been displaced and children are prevented from attending school or even having the basic necessities of life such as food and clean water. Human rights groups have reported numerous atrocities at the hands of Syria government troops like rape, murder, and the torture of children even including one as yet unsubstantiated report of the utilization of poison gas on its own people.
In the midst of this misery, I hear a reflexive hue and cry from some here that since the US is merely considering military intervention to capsize a tyrant and restore some semblance of civilized society it must be in the service of the evil known as US imperialism or “warmongering.” I suppose these are the same folks who opposed the US intervention in Bosnia to stem the genocide there, too.
The conveniently ignored fact here is that military intervention to prevent widespread human rights abuse — even genocide — is authorized by the UN Charter and international law. We can debate the method used by the President to employ military force but can we really debate the fact that to do nothing in the face of evil when we have the ability to do so makes us complicit in the evil?
I am always amazed at the tolerance many have for other people’s suffering.
Do they have oil or transmission lines…. Is being there essential to world peace…. If the second and not the first why not….. If the first was he adopted by the bushes?
Well pilgrim, watta ya gonna do when:
(New Yorker). If we allocate all that money for war, then we gotta have wars.
That is life in a Wartocracy, or would Wartocrazy be a better word?
Obama may be a war monger, but he’s a war monger with a Nobel Peace Prize. Who else who wages war can say that? Oh yeah, Henry Kissinger, that old war criminal.
My hope for ‘change’ ended when Obama didn’t have the sense to turn down the Prize so someone who actually deserved it could receive it.
He looked awfully prideful when he got it. I couldn’t figure out why. Isn’t this the same of being proud of getting an ‘A’ on a test you cheated on?
“The drums are also beating loudly in Israel:”
Judith Miller, is that you?
Well, at least the public won’t have to worry about compromising their standard of living by buying war bonds to support Obama’s personal attack force. Our grandchildren can just add this one to the tab.
Hey – maybe we can get the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood successors in Syria to contribute to the cost of their “liberation” after they finish with the Christian purges in 2015?
To those who brought religion into this discussion, the middle east has always been in conflict? Some historians believe that the ‘Crusades’ never ended, and that our government is supporting one side against the other?
Dateline or 60 minutes (and there is a research document as well, as soon as I can find it) reporters uncovered a horrendous finding: the US government sells weapons to every country on this planet (or those that have the means to pay for them), including middle eastern countries. During the Iraq and Afgan wars, after US soldiers captured or killed the ‘taliban’ or muslim extremists (or whomever the ‘enemy’ was indentified as), most of the confiscated weapons were made in the USA and Russia. We are making the weapons, selling them to the middle east, and then, they use them on our own troops.
There is no clear and present danger in Syria that would necessitate the president from acting without the consent of congress. If he wanted to ask congress to act in this war then he should head over to the hill and ask for it. I fully support the ability of the president to act if there was say a missle strike against the US or an invasion was at hand and congress was not in session. But plenty of time here with Syria.
The reason he doesn’t want to go to congress, aside from his arrogance, is because congress likely would tell him “NO!”. and he doesn’t want that.
As for the Syrian Government, I think it should be removed from power. Any gov’t that sends warships to shell its own towns of people who are just protesting is no longer legitimate. I think the world should stand up to tyrrants like Assad, and force them out of power. But the US has unfortunately been for the most part one of the few willing to take on the role, although France surprisingly has been stepping up lately.
I do think that it is getting a little tiring for us to be expected to be the ones to take charge of things if needed when neighboring countries can do it. But then again if they are not willing, and the US is no longer interested who is going to stand up and prevent the Rwanda or Darfur genocides? It surely isn’t going to be the UN.
The drums are also beating loudly in Israel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/world/middleeast/refugee-crisis-grows-as-violence-flares-across-syria.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0
Sorry, Artie, should be “you’re” not “your.” Don’t want to force any killing ya.
Post the comment you saw the typo on. I can’t find it.
ArtieWhiteFox,
“Religions do not teach that Gods glory judges.”
You sure about that?
“To kill is to kill is to kill is to kill.”
So I take it your a vegetarian, like me.
I am sure that religions do not teach that God judges. Had they persecution against zoosexuals, gay, and furries and their nude, and sexual art would not be known. Jails, and military would not be known. Youtube would not do battle with furry art that shows what nature already shows us. Had religions teach that Gods light just standing their judges the word terrorist would not be known. Stone throwing at people would not be known. People would obey the simple truth of love whoever as yourself judging themselves, but it is the inversion of that. Wonder why?
