Shodan, you are factually incorrect here.
None of that contradicts anything I’ve said, of course, and in my cite I showed that Obama himself said that he had the authority to act without Congress’s backing.
So I was absolutely right when I said that Obama made the decision to not attack – ultimately, that was the decision he made. Your cites support this. You were wrong here. Obama advocated military action, and asked for Congress’s support, and ultimately made the decision to not attack.
Obama said he was not going to exercise that authority without Congress’ backing.
His choice and what he wanted was military action. He did not implement that choice because Congress and the UN and the rest of the world shot him down. Not because it was what he wanted, or what he was going to do if given his preference.
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s apply a little thought to this: there are ample examples of presidents attacking another country without congressional approval, but at least in the substantial majority of those cases, one could make a fair claim that those strikes were related to the defense of the United States or its allies. For example, Clinton bombing Serbia was under the cover of a NATO interest in stabilizing the reason. Reagan bombing Libya was in response to a disco bombing allegedly carried out by Qaddafi’s thugs which killed a US servicemember. And so on, and so on.
But I have a very hard time seeing how any intervention in Syria could be covered by a figleaf that it would be in defense of the US or its allies. This is a case-by-case judgment, but I don’t think the Constitution gives the President the power to attack other countries if that attack has nothing to do with the self defense of our country. At the very least, Congress should make the decision whether the attack is necessary.
So when Obama said that Congress should vote on the matter, I thought that was a pretty good idea. His going on to say that he doesn’t have to abide by a decision of Congress and could bomb them anyway is at best a statement simply designed to protect the powers that all president wish they had regardless of constitutional merit, and at worst pure bullshit that even he doesn’t believe.
Shodan isn’t factually incorrect here, because this whole area of what the President’s war powers are and how they apply to any specific situation does not have a precise answer. It is, however, factually incorrect to claim that he’s wrong and that there is a factual answer to a separation of powers issue that is in reality a power struggle that has been going on for two centuries.
From your first cite (and quotebox), Shodan:
Bolding mine. You are incorrect here.
He did not say this, not at all. He explicitly said that he had the authority to do so without Congress’ backing, and never said that he would not act without their backing. You are incorrect.
There’s no way to know exactly why he made a decision, and regardless of why, he chose not to attack. He had the power (or at least he said that he had the power), and he chose not to exercise that power.
Shodan’s position appears to be that Obama made the choice to attack. That is not borne out by the facts at all.
Obama chose to propose to Congress that he be given permission to bomb Syria. Shodan seems to be saying that this represents a choice of Obama to use military force against Syria, and I think that you’re splitting hairs.
On the other hand, you’re quoting Obama to “factually” disprove the notion that Obama was bound by the refusal of Congress to authorize military force. Do you seriously think that the President of the United States is a valid source on the powers of the President of the United States? Do you not see any irony there?
If I claimed that I was the smartest and most handsome man in America, and cited my opinion as proof of my claim, would you not laugh at me?
I’m talking about the real world and real choices. If Obama had said “launch missiles”, missiles would have been launched. This was demonstrated in Libya. He chose not to give that order (or any order to attack), even though it certainly would have been followed by our wonderful service men and women. And I’m thankful for that choice. Whether or not he had legal constitutional authority is an interesting question, but not relevant to whether or not he had the real-world authority to command the military to attack – obviously, he had this authority. Somehow, Shodan seems to be disputing this.
Do you really dispute this?
I think that misses a key ingredient. It was pretty clear that Congress was going to say NO, but before they had a chance, Putin put forth the offer to get Syria to give up the CWs in exchange for a commitment not to strike.
Ravenman: What US defense interest were involved when Clinton bombed Iraq? Or when Obama bombed Libya? I know you said “the majority of cases”, but those are two very recent cases that don’t seem to fit that description.
If you’re simply saying that the President can order actions that are either unconstitutional or are quite plausibly unconstitutional, and that people will carry out those orders, and you are totally uninterested in the legality of such orders, then I concede that the United States has a substantial history of people following illegal orders (or orders that are probably illegal). In the real world, the Plumbers carried out the Watergate break-in, J Edgar Hoover ordered unconscionable violations of privacy, and Bush approved of torture in the name of interrogation.
I concede your point, if that’s what it is.
I don’t want to get off on a hijack here, but Clinton’s bombing of Iraq did seem to relate to enforcement of the 1991 ceasefire, but the Libya thing has me puzzled. My best guess is that the Libya bombing seemed like a fun thing to do at the time, and the Italians and the French really wanted us to do it, but that’s a very weak justification in my mind.
I think it’s a very interesting debate – it’s just not the one we’re having right now. I would have been very grateful if Bush had rescinded the torture policy, even after implementing it, but he didn’t. I am very grateful that Obama did not order any attacks on Syria, even though he could have (and, realistically, would probably not have faced legal consequences)… just like I’m grateful that Obama did not continue the torture policy, even though he could have, most likely without consequences.
The torture thing is probably a very good analogy – because it’s something of questionable legality that the previous President executed without repercussion. Realistically, Obama could have probably attacked Syria without legal repercussions.
Possibly, but I’m not so sure about that. It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission: once Obama threw the ball over to Congress, I think the reaction after attacking Syria once it became mostly clear that Congress wasn’t on board could have been greatly different than the reaction if Obama attacked Syria while never consulting Congress at all.
What “legal” repercussions could their possible have been? At worst, impeachment, which is a political, not a legal consequence. No way would the Senate vote to convict.
Just proving there is no nit too small to pick on the SDMB… :rolleyes:
I was primarily commenting on repercussions in general, not specifically legal. But one could surmise that Congress might have taken another look at the War Powers Resolution. If you want to further pick a nit that changing laws is a “statutory” and not a “legal” repercussion, go right ahead.
With all due respect to the President, my interpretation of events with respect to Syria are thus:
Obama was morally, phylosiphically and politically compelled to take a strong stand on Syria and the use of chemical weapons. He was too brash in drawing the red line. Perhaps he thought it would put more pressure on Assad to capitulate peacefully. Perhaps the president thought the world would stand with him. He gambled and he lost on both accounts. He then tried to save face and soften his hard line position by punting to Congress on the decision to bomb, knowing that Congress would not support it. That was his out. Realpolitik in action.
and? Life goes on. I don’t see the outrage here. [replying to entire thread, not just QuickSilver] I know people like to go on the internet and talk about things, but I’m not getting the point of this tread. The president had tough situation in far away land; it ended fairly well. Some serious problems remain, but everyone acknowledges there’s not much we can do. Red light cameras are bad, cats are happier if they can wander the neighborhood.
The article is bullshit. There never was a FSA of any importance. Beyond a couple of figureheads far from the Syrian battlefield. People were drifting in and out of various Islamists and other “rebel” groups long before there was any talk of the chemical attacks, and US supplied arms were landing in Islamists and al-Qaeda hands.
There was not a good realistic choice that Obama could have made that could have resulted in a substantial better outcome – although there were many that would have resulted in something a lot worse. The only US decision that could have altered things materially was a massive US intervention with hundreds of thousand of men on the ground. And anyone who thinks that is a good idea is a fucking moron.
And in general any article that criticises is worthless if it doesn’t propose an alternative strategy.
Why should Obama, or the USA in general, be held responsible for a conflict half the world away? Especially considering recent not so good experience with meddling in the region. There are several large states in the neighbourhood that ought to have both the military strength and are closer both geographically and culturally. Let them handle it there is something to handle, and if they don’t then it’s probably because there is not anything any outside force can do.