War, war, what is it good for -- can America bomb and kill for bragging rights?

Fox News ^ | 09/05/2013 | Judge Andrew Napolitano

[BuckeyeTexan]

President Obama’s request for express congressional authorization for a limited aerial invasion of Syria raises profound legal and constitutional questions.

For starters, there is simply no legal basis in international law to support an American invasion of Syria. Yet, notwithstanding that, federal law permits the president to commit U.S. military forces anywhere he wants for up to 90 days, without express authorization from Congress.

So, why did Obama ask for the authorization he surely knows he already has?

Since March 2011, Syria has been in the throes of a civil war. Those seeking to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad are a mixture of his domestic political opponents, disgruntled former Syrian military officers and dangerous radical foreign Islamist fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda. International organizations monitoring the war have put the dead from both sides at more than 100,000 persons.

Until last week, the U.S. had steadfastly stayed out of this war, as its outcome is unlikely to affect American national security.

Though Assad is a former friend who once famously dined with then Sen. John Kerry, he is now a monster willing to go to extremes to stay in power.

On the other hand, our allies in the region surely would prefer that the Syrian government not be run by or under the influence of Al Qaeda, and federal law prohibits Americans and the U.S. government from aiding Al Qaeda.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Good read. As usual, Judge Nap hits the nail on the head.

[autumnraine]

I thought the President only has the 90 day window if we were directly attacked.

This is not the case with Syria (nor was it with Libya when Obama claimed it back then) so why do people keep claiming he can do it?

[Tenacious 1]

For starters, there is simply no legal basis in international law to support an American invasion of Syria.

Good article, except the quote noted here. We are a sovereign state. We have some "international agreements" in place. But I have never found where we are "legally" bound to "international law" concerning our military intervention anywhere in the world. As a nation, we are not obligated to get permission for any level of war or military use from anyone, especially the UN.

What are they going to do? Sue us? Boycott? Sanctions? Really?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Agreed. I made the same argument yesterday. The U.N. can use military force against us, if they dare. Short of that, they have a big bunch of nothing.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Here come de judge!

[ZX12R]

If Obama orders Syria to be attacked, I just have this feeling that our administration's arrogance and hubris will be like wearing blinders among the possible retaliation scenarios of Syria and other Syrian allies.

I believe that Odumbass and his henchmen simply think they/we are untouchable. That shallow thinking could cost us many brave soldiers and sailors.

I hope I'm wrong, but it really worries me this time. Obama and his chosen advisers are simply in over their heads, and others will pay the price for their shortcomings.

[puppypusher]

If Congress go’s along with this charade and gives Obama the authority to attack another country that is not a national security threat to the United States.Than yes he can bomb and kill to his hearts delight.

Though this country will pay for it dearly in the future.When Obama’s terrorist chickens come home to roost.All we’re doing is creating a new batch of terrorist before we dispose of the old set.

[BuckeyeTexan]

The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is questionable. Since it was enacted, no POTUS has acknowledged it as having controlling legal authority. (That’s another discussion.) When they do refer to it, they generally say that the POTUS’ actions are consistent with rather than pursuant to the WPR.

[cld51860]

Yes, Rumsfeld said the same thing last night on Greta.