Domestic law, international law, Syria, and us

So, if we send some cruise missiles to plaster portions of Syria, without a declaration of war by Congress (or equivalent authorization by Congress) is that:

(a) legal under international law?
(b) legal under domestic law?

I’m not too up to speed on international law.

Short answer;

Domestic law - Yes.
International law - The Hague? How many divisions do they have?

What would the legal basis be for such an attack?

I ask because the War Powers Act says:

Are we to take it that you think it isn’t legal under domestic law?

What does the WPA have to say about launching missiles? The part you quoted referred to “US Armed Forces”.

At any rate, whatever Obama does in Syria will be waaaaaay less than what Clinton did in Serbia. So, been there done that.

I can’t resist the way you innocently bat your eyes while you propose a gotchacha by candlelight. Even though I know it’s a trap I can’t resist it.

The correct answer in America is

a- who cares? We don’t need no stinking badges.

b- it’s all Obama’s fault for laying a red line on the ground when everybody and his brother knows he should have laid a blue line if at all.

Just lump it with the rest of the terror wars and you’re golden.

By my reading, under domestic law he must ask for a declaration of war within the first two days, and cannot continue beyond sixty days unless that declaration is made.

Of course, this assumes you’re speaking English and not weaselese, where “imminent” does not require imminence, “threat” does not require a threat and a bombing campaign does not count as “hostilities”.

  1. It depends.
  2. It depends.

For good or ill, our law on the subject appears to be that whatever the President gets away with is legal. Invade a sovereign nation because there are Cubans there, operating bulldozers (Reagan). Sure, why not? Wink and nod at the assassination of an inconvenient Asian President (Kennedy)? OK doke.

Precedent don’t mean squat. Nor does the Constitution. If Obama launches so much as a Nerf ball, there are members of Congress who have their impeachment speeches written, only need to fill in the blanks.

Unless viral internet evidence of Assad’s forces using kittens for hand grenades surfaces, there is no kind of win situation for Obama anywhere here. You gotta know that at least once today he thought about stepping up to the microphone and saying “They’re right, its all true, I was born in Kenya and trained by Al Queda. I’m handing Joe Biden the keys to the Oval Office and I’m outa here…”

No…but that’s because I think the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional.

I am interested in the analysis of people who believe the War Powers Act to be valid.

In my view, Obama – or any President – has the legal right to order a missile strike. But again, my view comes from the belief that Congress can’t constrain the President by means of the War Powers Act. And every president has reported to Congress “consistent with” the Act as opposed to “in accordance with,” to signal their disagreement with the Act’s application.

But other folks who believe in the War Powers Act – what do they say?

Antecedents are HARD! Especially when they comprise negative statements.

Edited to read: Now that you’ve posted #12, I thank you for removing the confusion.

If you determined to discuss this in the rarified aether of Constitutional theory, I must recuse, hard to type once my eyes glaze over.

By the way, Bricker, pursuant to your argument in post 12, is there any merit to the notion that the constitutional grant of war powers to the President applies only in the presence of a congressional declaration of war?

Who do you think will launch the missiles? US Armed Forces or the US Post Office?

So if Obama interned 50,000 Japanese it’s been there done that because it was waaaaaaaaay less than what Roosevelt did in WWII?

By what means may Congress constrain the president, if at all, in your view? What is the purpose of the enumerated power of Congress to declare war, in your view?

Also, do you think vesting one individual with the power to bring a nation’s military to a state of war squares with the concept of a democratic republic?

Is this an Iraq gotcha? Hint: the WPA is not why we opposed Bush’s invasion. As to international law, a missile strike would be illegal without a supporting resolution by an IGO that Syria is a member of.

Reasonable people can obviously disagree, but in my opinion: no.

It’s not any gotcha. Amazing how worried you are about a gotcha; “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”

So as to international law, there’s no significance to Syria’s prior use of nerve gas? There has to be a supporting resolution before we can act?