There's an argument out there, favored by many of the usual hawks, that asserts Obama simply must bomb Syria lest he and the United lose "credibility." He set a "red line," and the failure to adhere to it would make the U.S. look weak, never mind the U.S.'s unnecessarily large arsenal of nuclear weapons and massive defense budget. Those, of course, are insufficient deterrents.
Obama has been trying to weasel out of his past statement, not by changing the definition of "red line" (which should come easy to a legally trained mind), but by claiming that "humanity" set the red line. Humanity, insofar as it has ever been organized, established the UN Charter, and that bans threatening to attack other nations when not in self-defense. But, for the purpose of this discussion, let's look at the UN conventions as moral commands established by "humanity."
If you want an example of lost "credibility" along with the flouting of red lines set by "humanity" and deadlines set by the president, look at Gitmo.
On January 22, 2009, after taking office, one of the first things that President Barack Obama did was issue an executive order calling for the closure of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay in one year:
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
The Guantanamo Bay detention facility had long been violating the
United Nations Convention Against Torture, of which the U.S. is one of 153 parties. Back in 2006, United Nations human rights investigators
called for the facility to be closed:
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 16 — United Nations human rights investigators called on the United States today to shut down the Guantánamo Bay camp and give detainees quick trials or release them, but the White House promptly dismissed the report.
Arguing that many of the interrogation and detention practices constituted abuses amounting to torture, the report stated, "The United States government should close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay."
....
It also expresses "utmost concern" at "attempts by the United States administration to redefine 'torture' in the framework of the struggle against terrorism in order to allow certain interrogation techniques that would not be permitted under the internationally accepted definition of torture."
....
The report said that the "executive branch of the United States government operates as judge, prosecutor and defense counsel of the Guantánamo Bay detainees" and asserted that this constituted "serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial."
If Obama thinks that "humanity" set a "red line" with the Chemical Weapons Convention, then he must think that "humanity" did so with the Convention against Torture (and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment).
As of the date of Obama's executive order, the U.S. had faced no punishment for violating this "red line" set by humanity. It still has not.
What came after Obama set a firm goal of closing Guantanamo in one year? Did the President and his cabinet engage in a vigorous lobbying campaign to get Democrats in the House and Senate on board?
No.
“Rahm Emmanuel’s basic view was that he thought this was a crazy waste of political capital. That was a signal to the rest of the bureaucracy, ‘Don’t expose yourself on this,’” one person involved in the discussions said. “There was more that could be done. But once it became clear that the White House was no longer investing, everyone got the message.”
The White House forbade Justice and State Department officials from even going to Capitol Hill to meet with Democrats for much of 2009, over the objections of senior officials in those departments.
Did the President and his advisers aggressively use the media to push for the closure of the detention facility, booking prime-time interviews with every major outlet, sending surrogates to all of the Sunday shows, and speaking to the public directly from the Oval Office? No.
The Senate did, as you probably remember, vote down a proposal sent to them by Obama to close Gitmo. However, his proposal would have just relocated the facility without changing the practices. Here's Glenn Greenwald in Salon:
When the President finally unveiled his plan for “closing Guantanamo,” it became clear that it wasn’t a plan to “close” the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it — import it — onto American soil, at a newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois. William Lynn, Obama’s Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter to inquiring Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison some of the detainees with no charges of any kind. The plan was classic Obama: a pretty, feel-good, empty symbolic gesture (get rid of the symbolic face of Bush War on Terror excesses) while preserving the core abuses (the powers of indefinite detention ), even strengthening and expanding those abuses by bringing them into the U.S.
But did he even need to go to the Senate? Earlier this year, legal scholar Eric Posner wrote an article for Slate entitled
"President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants". Here's what he had to say:
President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he’s saying, the president does not want to close the detention center—at least not yet.
The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the president’s power to wage war against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil.
The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept them—the problem is that most countries won’t, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, can’t guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law.
There is another section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress “affirms” the authority of the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups “pending disposition under the law of war.” Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that “disposition under the law of war” includes “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by” the AUMF. Thus, when hostilities end, the detainees may be released.
The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaida—simply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congress—this happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the president has this authority.
(You can go to Slate to read the full article).
In other words, through his powers as commander-in-chief, he could do quite a lot to realize his past commitment to close Gitmo. He has chosen not to use such powers.
If the president wanted to restore his and the nation's "credibility" on the world stage and show that the president's deadlines have weight and human rights rhetoric has substance, then he should be making the closure of Guantanamo an immediate priority. There would be far more "credibility"--constitutional, moral, international--gained than would be by bombing a new country.