Like President Clinton, Obama will strike without UN or Congressional approval IMHO

[arely staircase]

I believe President Obama has already made up his mind. He would like to have UN or congressional backing but, as Clinton did in the Balkans, he will do it regardless. Clinton was, and Obama seems to be, convinced that US force was/is the only way to stop an intentional killing of civilians. In the case of the Balkans I supported president Clinton's efforts and I will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on Syria. I hope he is right. Regardless, mark my words, Obama will hit Assad (and in a very hard and sustained manner) within 90 days.

[Little Star]

1. If he got congressional approval would that mean that congress would have declared the war?

[arely staircase]

2. They haven't declared war on anyone since 1941, so unlikely. nt

[Little Star]

5. I know but if they do approve this time does it mean that they are the ones declaring war?

[arely staircase]

8. no. it would just mean they give their approval to the attack.

they refused to give Clinton such approval in the 90s. He attacked anyway.

[Little Star]

27. Thanks. But I still wonder what the difference would be....

Maybe when a president doesn't want war & congress says to bad because we are declaring one?

[arely staircase]

31. interesting hypothetical

say congress declared war on Albania. the president at the time has no interest in war with Albania so as CIC of the armed forcess he prosecutes the war with Albania by doing nothing.

[karynnj]

59. There would then not be one - the President is the only one who can commit troops

[Bodhi BloodWave]

60. i somewhat disagree

There would be a war(congress did after all declare one), it would just be a very peaceful war since no troops was committed to it

[karynnj]

58. The resolution does not "declare war", it authorizes a limited action

The McCain amendment expanded it beyond what Obama asked, but it still does not "declare war".

[fredamae]

3. Clinton had

approval from the Senate---took action and the vote in congress had Not taken place yet--they denied Clinton approval Post action..

So, was that legal or not?
(as I recall)

[Little Star]

6. The vote in the house hadn't taken place but the senate had already voted yes.....

So only half of congress had not voted yet when Clinton went in.

[fredamae]

9. Thanks

I thought that was the gist of it---Was that legal?

[arely staircase]

21. I am guessing it was technically illegal under international law

but with allies taking part, two of whom were members of the UN Security Council, it was a moot point. I think it was legal under US law because the president can committ the US to hostilities for a period of time without congressional approval under the War Powers Act.

[fredamae]

26. Thanks for clarifying

the differences...Time and circumstances for this Admin are very changed and different.

One thing I think we can all agree on: This is one Big Cluster-F**#-and we, the people are tasked with making a decision based upon unreliable information. While I do not want to know what our congress people know (classified stuff) I would like to have confidence in what we Are being told.

If PBO goes it alone-(I am against it)-there will be many, many, many people backing his impeachment and I don't believe it will be strictly partisan.

That frightens me.

[arely staircase]

28. I agree with most of wht you say but

I can't imagine impeachment getting farther than house hearings. Dems aren't going to impeach a Dem president when he violated no US law (strikes would be legal under the War Powers Act). And most Repubs wouldn't either.

[fredamae]

42. I would have completely

agreed with you 10-15 years ago-but this congress is unlike Any other I can remember--
Nothing surprises me anymore.
"The Libertarian TP Conservatives" have found and used every flipping "loop-hole" in the constitution and federal laws to get away with virtual Mutiny of the US Govt...without, apparently any legal and constitutional way to stop them--or maybe there is a way to stop it but those who could are not motivated to do so.
I used to think "it can never happen here"...Not anymore.

[arely staircase]

47. I think it would play out like this

the libertarian GOPers would support impeachment (but they are less than half the GOP House caucus.) Anti-war liberal Dems who went along with those GOPers on the Amash Amendment regarding the NSA would never go along with impeachment, regardless of their thoughts on military action in a million years.

[fredamae]

52. I hope your correct!

As many here know-I have many disagreements with this POTUS and his congress on Both sides--
But at this juncture impeachment is no option...
Just No.

[Little Star]

25. I heard some talking heads saying last night.....

some said yes, some said no. But I have no idea. Sorry.

