# US bombing in Syria - how is it justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246 "2014-09-11T23:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/121 "2014-09-26T22:05:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You could be right in this particular case, but I was responding to a much more general assertion about the powers of the president by **TSS** … Got it. Just something I’ve been curious about and decided to impute it all in your post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/122 "2014-09-26T22:20:03Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Got it. Just something I’ve been curious about and decided to impute it all in your post. Well, he doesn’t literally get a blank check, but it’s pretty clear that Congress takes a very broad view of the WPR authorizes. You’d think that the US would have to be under the threat of attack for the president to use force w/o authorization from Congress. Carter was, I think, pretty clean, but the rest never seemed to feel much restraint. Clinton bombed the shit out of Serbia, and they were absolutely no threat to us. There was some noise made in Congress, but it was Monica that got the impeachment effort going. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/123 "2014-09-26T22:38:17Z")
> **[War Powers Resolution | Questions regarding constitutionality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality)** > > The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed. In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or off There i... The War Powers Act is far too broad in initiating and responding to violence. Congress has acted unconstitutionally in my opinion and abrogated its duty. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/124 "2014-09-26T22:50:21Z")
Just to throw a monkey-wrench into the debate, the authors of [this article](http://justsecurity.org/15660/crossed-rubicon-arming-training-syrian-rebels/#more-15660) point out that Congress has _already_ approved the use of force within Syria by authorizing the arming and training of rebel groups. Similarly, they point out France has openly admitted to arming rebels in Syria, but has hypocritically questioned the legality of airstrikes there. > [@justsecurity.org link above](#): > > Under international law, arming or training rebels also constitutes a “use of force”—and can only be justified by the consent of the territorial state, the right of national or collective self-defense, or Security Council authorization. Let’s put it this way: if the U.S. theory of collective self-defense is legally valid (or invalid) in justifying airstrikes in Syria, so would it presumably be valid (or invalid) for arming and training Syrian rebels ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/125 "2014-09-26T23:06:57Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > [War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality) > > The War Powers Act is far too broad in initiating and responding to violence. Congress has acted unconstitutionally in my opinion and abrogated its duty. Actually, if Congress held the president to the actual wording of the WPR, it wouldn’t be broad at all. See my quote above. But Congress has never moved to impeach a president for acting _as if the wording were overly broad_, and so that I guess that makes it de facto overly broad. What wording were you thinking of that is too broad? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/126 "2014-09-27T00:44:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Actually, if Congress held the president to the actual wording of the WPR, it wouldn’t be broad at all. See my quote above. But Congress has never moved to impeach a president for acting _as if the wording were overly broad_, and so that I guess that makes it de facto overly broad. > > What wording were you thinking of that is too broad? Fair question: > [@](#): > > The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The President cannot commit armed forces to military action without approval from Congress in advance in my reading of the constitution. In my view, the Congressional veto is unconstitutional. In my view, all pre-planned use of military force must be authorized by Congress and Congress alone. Like Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/127 "2014-09-27T00:53:19Z")
You’re not the only one who thinks the WPR is unconstitutional. But I don’t know how one would challenge it in court. We will probably never know what the 3rd branch of out government thinks. However, I do think if it were put a vote, an amendment much like the WPR would pass. Also, keep in mind that the WPR was meant to limit presidential adventurism from what had become SOP after WWII. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/128 "2014-09-27T01:35:53Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Just to throw a monkey-wrench into the debate, the authors of [this article](http://justsecurity.org/15660/crossed-rubicon-arming-training-syrian-rebels/#more-15660) point out that Congress has _already_ approved the use of force within Syria by authorizing the arming and training of rebel groups. The authors of that article obviously haven’t read the law they are commenting on, because the law specifically states that the authorization to train and equip the Syria opposition cannot be construed to constitute an AUMF with respect to the War Powers Resolution. It’s pretty disappointing to see two intelligent and respected authors not even do the bare minimum of research on the law they are commenting on. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/129 "2014-09-27T02:14:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re not the only one who thinks the WPR is unconstitutional. But I don’t know how one would challenge it in court. We will probably never know what the 3rd branch of out government thinks. However, I do think if it were put a vote, an amendment much like the WPR would pass. > > Also, keep in mind that the WPR was meant to limit presidential adventurism from what had become SOP after WWII. All congressional veto laws are unconstitutional. But there needs to be standing in order to bring a case, and a political question is also the courts are allowed to refuse to hear. I don’t think that the founders anticipated that the USA would be the leading power in the world and that puts us in the quandary of acting right away, asking Congress for permission all the time, or letting there be a huge vacuum of power in the world. It would be wonderful to have a loving God go out and kick ass to keep nuts in line, but she doesn’t do that. And since Reagan closed down the California State insane asylums when he was governor, we have had to warehouse all the worst cases in Sacramento and D.C. