For those saying Obama would be a war criminal for attacking Syria and should be impeached

[arely staircase]

and maybe even sent to the Hague, have you actually watched what it is that has him advocating military action against the Assad regime? You want to see a war crime? This is a war crime. This the torture-murder of children. Whether you support military action or have your doubts (like me) or out right oppose it, you need to put this into context. Calling Obama a war criminal when he wants (whether or not you agree with his tactics) to stop THIS, I mean come on we can disagree about what he wants to do but war crimes are what he is trying to stop.

Warning, graphic link to CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2013/09/07/nr-vo-tapper-classified-congress-syria.cnn.html

[Thinkingabout]

1. I agree, i don't think he could be impeached for doing what his oath requires. I don't like wars

But crazy is just crazy to even say impeach at this time.

[hobbit709]

32. what his oath requires is this:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

you see anything in there that applies to Syria?

[Thinkingabout]

33. There is a international treaty against chemical warfare from 1925, it is part of protect and defend

and preserve, just like the torture of our troops through the Geneva Convention. His position is executive branch, he is to get the job done.

[davidn3600]

2. But bombing Syria is not going to stop Assad

That's the problem. If ending Assad and destroying his chemical weapons was as easy as firing a few cruise missiles, then there probably would be all that much debate. But that's not what would be accomplished.

Just to secure the chemical weapons the Pentagon estimates it would take more than 75,000 troops on the ground.

Let's get something straight...Syria is not Libya. It's not that easy this time.

[arely staircase]

3. I agree

I am specifically addressing the president's motives and the taunts of impeachment, war criminal, hague, etc.

[lumpy]

4. Obviously ignorance reigns. The articles of impeachment set a very high standard. We would have

had more leaders/politicians impeached without those standards.

[Electric Monk]

5. An attack on Syria would send everyone a message...

[LWolf]

6. Because so many DUers are calling for his impeachment.

[Skittles]

9. another case of the vapors

yup

[arely staircase]

10. they're all over the place

I'm not gonna link to trash, but if you can't see them, good for you. maybe you have the real trash blocked.

[cali]

25. No they aren't. there are very few people here who have made comments

in favor of impeaching the president.

[morningfog]

30. I said if he strikes without Congressional approval, he could be impeached.

That is not the same as saying he should. I haven't seen people on DU calling for his impeachment.

[msongs]

21. "so many"? where, I have not seen any nt

[LWolf]

24. Exactly. nt

[ocpagu]

7. The road to hell is paved with "good intentions"

If he attacks Syria without UN approval he will be a war criminal. And I will remember it forever.

[Adrahil]

34. The UN is a freakin' joke.

The UN is a useless hang-wringing society, crippled by Russia and China. It still does some good humanitarian work, but it's utterly useless in cases like this.

[Marr]

8. Lots of very emotional rhetoric, but the intel is somehow all classified.

I could swear I've heard this song before.

I don't believe for one second that this is really about preventing future gas attacks. Our own government doesn't exactly have a great reputation for going out of it's way to spare civilians.

[arely staircase]

11. please explain

how president Obamas administration "doesn't exactly have a great reputation for going out of it's way to spare civilians."

[Marr]

12. ...

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/leaked_report_shows_high_civilian_death_toll_from_cia_drone_strikes/

[cali]

26. the use of drone signature strikes and "double tapping". Irrefutable.

[Savannahmann]

13. By what authority can President Obama attack?

The Commander in Chief title is generally recognized as authorizing him to act in American interests.

There are no UN resolutions, nor any findings of direct threats to the US. Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Conventions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

So holding them to a standard they have not agreed to is at best disingenuous. If I never signed a contract there is no way to hold me to the conditions of the agreement.

So what is our authority? Right now, moral outrage. It is even more asinine than the complaint Syria violated an agreement they never signed.

Impeachment is the one thing I'm not worried about. I will withhold my reasons for now, but there is no way the Republicans try it.