[fredamae]

32. Thanks---so no one

really knows and I guess any comparison to PBO's decision is moot because this is not the same scenario, anyway.
But still an interesting review of how many ways a POTUS can use his/her powers allowing discretion of unilateral action while setting congress aside.....

Still in the learning curve personally....

[Bjorn Against]

14. Probably not, but the circumstances were different so he was able to get by with it

Clinton had UN support and did not have a major super power like Russia promising to provide weapons to our opposition. Also the House never voted Clinton down before he went in, they stalled and there was no vote taken until after the fact. The House is going to vote this time and they are likely to reject the war by a large margin. The circumstances are much different right now than they were when Clinton was in office so I don't think Obama would be able to get by with it like Clinton did.

[fredamae]

43. Thanks! You make

great points.

[Bjorn Against]

4. If you are right then he can look forward to impeachment hearings

If he goes in after being rejected by Congress then there will be a big push to impeach him and it will not just be Republicans pushing for impeachment hearings either. Doing what you suggest he will do would would be condemned by people across the political spectrum and put him in the midst of the biggest political firestorm faced by any President since Richard Nixon. Even if he survived impeachment his legacy would be destroyed.

[arely staircase]

12. committee hearings in the house perhaps, but that's it

I think he has weighed all of that and has made his decision.

[Bjorn Against]

20. It would be more than committe hearings, the House would almost certainly vote to impeach

It was a major ordeal for Clinton when he got impeached, but it would be even worse for Obama because he would not have the same level of support from his own party that Clinton had. Many Democrats would feel totally betrayed if he bombed without Congressional approval and they would not support him like they supported Clinton. The charges against Obama would be far more serious than they were against Clinton. I am almost certain the House would impeach, he could probably survive the trial in the Senate and stay in office until the end of his term but his political standing would be destroyed and he would not be able to accomplish much of anything for the rest of his Presidency.

[arely staircase]

22. I'm not sure what they could impeach for.

Can't the President leaglly committ the US to hostilities for 90 days under the War Powers Act?

[Bjorn Against]

23. I believe that is only the case if there is a direct threat to our national security

Because Syria poses no threat to our national security he needs to get approval not only from Congress but from the UN as well, it is a violation of international law to bomb another country that poses no direct threat to us.

[arely staircase]

24. I don't think there is any such requirement. If there is it would be "as determined by the

president."

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

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 resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[Bjorn Against]

33. Just because it was violated in the past does not mean it could be violated this time

The political circumstances were much different when Clinton violated it, just because he was able to get by with it does not mean Obama will. Clinton was never explicitly rejected by Congress before the bombing started plus he had UN support, Obama will have no UN support and he will most likely have an overwhelming No vote in the House rejecting his plan as well.

[arely staircase]

40. Obama would not be violating it if he informs Congress within 48 hours

and has begun to draw down within 60 days and has ended US action within 30 days after that. So he can pretty much do what he wants for 90 days. As far as the UN goes, I am guessing France will go along with this or at least block any condemnation by the Security C.

[Bjorn Against]

48. That is not what the law you just posted says

Let's look at the law you previously posted again...

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

If there is no attack on the United States or its possessions then Obama can not attack without Congressional approval. The law most definitely does not say that after Congress votes No he can still attack as long as he tells them he attacked within 48 hours.

[arely staircase]

51. it isn't a law. it is a congressional resolution, actually. I thought it was a law, but I was wrong

Panama, Grenada, Lebanan, Bosnia, Kosova etc. never attacked the US.

[Bjorn Against]

54. Nor did Congress explicitly say No before the fighting began in any of those cases either

You are proposing going in to bomb a country after Congress explicitly says No to the idea, that is not legal and would be grounds for impeachment. None of the other cases you mentioned were handled in the same way you are suggesting Obama will handle this one.

[arely staircase]

63. I'm not proposing anything. I am predicting that, like President Clinton in Kosova,

Obama will attack Syria without congressional approval. And I am not aware of any resolution before congress to prohibit an attack. All I am aware of is a resolution authorizing (which he doesn't need based on precedent) which will likely not pass.

