War with Syria

hodj_sl said:

I would love the LA Times to cite us the clause in the Constitution that says if Congress refuses to vote on a war bill, that they lose the authority to make the decision.

Click to expand...

Well, its kind of complicated, but the truth is that there is a pretty strong case that the War Powers Act of 1973 would not stand up to constitutional scrutiny. There are people who say the War Powers Act violates the Constitution in that the Constitution already enumerates how Congress exerts control over the Commander in Chief, through the purse. Additionally there is a clause in WPA, giving Congress an illegal veto over presidential actions that would probably invalidate the entire act if put up to the test.

So Presidents have been pretty much ignoring the WPA for all intents and purposes because its a shitty law, but without it, Congress should have a real fear that they no longer have any hand in what the Commander In Chief does. The enumerated power to "declare war" is far, far different than the reality of "waging war". Its really not a trivial fact.. in fact the language was changed by a proposal from James Madison in the original constitution from "the Power to Make War" to "The Power to Declare War". Why would someone need to declare war? What constitutes a war, since we have already watered it down and gave credence to "use of Force" as a seperate and different action apart from War.

Congress will lose any credibility on this if they continue to refuse to fully embrace it. It needs to be nailed down and defined, or it becomes a fuzzy grey line, open to interpretation and manipulation.

Finally..

Even if Obama never said "Red Line", it wouldnt have mattered once Assad used Chemical weapons. (and he did ffs, stop with the bs conspiracy theories, the only one with credibility is the military went rogue and used without Assads permission. The Germans have evidence of the Military asking over and over again for permission to use Sarin, but being rejected). Once they used them, Obama would have had to take action. I'm not sure anything would have been different.

Tuco_sl said:

It doesn't make him a master statesman, but I'd prefer that Pres. Obama fumbles the ball on Syria then throws a touchdown shock and awe campaign at it.

Click to expand...

Sure, but due to his bungling, either course will end up hurting the US. He has managed to generate a lose/lose proposition out of thin air and then passes the buck to Congress to decide which way we want to lose.

hodj_sl said:

There seemed to be a pretty strong case that the Affordable Care Act wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny either.

Funny how these things work out sometimes.

Click to expand...

dude..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us...anted=all&_r=0

khalid_sl said:

Sure, but due to his bungling, either course will end up hurting the US. He has managed to generate a lose/lose proposition out of thin air and then passes the buck to Congress to decide which way we want to lose.

Click to expand...

Im not sure what you mean. How do we lose if he gives up his weapons?

Tuco_sl said:

I agree, it's not ideal. I'm merely refuting Eomer's assertion that Pres. Obama should have attacked Syria already.

I still think there's an upside for the US if we collect a bunch of chemical weapons from Assad. But if you believe in the conspiracy theories surrounding why the administration is pushing so hard for attacking Syria then you probably think the chemical weapons are a red herring to begin with.

Click to expand...

Whoa there, I didn't say his only good choice was to have attacked Syria immediately. I said that if he is going to attack Syria, he's completely bungled it. I also said that I personally think a forceful response was and is required, but unfortunately the diplomacy that has taken place since pretty much precludes that possibility now, at least not without making the US look very, very bad for doing so.

Eomer_sl said:

Other than maybe Libya, that seems to have turned out not too bad.

Click to expand...

Libya is actually turning out horribly with a near collapse of the government (Somalia 2.0?) the Libyans were better off with Gaddafi in power you're just not going to hear about it much from mainstream sources.

We all thought Libya had moved on - it has, but into lawlessness and ruin

The Independent_sl said:

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato's military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of "the Libyan Shield Brigade" in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

Though the Nato intervention against Gaddafi was justified as a humanitarian response to the threat that Gaddafi's tanks would slaughter dissidents in Benghazi, the international community has ignored the escalating violence. The foreign media, which once filled the hotels of Benghazi and Tripoli, have likewise paid little attention to the near collapse of the central government.

Click to expand...

Lejina_sl said:

What cracks me up is how the USA boohoo at Russia and China for vetoing resolutions about Syria, saying it makes the UN ineffective, but it is totally OK when USA veto resolutions against Israel.

Click to expand...

That comparison may hold more weight once Israel falls into civil war, gasses its own citizens, risks having its arms fall into terrorist hands, and becomes an authoritarian regime.

stoning adulterers

Remember when Israel shelled a hospital with white phosphorus? Pepperidge Farm Remembers