Not entirely. The friend I am with is a vegan. He is one for different reason than you are being a vegetarian. I am talking about not killing people that Jesus laid his life down to save. Jesus is our example. He plainly showed us how to save our soul, but century after century people have not seen it having a beam in their eye.
Dear rich,
You are correct it is a civil war — here, though, is a definition of genocide — Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group” — so Assad is killing a national group vis-a-vis Jews, Catholics etc. It is still genocide of Syrian people. I agree also he may be trying to maintain secular sovereignty but he’s killing 60K plus people to do it and the world is getting a bit tired of it.. Again, I say take out the AF — you eliminate his most potent threat yet it can be done with minimal casualties per se. My guess — something is going to happen … either Assad falls by the sheer weight of opposing forces or someone (most likely us … ) helps him make a decision. Outright removal of Assad by US or NATO type forces though I doubt is in the cards.
Thanks for the informative reply. . .The Obummer is doing everything possible to eliminate secular regimes in the Muslim World. Hillary and her Muslim Brotherhood girlfriend (married to the compromised Congressman Anthony Wiener) have worked overtime to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood is established in the Levant. Over and out.
Religious people taught the world to war. Religious people wanted Jesus dead. That was religious people at war against Jesus.. America needs to teach the world that what religious people did was wrong by not killing anyone calling it good. Do that be a Christian.
I sense the world is wondering why the powers to be have let Assad kill 60K people without doing a thing about it. Russia / Putin have voiced opposition if I am not mistaken but doubt he truly is going to intervene given the level of genocide.
To kill is to kill is to kill is to kill. It is all the same. Religions do not teach that Gods glory judges. Because we have not taught this this is what we see. To attack justifies all that attack whoever.
It is a civil war, supported by the French version of NATO (the Levant vis a vis the Treaty of Versailles), it is not genocide. Syria is trying to maintain its secular sovereignty (the oldest Christian community in the world) while being squeezed by Wahhabis and Jews. Ashes to ashes. Over and out.
No. Wisdom is better than weapons of war. Don’t people know scripture? Don’t people know anything about Christ? Warring is deadly to the soul of the person that engages in war. People need to be taught this. Obama warring is glorifying the weapons he wants to take away from people by diving into war..
No. Wisdom is better than weapons of war. Don’t people know scripture? Don’t people know anything about Christ? warring is deadly to the soul of the person that engages in war. People need to be taught this. Obama waring is glorifying the weapons he wants to take away from people diving into war..
While I understand your concerns here in terms of raw Presidential power, I actually have been surprised that he has not acted already …. (I am a retired vet of 24 years). We “probably” have SOF Forces already on the ground doing some advising … You won’t initially here of this if, in fact, it is happening. You will here about it post-facto probably esp. if he goes down …..
What OB could do very easily and without much risk to US Forces would be to basically take out the Syrian Air Force (AF). This could be done basically in one day and then we sit back and see what happens. Their Air Force is no match for ours — period. Satellites would tell us where the Syrian AF is at any time. We could do a night strike and basically completely wipe-out or severely damage the AF and take away Assad’s ace in the hole at the moment. It is his AF that is giving him the balance of power necessary to stay in power — at least temporarily. Take out the AF and it would be like tying one of Assad’s hands behind his back….. Besides a night strike when the planes are on the ground would most likely mean minimal casualties on all sides yet deal a significant blow to Assad’s killing machine.
Great job on this one! What is Obama thinking: “I need to find a way to put the military men and women to work, since I am taking them out of Iraq and Afgan?” Or “since the Syran economy is going to hurt our economy if this war drags on, we need to intervene?” Maybe, Obama is thinking: “it is either open the US border to Syrian refugees or go in lose about 2000 US troops to put an end to this. Which one is cheaper in the long run….hmmmm”
Now, if it is to save lives, and to prevent the slaughtering of women and children, then I would have to take a different tone on his indecisiveness about intervening (and if this is the case, then we need to send about 100k troops into parts of Africa, not to mention the streets of LA, Chicago, STL, NY, etc).
However, can we the people have a say in this? We can have a say in building professional ball parks, but not in deciding if our children or loved ones go out to die?
Obummer is a warmonger. He is no different than Idi Amin, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Robert Mugabe, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Mengistu Haile Mariam. Barry Soetoro is a slave master like his predecessors. Over and out.