[Bjorn Against]

67. A No vote on authorization means no bombing, if Obama bombs anyway he would deserve impeachment

You are splitting hairs when you say there is no resolution prohibiting an attack, everyone except the most die hard Obama can do no wrong people would view bombing after having their authorization rejected to be ignoring Congress and the will of the people. Impeachment would not only be justified it would be necessary as if such a thing were allowed to stand it would set a horrible precedent which could be abused by future Presidents.

[arely staircase]

69. I don't think the White House will interpret it the way you do. nt

[Bjorn Against]

70. Well if the White House does not interpret it that way they will face impeachment

Because damn near everyone outside of the White House will interpret it as violating the will of Congress and the American people. I don't think you have any clue as to the level of outrage that will come from people around the world if he does this.

[arely staircase]

71. I haven't addressed "outrage around the world". So I don't know how I am underestimating it.

I am simply predicting what I think the White House will do. And as far as impeachment, that would go nowhere.

[Bjorn Against]

73. I would not be so sure impeachment would go nowhere

I think if he did what you are suggesting he do it would not just be Republicans demanding impeachment. Many Democrats would demand impeachment as well, I know I would support impeachment over such a clear violation of both US and international law. I would also support sending him to the Hague for a war crimes trial.

[arely staircase]

74. I disagree.

I think impeachment would blow up in the Republican's faces. I bet close to zero congressional Democrats would support it even if strongly opposed to military strikes. As far as a war crimes trial for Obama in the Hague, I would say that impeachment is as likely to happen as such a trial.

[markpkessinger]

55. The 48 hours' notification requirement . . .

You are misreading the law. The law places TWO restrictions on the President's deployment of military force without advance approval from Congress: the first is that it must be a case of national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces. In ADDI"TION, if the President so uses military force without advance approval from Congress, he must notify Congress within 48 hours, etc.

[arely staircase]

61. It really doesn't appear there are any requirements.

I was under the impression it was an act of congress that had been signed into law. But it is a resolution and would seem to have no authority. More of a 48 hours suggestion, if you will.

[HardTimes99]

34. Bush and Cheney and their Junta should be standing trial for Iraq for this very reason. - nt

[Bjorn Against]

39. I fully agree with that, but the political circumstances were different

Bush and Cheney no doubt should have been impeached and tried with war crimes but they were protected by the system. Because of the political dynamics Obama would be far more likely to face impeachment hearings than Bush ever was, he does not have the same level of political protection that Bush and Cheney had.

[HardTimes99]

46. Agree fully with your analysis. There is no double-jeopardy in impeachment either. If they

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

failed to remove before the 2014 mid-terms, they could try again after the Senate went solidly Republican.

[arely staircase]

79. An impeachment process would hurt the GOP badly in a mid-term IMO

Nothing would bring pro-intervention and anti-intervention dems come together more than an ill conceived GOP led impeachment process. So the double jeopardy scenario you propose is next to impossible.

[HardTimes99]

80. Look, I've voted Democratic in every election since 1980. That's meant holding my nose for

some real stinkers along the way. But if Obama launches an attack after Congress has told him 'No,' I will be seriously considering whether Obama should be impeached and removed. If you are honest, you will agree that many on DU share my view. The notion that impeachment would hurt the GOP in the 2014 mid-terms is what is known kindly as 'whistling past the graveyard.'

[arely staircase]

81. you may consider it, but I would lay money that not a single Dem. congressperson would.

and the GOP would only do so at its peril. It is easy to mistake the passions of an internet discussion forum for the way things work in the real world.

[HardTimes99]

82. Republicans have the majority in the House (where the impeachment would commence). A Dem

Senate that failed to remove Obama before Jan. 2015 could easily be over-ruled by a Republican Senate post Jan. 2015.

[arely staircase]

84. Chances of Obama being impeached are slightly less than

Assad announcing an unconditional surrender tomorrow and throwing himself on the mercy of the rebels.

[HardTimes99]

85. OK. We're debating the chances of a hypothetical, so I guess for now we'll just have to

agree to disagree. Maybe we could wager a cyber-beer on what the outcome will be, if Congress votes 'No' and Obama orders an attack anyway.

