Skip to main content

View Diary: Say no to war with Syria - demand debate before any military action (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I found nothing to support your position (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vetwife

    Perhaps you could give me a quote.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:42:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The president can only commit forces under 3 (10+ / 0-)

      circumstances:

      1 Congress Declares War
      2: Express approval by Congress
      3> We are attacked.

      That's the rule. It grants no warmaking authority. If, events force the president to commit forces before getting Congressional approval, he has a limited amount of time to get it, gambling that it will be given, but only those 3 cases are legal under the Constitution.

      OR, IF YOU PREFER, 50 USC 1541(c)

      c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
      The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
      (1) a declaration of war,
      (2) specific statutory authorization, or
      (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
      Read the bold and italici a few times - Constitutional power is exercised ONLY pursuant to ...

      Elsewhere it specifically states that it creates no separate grant, for those who can't understand what that ONLY means.

      Nothing in this chapter—
      (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or
      (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this chapter.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:35:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's like talking to a Young Earth creationist. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enhydra lutris, lunachickie, caul

        "But, you can't prove it"

        "Here's the law"

        "But I have faith the President can attack whoever he likes for 60 days!"

        He knows he's wrong, he's been shown he's wrong over and over, and it doesn't matter to him.

        1) Bomb Syria 2)???????????? 3) Lives saved!!!!!!

        by JesseCW on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:01:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We aren't going to settle here and now (0+ / 0-)

        a constitutional problem that has existed since 1973.

        I think it may be more productive to consider the realities of the present situation.

        This is from the Congressional Research Service and was last updated 4/30/2013.
        http://www.fas.org/...

        There have been terrorist attacks in Jordan.

        Turkey is a NATO country and there have been cross border attacks.

        Israel is threatened by the Syrian use of chemical weapons.

        I'll say it again, in this day and age we can not limit the President to acts approved by congress, especially this congress.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Civilization can not exist without the rule of law. The UN Security Council is unable to fulfill that function. This goes beyond the immediate case at hand.

        If we, collectively and globally, wish to prohibit the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, we must stand ready to act when that prohibition is violated.

        Waiting until after a direct attack on the US, US forces, or allied forces, would be disastrous.

        I am not here to debate your religious, moral, legal or political views. I do like to read other perspectives that help me to understand the world I live in. I've been trying to do that for 68 years so far and it hasn't become any easier.

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:27:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They aren't after US (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          caul, burlydee, enhydra lutris, Justus

          it's a CIVIL WAR.

          Civil War = Internal.

          Can we call these things by their correct names, please?

          Waiting until after a direct attack on the US, US forces, or allied forces, would be disastrous.

          Let us also clarify the fact that there are no allies with this illegal, unilateral threat of "action" by this President.
           

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:23:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's saddening that people I once thought were (0+ / 0-)

            friends are now SHOUTING at me with angry misinformation. What in the world is going on here?

            Our allies in any action would be France, Turkey and certain Gulf states at a minimum. It is not unilateral.

            As to legality, that has been in dispute since 1973 with the passing of the War Powers Resolution and remains unresolved.

            The UN inspectors have now left Syria.
            http://www.cbsnews.com/...

            The team of 20 scientists and other U.N. workers left their Damascus hotel Friday apparently hoping to revisit the suburbs where an alleged widespread chemical weapons attack left hundreds dead Aug. 21. They've been into the area three times already this week.

            They turned back in just minutes, however, possibly because the regime of President Bashar Assad was continuing to shell the eastern Ghouta suburbs. Palmer reported hearing artillery fire as she reported live on "CBS This Morning" Friday.

            Why are so many people so much more angry with President Obama than with those responsible for using chemical weapons in an urban environment and killing people in their beds while they slept?

            My best to you, lunachickie.

            Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

            by Just Bob on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:05:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  we're not more angry with obama (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Just Bob, enhydra lutris, Justus

              but we have little influence over assad -- and i imagine most of us expend whatever meager influence we have by signing international petitions.  i know i have.  i'm also donating to humanitarian relief efforts, where it's badly needed (and where the US is helping).  

              US citizens are supposed to have more influence over their president, and their president is supposed to act within the law.

              and maybe you have forgotten that president also kills people in their beds while they sleep -- in pakistan, with drones.  americans should be furious with him.

              i am not more angry with obama, but i am much more disappointed in him.  i've never expected much better from assad while i used to like obama and trusted that he would do more good than harm.

            •  Yes, the war powers act has been disputed by (0+ / 0-)

              Presidents, but throwing it out doesn't give the President the power to start wars, it simply eliminates the recognition that he might need to respond to attacks on the US before Congress can act. Throwing it out simply means that Congress must declare war, no AUMFs, or other bullshit.

              The simple fact is that we have not been attacked and are not under threat of attack, so there is no Constitutional basis for the commitment of troops without Congressional action.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:02:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you think that every use of military force (0+ / 0-)

                is war? Be careful with your answer. We last declared war in 1941.

                Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

                by Just Bob on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 10:22:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you think calling something an "armed (0+ / 0-)

                  love in" changes what it is? The war powers act permits Congressional Authorizations other than declarations of war, but you wish to discard that, so all you can come up with is cheap semantics.

                  Were we waging peace in Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan? Answer carefully now, what is armed aggression in the furtherance of political policy (no fair looking at Von Klausewitz - memory only)?

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:20:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please don't distort what I say (0+ / 0-)

                    "armed love in" isn't my phrase and I wouldn't use that kind of language.

                    Contrary to your statement, I have never favored "discarding" the war powers act. There are universally acknowledged problems with the act that should be addressed.

                    "Waging peace" is cute but not serious.

                    The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect is a coalition of ngos. I would guess you might be interested in their work. Here's a list of the member groups:
                    http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/...

                    I invite you to browse that site with special attention to the Syrian crisis.

                    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

                    by Just Bob on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:39:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  remember 'kinetic action'? That's what I expect (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enhydra lutris, devis1, caul

        Obama to claim again which is saying if you bomb the living hell out of a Country, thousands of sorties, it is not a "war" because no American service members were in harms way.

        That was the explanation for Libya and right now Obama can blast away (he says' it will be a limited time that we're blowing people and places up) with those cheap little tomahawk missiles (/s) raining destruction without American lives in danger.

        I'm sure all Americans will understand if some other Country starts bombing us and without their soldiers in harms way they are not engaging in acts of war.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:01:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Time for a (secret) legal opinion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enhydra lutris

        Wonder who will be Obama's Yoo?   Just "interpret" the War Powers Act to mean what you want it to mean.

        Here I was about to suggest that, if Congress wanted to have a say, they should just repeal the War Powers Act, then threaten to impeach Obama if he starts yet another war.  Silly me.  The WPA is already clear about presidential authority, while (most of) Congress is just as jingoist as ever.

        Which doesn't mean that the GOP won't call for impeachment (still) after the fact.

        I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

        by tle on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:01:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site