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

[cytg111]

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/

Is it quite so simple? It is easy to engage this topic as an armchair diplomat/strategist and take the first statistic that suits my viewpoint(emotional viewpoint) and use that as conclusive evidence that my views are correct.
When I look at these things I rather quickly realize that this is so complex and there be so many variables involved that I really have no chance of just semi accurately estimating what the hell is going on.
Anyway here is what I think. This is a proxy war. I know, fuck proxy wars. It is what it is. This strike has little to do with Syria and a lot to do with Russia. Russia has been pissing all over the US (we all know the special counsel), has been pissing all over the UK (engaging in brexit and other forms of unrest, the novichock incident) and pissing all over the French election that Macron won anyway, inspite of the same playbook used as in the US (hack mails, use wikileaks as distributer, social media). This strike is to hit Russia where it hurts, if Russia cant protect one of its closest allies, despite swearing to do so, what good is Putins word?
- To my mind this is all about Russia and *nothing* to do with Syria. To check Russia.
- I would love for this to be about Syria, I would love for the west to take some kind of responsibility for all people on the globe and to let everybody know that if you start killing random people/citizens for sports we be coming for you.
- This is a proxy thing - those things always suck and smells of hypocrisy and cowardness, yet in the grand scheme of things it looks to be a natural place in the grey area between diplomacy and outright direct conflict.

I can get behind point number 1 and 2, but 3 .. what is that facebook relationship status? "Its complicated"?

 

[HomerJS]

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.

Act with force based on Constitutional authority assuming all other conditions have been meet. Congressional approval or conditions set forth by the War Powers Act. I'm still not seeing it. I think that's one of the reasons Obama wanted a new AUMF

Clinton's bombing in Kosovo had the same objections as this one. Yes it was humanitarian but possibly illegal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Act with force based on Constitutional authority assuming all other conditions have been meet. Congressional approval or conditions set forth by the War Powers Act. I'm still not seeing it. I think that's one of the reasons Obama wanted a new AUMF

Clinton's bombing in Kosovo had the same objections as this one. Yes it was humanitarian but possibly illegal.

I'm interested in exploring limits, not Trump, at the moment. Trump's an idiot.

But that pending nuclear strike that we have knowlege of. To we take the hit and hope Congress exists to approve an action? Let's put you in the Big Chair. What are you Constitutionally permitted to do?

 

[Jhhnn]

Act with force based on Constitutional authority assuming all other conditions have been meet. Congressional approval or conditions set forth by the War Powers Act. I'm still not seeing it. I think that's one of the reasons Obama wanted a new AUMF

Clinton's bombing in Kosovo had the same objections as this one. Yes it was humanitarian but possibly illegal.

What a world, where bombing is said to be a humanitarian act.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am really confused about the left's support of strikes in Syria.

Define Left. It takes a... certain perspective to not buy into Wall Street's corruption. That's why Bernie Sanders had such an impact, and why we must support that wing of the party. Much of the Democrat leadership is bought and paid for by the same Wall Street money that corrupts Republicans. It's easy to hate folks that act contrary to our interests.

It was a breath of fresh air, honestly, to learn of the existence of Democrats that I could stand with on mutual interests. These folks don't often get to make headlines or represent the Democrat Party. People who are more interested in helping others and doing the right thing instead of putting up the partisan fight or bowing to moneyed interests.

That's why Progressives like Tulsi Gabbard need our support.

There is hope for the future, but we must do what we can to see it grow.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What a world, where bombing is said to be a humanitarian act.

It sucks. No other way to describe it.

 

[Pens1566]

No. AUMF doesn't cover it. However, it's up to congress to enforce and ... uh, they're kind of a waste.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's like this- "Bomb Syria? Who's gonna stop me?"

Our GOP congress? Hardly. It plays well with AIPAC & their friends in an election year. Going against that is to tempt fate.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Yes there is a difference between declare war and acts of war.

However, the difference between your hypothetical and Syria is that one is a direct and eminent threat and the other is not.

 

[SMOGZINN]

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

Do you?

The constitution expressly states that the president has to get congressional approval for acts of war.

No it does not.

As I pointed out already the constitution give Congress the power to 'Declare War' and it was immediately understood by those founding fathers that meant 'total war' which means a war of attrition waged against a civilian population, it was always their intent to allow the President to unilaterally use the military to make strikes against tactical or strategic targets, and has been used that way since the beginning.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you?



