Skip to comments.So You Want to Intervene in Syria Without Breaking the Law?
Posted on 06/20/2013 4:19:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Good luck with that.
So let's say you're the president of the United States and you want to use military force to intervene in Syria. I'm not saying you do (it sorta looks like you don't), and I'm not even saying you should (you're not wrong to worry that military intervention might not end well).
But let's say you become convinced that military intervention is the only way to protect Syrian civilians from being slaughtered by government forces, or that it's the only way to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from becoming dangerously emboldened, or the only way to prevent factions with links to al Qaeda from gaining the upper hand within the Syrian rebel movement, or the only way to prevent the conflict from spilling over into neighboring countries, or the only way to do all those things. And let's say that Russia continues to block every U.N. Security Council resolution that might pave the way for a civilian-protection intervention á la Libya.
You're a president who respects international law -- or, at any rate, you're not inclined to thumb your nose openly at international law. You're not Dick Cheney, and you don't like being compared to Cheney. That means that if you decide America should intervene militarily in Syria, you want to be able to tell the world, with a straight face, that the intervention is legal. At a bare minimum, you want to at least feel confident that what you're doing isn't blatantly, manifestly, obnoxiously illegal, in a darn the U.N. Security Council and the horse it rode in on" kind of way.
Can you do it? Would it be lawful, as an international law matter, for the United States to use military force in Syria without a Security Council resolution authorizing the intervention?
The short answer: Probably not.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
Cut a deal with Russia - tell Putin that Syria is his as long as he ejects Iran and Hezbollah.
Obama is an undocumented Impostor who arms al Qaeda
to murder Americans.
The U.S.A will never win a pussy foot attempt but a lot of good young men and women will die or be maimed for life needlessly.
Speaking as a 35 year army veteran here.
Wow! What a wacky idea. Who ever thought of that?
It is pretty clear that Russia has strategic interests in Syria and is drawing a red line of their own. So be it, leverage that. The only problem is that Putin sees Obama as something to scrape off the bottom of his shoes. Putin needs to know there are adults in the room. So we gave him Kerry. Sheesh.
The short answer: Probably not.
The long answer is absolutely not, the US Cnstitution is clear that you, as president, cannot move the troops, equipment or anything until two things happen, first Congress, not the UN, not cnn, abc, nbc or the pope, but Congress declares war and second not until Congress votes to fund that war.
And right now there is a lot of sentiment to impeach you so it is best to take the trips enjoy the jet, play a round of footsy with Reggie, and try for a low profile.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Couldn't read the entire article as I'm not registered there, actually too lazy to try name/password combos.
Personally, I don't care about the UN or international law.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if it's unconstitutional, at least in some circumstances, I do care about the War Powers Resolution. Since it's the law, here in the USA, and shouldn't be broken. Especially by the President, yes, he's the only one who can break it since it's directed at him.
He broke it in Libya on May 20, 2011. Big ho-hum. If we become involved in Syria, I hope there is not a repeat.
Somebody tell us who Rosa Brooks is. SHe’s the daughter of somebody in politics and was either a Clinton or Obama advisor on foreign policy.
I’ve just forgotten who she’s related to.
There is so much political incest in this regime that it makes the old Arkansas Brother-Sister jokes seem tame.
Let’s arm neither.
If it was Reagan, he would send in troops to kick both Syrian a$$ as well as terrorist a$$, just to provoke Russia so he could kick their a$$ too.
Don’t take a side, kill them all.
(from the title) :” So You Want to Intervene in Syria Without Breaking the Law? “
Obama should have a ‘hissey-fit ‘ and quit the presidency
Tell Michelle to make up another 72 bedrooms
Put on his flowing white robes and scarf
and take up arms (preferably a pop-tart in the shape of a gun ) with his ‘kindred brethern’ for the Caliphate !
Congress declaring war is so Eighteenth Century.
I do not want to intervene in Syria. I have never wanted to intervene in Syria and I can think of very few scenarios that would leave me wanting to intervene in Syria.
Let the devil sort it out.
The LAST thi g you want is to officially declare war with this moron in office. The Chinese could be marching down Ventura BLVD and I would not want a formal declaration of war.
You guys need to understand that with that declaration, you hand the President almost unlimited and unrestrained power. If he got his hands on that he would declare himself a near god, and our country would end as we know it.
That was the real reason for the WPA. No one wanted Nixon as dictator.
You're not Dick Cheney, and you don't like being compared to Cheney.That's twice in one day.
The Contras weren't our enemies, al Qaeda, Iran, Hizbollah are. I'd suggest letting them kill each other for a few years isn't the worst solution. If we're going to insert ourselves, credibility requires we do it with the intention of our side winning, and I'm not sure al Quaeda and other assorted Sunni terrorists are "our side". If the idea is supplying arms to prolong a stalemate, better to let the Saudi's do it. I don't think that's our intention, but if it is, that's fine.
Ah yes, The Democratic Socialist of America founder marxist. Also member of the older Socialist Scholars Conferences of the 1960’s.
Another Saul Alinsky contempary.