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/130 "2014-09-27T02:24:16Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > All congressional veto laws are unconstitutional. What is a “congressional veto law”? > [@](#): > > But there needs to be standing in order to bring a case, Of course. That’s why I said I don’t know how this would be brought before the court. > [@](#): > > and a political question is also the courts are allowed to refuse to hear. \*No comprendo las palabras en ingles. \* > [@](#): > > I don’t think that the founders anticipated that the USA would be the leading power in the world and that puts us in the quandary of acting right away, asking Congress for permission all the time, or letting there be a huge vacuum of power in the world. True. The Founders didn’t even envision the US having a standing army. But a “power vacuum” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, relative to the alternative. > [@](#): > > It would be wonderful to have a loving God go out and kick ass to keep nuts in line, but she doesn’t do that. And since Reagan closed down the California State insane asylums when he was governor, we have had to warehouse all the worst cases in Sacramento and D.C. Yeah. What if God was one of us? ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/131 "2014-09-27T02:38:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The authors of that article obviously haven’t read the law they are commenting on, because the law specifically states that the authorization to train and equip the Syria opposition cannot be construed to constitute an AUMF with respect to the War Powers Resolution. It’s pretty disappointing to see two intelligent and respected authors not even do the bare minimum of research on the law they are commenting on. Well, to be fair, they’re focusing on international law, not U.S. law. And my brief summary didn’t exactly make that clear. I think the article is worth reading and brings up some very good points - such as how arming Syrian rebels is \*much \*less consistent with the justification of defending Iraq (and goes more toward regime change in Syria) as opposed to the airstrikes which are exclusively aimed at ISIL and other non-regime targets. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/132 "2014-09-27T03:06:59Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Well, to be fair, they’re focusing on international law, not U.S. law. And my brief summary didn’t exactly make that clear. Ah - on second reading that is clearer. On my first read, I got diverted when they referencied (in passing) the domestic implications of a use of force resolution, so I assumed they were continuing that point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/133 "2014-09-27T16:56:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is a “congressional veto law”? > Of course. That’s why I said I don’t know how this would be brought before the court. > \*No comprendo las palabras en ingles. > \* > True. The Founders didn’t even envision the US having a standing army. But a “power vacuum” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, relative to the alternative. > Yeah. What if God was one of us? A Congressional veto is like the the War Powers Act when the Congress says in a law that the President can exercise a power until Congress objects in some manner. Like the War Powers Act or the short lived line item veto from the Clinton era. It is essentially Congress abandoning its perogative. Sometimes called a legislative veto. It is my opinion that federally, it is always unconstitutional. As a disclaimer, I have never served on the USSC and my opinion doesn’t count. [Legislative veto in the United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_veto_in_the_United_States) The political question doctrine: [Political question - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question) An international power vacuum is always a bad thing unless you are a warlord of some type. Think of New York crime and the Five Families and imagine one or more of the families suddenly losing leadership due to assassination or prosecution. Imagine the blood bath that would take place on the streets as they jockeyed for position. Without any police to keep civilians safe. It would be like Somalia. Which is really a better example. A hegemon like the United States tends to maintain the status quo and opportunist criminal organizations/states have less opportunity like ISIS or, again, Somalia. It is a huge burden on the hegemon, and the rest of the community eventually resents the hegemon, but it is some kind of order. See Hobbes, _Leviathan._ The idea of the League of Nations and the UN was to replace the chaos of balance of power, or hegemon, with the international community in a weak world coalition. The UN is certainly better than the balance of power disaster that led to WWI and governed all history prior to WWI. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/134 "2014-09-27T17:10:57Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > (bolding mine) > > This is something I’m not clear on and I’ve seen it stated many times - the bolded part of your quote. The President still has to act within the scope of the War Powers Act and doesn’t get a “blank check” to do anything he wants, right? I still think he has to be acting in self-defense of the US border/territory/persons (or with a declaration or statute authorizing force). Only self-defense could conceivably apply, and I’m not sure that applies with ISIS. Sure it does. ISIS killed an American citizen by decapitation as part of a video reminding the world they were at war with the US and everyone who stood in their way. Whether the Gulf of Tonkin incident actually happened or whether it was made up entirely is still the topic of debate today, and was presented at the time as self-defense of the right of the US to have warships in international waters which happened to be provocatively close to North Vietnam. Whenever Reagan wanted to bomb Libya, he would order the fleet to cross into the Gulf of Sidra, which the Libyans claimed as Libyan waters, and Kadaffi (duck) would predictably send out some Libyan fighter pilots to die, they would be shot down and then the US would bomb some more. The US Department of Defense used to accurately be called the Department of War. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246.md?page=6)