However, our reputation will be irrevocably harmed if we attack. We may well find ourselves defending against a UN resolution condemning our actions. If it doesnt turn into WW III.

[HardTimes99]

15. Syria signed the CBW treaty . . . when she was a French mandate. That's like saying we

were bound in 1800 by agreements the colonial governors signed in 1770.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Syria is not a signatory of the cw treaty. It is a signatory of the GC.

However that is irrelevant. There is no treaty that grants the us unilateral authority to enforce these treaties. There is a treaty we signed, part of the UN charter, that denies any nation the right to initiate war against other nations. Our attacking Syria, regardless of their violation or non violation of the GC or the CW treaties would be a war crime.

[HardTimes99]

14. Sorry, Jack. I don't makes the rules. If you're not under threat of imminent attack, international

law says you have to get a U.N. Security Council Resolution or be branded a war criminal. See Bush-Cheney, et. al.

As for impeachment, if Congress says 'No!' and the President goes ahead and does it anyway, that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. See Reagan-Bush Sr. and Iran-Contra.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I'm not saying any of those things, but your entire premise is whack. Your assertion is that no

action which one claims is done to 'stop war crime' could be a war crime. So it would be fine to answer Assad's actions with a nuke or with massive carpet bombing. After all, we are trying to stop a war crime and that absolves us of our own crimes.

[mike_c]

17. so US committing another war crime is the answer?

Honestly, I haven't seen much credible discussion calling for impeaching Obama, but I've been very up front about the criminality of attacking Syria. We're not "just saying it." I'm getting tired of quoting the UN Charter, the supremacy clause of the Constitution, and the Kellog-Brand Pact over and over so I'll leave you to your own research, should you be inclined to take your head out of the sand, but it would indeed be a war crime to attack Syria without UN authorization. We were instrumental in making it so, too. If it's a crime when someone else does it, it's a crime when we do it.

As for Assad, I have no doubt about his crimes--but like any other crimes, the correct response is to act within the rule of law rather than going off all half-cocked George Zimmerman vigilante on whomever raises our ire. Assad will certainly end up in The Hague if he survives the civil war in Syria, which is as it should be.

[hooverville29]

18. He needs sanction by an international body (UN) to attack another country

It doesn't matter under international law that we feel outrage over what another country does internally (e.g., Germans against the Jews). If we want military action against that country we need formal authorization by a body such as the UN to legitimize military action against another country that we cannot show is a demonstrable, clear threat against the United States itself.

That doesn't include offending our sensitivities. We are not the world's moral policeman.

Congressional authorization takes care of US law, but not international law. Go to the UN, Security Council vetoes or not. We voted for setting up the UN with veto power in the Security Council and we approved Russia and China as permanent members. Just wait for the day when the UN proposes a move against Israel. We'll veto it.

Take Syria to the UN>

[4bucksagallon]

20. I don't know Grayson and Palin say let Allah sort it out.

Of course then the adults send these children to bed without supper. LOL! I still have faith in our President to do the right thing.

[treestar]

22. They keep ignoring that part

It's appalling.

[Dash87]

23. I guess we should send the rebel leaders to the Hague too then.

I guess that doesn't fit into the current media narrative, though.

[Laelth]

27. You're going to need a lot more straw to stuff that man. n/t

-Laelth

[Democracyinkind]

28. Tell that to the dead children in Waziristan. nt

[morningfog]

29. That video does not change the international law. Without the UN or an attack on us, any strike

would be a war crime. Even if it is the moral thing to do (which I think it is not), it is not a legal act to take. Two war crimes do not make a right.


That is not the same as saying he should be sent to the Hague or impeached.

[Bjorn Against]

31. I suggested impeachment only if he commited an impeachable offense

If he bombs after Congress votes No as you suggested he should do in another thread that would rise to the level of impeachable offense. I don't support impeachment now, but if he decides to bomb after being told No by Congress then I would absolutely support impeachment because that crosses a line no president should be allowed to cross.