Interesting side question: if Congress votes No and Obama orders an attack, can the U.S. military legally refuse to obey orders of the Commander in Chief? It is legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.

[arely staircase]

86. so you are going from impeachment to mutiny now?

lol

[HardTimes99]

87. You might take a close look at exactly when and why Obama decided

to go to Congress, as it relates to General Dempsey and the proposed orders to attack Syria. (Thanks to Sabrina1 for bringing this to our attention.)

[yourout]

76. Huge +1.......it would be a catastrophic mistake.

[cali]

7. I hope he doesn't. It will mean the nightmare of impeachment

[arely staircase]

10. They didn't impeach Clinton for doing the same thing.

They did impeach him for lying about a bj, though.

[cali]

15. different time, different specifics

I think it's pretty much a sure thing should he launch a military strike after Congress has said no.

On the other hand, I don't think that congress voting down the AUMF is as assured as a lot of people do.

[arely staircase]

18. see, I think they will vote it down

but I don't think impeachment over it would go farther than House hearings because the GOP doesn't want to start setting the precedent for impeaching over non-congressionally approved military strikes. They are a lot more trigger happy than even the most militant Dem. and know they will be in the WH again some day.

[markpkessinger]

56. It wasn't the same thing. . .

. . . as was pointed out earlier in the thread, he had the approval of the Senate. The House had not yet voted on the matter, and didn't vote on it until after the fact (when they refused to approve it ex post facto). So it wasn't a case of Clinton acting in outright defiance of Congress.

[arely staircase]

62. Clinton didn't have congressional approval; Obama won't

so pretty similar.

[David__77]

35. They'd have perfect political cover to impeach him if he proceeds to attack without approval.

Anyone who thinks this wouldn't happen are deluding themselves. A Senate trial would be very nerve-wracking, even though there'd be no conviction. John Roberts...

[NuclearDem]

11. If he does...

[arely staircase]

13. he will nt

[NuclearDem]

16. If this were Kosovo, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt

But this is starting to look less like Kosovo and more like Serbia c. 1914.

[KittyWampus]

44. I sort of agree w/1914 analogy. And it's why, at this point, we should stay away.

[cali]

17. you can't know that. No one does.

and it's way premature. Congress has yet to vote.

[arely staircase]

19. Of course I don't know. But it is my assessment and prediction.

I'm just an archair historian who keeps up with current events, so yeah I could be completely wrong. It is just how I read it right now.

[HardTimes99]

29. Hello, World War III - nt

[MineralMan]

30. Actually, I don't think that is a foregone conclusion.

I think that if Congress does not approve action, President Obama will not take action, but will wait. Then, when Assad does something again that amounts to an atrocity, he will point to the inaction of Congress. That's my take on his current strategy. President Obama is a clever guy, and seems unlikely to undertake a thoroughly unpopular action in Syria.

If another atrocity takes place, though, all bets are off, and Congress may be the recipient of considerable scorn from all sides. We shall see.

[arely staircase]

36. I think that is a reasonable hypothsis too.

If there is another gass attack on civilians I would put my prediction of action at 100 percent. But I put the probability without another attack at 90 percent. As I said upthread, I'm just an archair historian who keeps up with current events. And the way I read Obama's statements to date, I really can't imagine him just saying "oh, well congress wasn't with me so, whatever." I could be wrong.

[MineralMan]

41. Like you, I'm observing from a distance, so

I can't be sure what will happen. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. I have communicated my concerns with my legislators, though, and with the White House, for whatever that's worth.

[HardTimes99]

37. Will President Obama ignore all the atrocities committed by the rebels in the meanwhile? Civil

wars (at least the modern variety) are mostly one giant atrocity. Thinking especially of atrocities committed by the AQ wing of the rebels. Somehow, those never seem to get much mention any more except in wonkish places like DU.

Trying to pick sides in another country's civil war offers the same prospect of success as succesful stock picking, i.e., a blind-folded monkey throwing darts has a better chance of picking a winner than a panel of the most well-informed experts.