No it does not.

As I pointed out already the constitution give Congress the power to 'Declare War' and it was immediately understood by those founding fathers that meant 'total war' which means a war of attrition waged against a civilian population, it was always their intent to allow the President to unilaterally use the military to make strikes against tactical or strategic targets, and has been used that way since the beginning.

No it didn't. Attacking another country without provocation is an act of war. You are entitled to your own opinion, you aren't entitled to your own definition of words. Syria was not a threat to us in any shape or form.

Had this been a humanitarian effort, not only would trump have gotten UN support but he would also be allowing more than the 11 refugees he's admitted this year.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No it didn't. Attacking another country without provocation is an act of war. You are entitled to your own opinion, you aren't entitled to your own definition of words. Syria was not a threat to us in any shape or form.

Not accoding to the people that wrote the US Constitution. In fact in 1790, in the first year of his Presidency, President George Washington ordered the US Military into combat against the Confederation of Tribes, a recognized nation that we had treaties with, without Congressional approval.

So, while you might feel that attacking another country should amount to a declaration of war and require congress to enact, history clearly is not on your side here. We have ample evidence that The Founding Fathers of our Constitution never made that a requirement all the way from the first Congress.

 

[realibrad]

No it didn't. Attacking another country without provocation is an act of war. You are entitled to your own opinion, you aren't entitled to your own definition of words. Syria was not a threat to us in any shape or form.

Had this been a humanitarian effort, not only would trump have gotten UN support but he would also be allowing more than the 11 refugees he's admitted this year.

How about sending in military forces into a sovereign country to say... capture or kill someone? Lets say that person x is hiding in a country, and we send in forces to extract and or kill this person. Is that invasion an act of war?

 

[bshole]

How about sending in military forces into a sovereign country to say... capture or kill someone? Lets say that person x is hiding in a country, and we send in forces to extract and or kill this person. Is that invasion an act of war?

Well what do you think? Russians killed one of their own in England and the west was not too happy about it. Imagine if the Russians flew attack choppers to the Bush ranch, whacked him and dumped his body in the ocean, would America be angry? Would war result?

I guess it is not an act of war when your military is so much more powerful than the other country that they are scared shitless to raise a peep when you shit all over their national sovereignty. I am sure such behavior by a powerful nation doesn't engender hatred by the natives.

 

[realibrad]

Well what do you think? Russians killed one of their own in England and the west was not too happy about it. Imagine if the Russians flew attack choppers to the Bush ranch, whacked him and dumped his body in the ocean, would America be angry? Would war result?

I guess it is not an act of war when your military is so much more powerful than the other country that they are scared shitless to raise a peep when you shit all over their national sovereignty. I am sure such behavior by a powerful nation doesn't engender hatred to the natives.

And that's why things are not so clear. The person I responded too was trying to make things seem more black and white than they really are not. Very few had issue (I did not) with Obama doing what he did. If it were another powerful country, then it would have been very different.

So, if he wants to argue that any military action against or in another country equates to a declaration of war, the he has a very tough hill to climb. Ultimately he will be wrong.

 

[bshole]

And that's why things are not so clear. The person I responded too was trying to make things seem more black and white than they really are not. Very few had issue (I did not) with Obama doing what he did. If it were another powerful country, then it would have been very different.

So, if he wants to argue that any military action against or in another country equates to a declaration of war, the he has a very tough hill to climb. Ultimately he will be wrong.

Usually I would define them as an act of war. In the event that the country is too weak to defend itself, I would define it as an act of terror. By my definition, most of our Middle Eastern policy qualifies as little more than terrorism. Attacking entities that pose no threat to us and have little ability to protect themselves seems like the sole purpose for our military lately.

 

[realibrad]

Usually I would define them as an act of war. In the event that the country is too weak to defend itself, I would define it as an act of terror. By my definition, most of our Middle Eastern policy qualifies as little more than terrorism. Attacking entities that pose no threat to us and have little ability to protect themselves seems like the sole purpose for our military lately.

Oh come on now. The US getting involved is trying to become the world police, not terrorism. You and I agree that the US should let people wipe each other out, but, others believe that we should try and stop mass murder. That is why the Left is not super against the attacks, because, it was okay when we did it before. Stopping it now would stop us in the future.