[MineralMan]

38. That was my essential question in the thread at the link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023611817

[KittyWampus]

45. This is my assessment too. Best to wait.

[MineralMan]

49. Thanks. We can let our government know our opinions,

but we are mostly observers, and will have to wait to see what happens. So it is with many situations.

[CakeGrrl]

75. Which is why Congress doesn't really want to vote.

They'd rather be able to lay everything off on the President.

But after all the screaming about "dictatorships" and "Imeperial Presidency" and all that crap, the President called their bluff and told them to have a stake in it.

And they're really too chickenshit to shoulder some of the decision-making responsibility.

But too bad. They asked for it.

And yes, the President is far more clever than the chattering masses will ever give him credit for.

If he was such a dictator, he need not have bothered with Congress. But he will have them on the record when something does go down again.

[IsItJustMe]

83. I was thinking along those exact same lines

I was thinking that congress will vote NO. At that point Obama will say,

'OK, but I still reserve the right, as POTUS, to take action against Syria'.

This could be a great solution to the current problem. He keeps the Hammer over Assad's head as a deterrant of further use of chemical weapons while at the same time having the perception of being strong because although he has not taken action, you can't say he will not.

[LittleBlue]

50. If he does, he will face impeachment

and rightly so.

[arely staircase]

53. which would go nowhere

some House Committee hearings, which would probably blow up in the GOPs face.

[gopiscrap]

57. IMHO I think that if he does that, the House will impeach him

[morningfog]

64. If that is the case, which I don't disagree that is a strong possibility, it will be illegal under

international and domestic law. The strikes will be impeachable in the US and war crimes internationally.

He will personally take the full brunt of the humanitarian disaster that follows. It would be an incredibly horrible decision.

[jsr]

65. The war will happen. He wants it bad.

[struggle4progress]

66. Obama Has No 'Intention' To Strike Syria If Congress Says No (NPR - 6 September)

by Mark Memmott
September 06, 2013 9:52 AM

"The president of course has the authority to act" even if Congress does not support his plan for a military strike on Syria, White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken host Steve Inskeep earlier today.

But Blinken also said of the president that it is "neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him" ...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/06/219626379/obama-has-no-intention-to-strike-syria-if-congress-says-no

[arely staircase]

68. I believe he has no "desire"

but I'm guessing Blinke's statement about "intention" will be walked back. I simply can't imagine this or any president saying the stakes are as high as President Obama says they are and then doing nothing, when he clearly has the authority to do something.

[Rex]

72. We shall see.

nt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Will he be wearing a cowboy hat with his codpiece?

[Democracyinkind]

78. Clinton doctrine

Huzzah for the third way!!

[donna123]

88. Congress=know nothing, do nothing, be nothing

This congress, mainly the republican led house, is a freaking joke and populated by idiots, nutcases (case in point bachmann), and anti to anything Obama or the democrats bring up, so to ask them for approval on anything has no value. Whether they approve it or not means nothing to me because the republicans in the house have shown they are incapable of doing anything useful, constructive, and good for the people.

As for the UN, can someone explain how that works? If Russia and/or China do not agree, does that mean any UN action is vetoed? As long as one member of the security council vetoes it? Since Russia is sure to veto any syria action, what would be accomplished by seeking UN approval as it would not be obtained?

Obama was right about Libya and right about OBL. Whether it is gut instinct or intellectual decision making or both, IMO he has a good track record. He is a reluctant warrior, not a warmonger like Cheney. If the US takes no action after all of this, I think the US will be considered very weak by the rest of the world. If that is the path most want the US to be on, as the Rand Pauls of the world want, a US that is off the world stage, then it does make sense for the US to not be involved in anything, anywhere.

I prefer though the US having more influence in the world than a country like russia. The values of a country like Russia, where gay people are not tolerated, is very scary to me. I am not gay, but that is not the point, is it. Yes, there are some crazies in the US as well (wish they would move to russia), but I believe the majority of the US is moderate. Our system has been paralyzed though as we are being held hostage by some extremists in the republican party, mainly due to gerrymandering.