 

[bshole]

Oh come on now. The US getting involved is trying to become the world police, not terrorism. You and I agree that the US should let people wipe each other out, but, others believe that we should try and stop mass murder. That is why the Left is not super against the attacks, because, it was okay when we did it before. Stopping it now would stop us in the future.

With regards to genocide, I believe that matter should ALWAYS be handled by the U.N.

When was the last time the police dropped bombs on people? It is easy for you to say bombing is not terrorism, its not your family at risk.

In any event, I have become radicalized with regards to my anti-war stance. I don't know where along the process that happened but it did. I am fully cognizant that my thinking could be completely broken on this and certainly does not reflect what most Americans believe.

Can you lay out the reasons why you don't believe our bombing is terrorist?

 

[HomerJS]

I'm interested in exploring limits, not Trump, at the moment. Trump's an idiot.

But that pending nuclear strike that we have knowlege of. To we take the hit and hope Congress exists to approve an action? Let's put you in the Big Chair. What are you Constitutionally permitted to do?

Pending nuclear strike is a direct threat to the US and WPA allows the President to take action.

 

[realibrad]

With regards to genocide, I believe that matter should ALWAYS be handled by the U.N.

Yeah well, that would be nice. Realize though, the US is the vast majority of power behind the UN. So even then its really mainly the US.

When was the last time the police dropped bombs on people? It is easy for you to say bombing is not terrorism, its not your family at risk.

Dude come on. There has never been a situation where it would be comparable where we would need to bomb our civilians. Now, the National guard has been called in times of emergency to keep order, and that is a lot closer. But, we do send fighter jets to shoot down aircraft if they are hijacked. Just be realistic.

In any event, I have become radicalized with regards to my anti-war stance. I don't know where along the process that happened but it did. I am fully cognizant that my thinking could be completely broken on this and certainly does not reflect what most Americans believe.

Being anti-war is in conflict with stopping genocide fyi.

Can you lay out the reasons why you don't believe our bombing is terrorist?

As misguided as it is, its done to prevent more horrible things. Ill grant you that sometimes its not for that reason, but its goal is not to strike fear the vast majority of the time.

 

[SMOGZINN]

With regards to genocide, I believe that matter should ALWAYS be handled by the U.N.

As has been pointed out several times the Obama bombing was a U.N. action.

When was the last time the police dropped bombs on people? It is easy for you to say bombing is not terrorism, its not your family at risk.

1985 at least in the US, at least as far as I know.

Can you lay out the reasons why you don't believe our bombing is terrorist?

The entire concept of 'terrorism' is a difficult thing to deal with. As far as I can tell it is terrorism when someone we don't like does it, and not terrorism when someone we do like does it. That means it is 'terrorism' when a brown person kills a few people, a protest when an armed organization group of white people take over a government building.

 

[bshole]

The entire concept of 'terrorism' is a difficult thing to deal with. As far as I can tell it is terrorism when someone we don't like does it, and not terrorism when someone we do like does it. That means it is 'terrorism' when a brown person kills a few people, a protest when an armed organization group of white people take over a government building.

I literally laughed when I read that. Thanks!

 

[ivwshane]

Not accoding to the people that wrote the US Constitution. In fact in 1790, in the first year of his Presidency, President George Washington ordered the US Military into combat against the Confederation of Tribes, a recognized nation that we had treaties with, without Congressional approval.

So, while you might feel that attacking another country should amount to a declaration of war and require congress to enact, history clearly is not on your side here. We have ample evidence that The Founding Fathers of our Constitution never made that a requirement all the way from the first Congress.

You might want to brush up on your history. Washington was responding to threats made against US citizens (even though the citizens were in the wrong) by Indian tribes. Secondly, Congress then gave him the power after being unsuccessful in fighting them off.

Try again.

 

[ivwshane]

How about sending in military forces into a sovereign country to say... capture or kill someone? Lets say that person x is hiding in a country, and we send in forces to extract and or kill this person. Is that invasion an act of war?

It could be. If other countries did that to us what would your response be?

 

[realibrad]

It could be. If other countries did that to us what would your response be?

Nice deflection.

How about something that comes closer to reality. Russia hacked the US in an attempt to disrupt the election. I think our response should be more than what the POTUS thinks. Hacking is far less than what we did to get Osama.

Now how about you give a real answer.