Syria, the use of chemical weapons, the civil war,
and ongoing crises in the Middle East (where there seems to have always been
some form of crisis going on in my lifetime) makes for quite a predicament. I
do not envy the foreign policy team, the president, or Congress as they engage
and determine what actions to take.
Concerning the announcement to act and go to Congress
about Syria, there are two things I took away:
There is no rush to act in Syria.
The administration feels acting in Syria could
likely lead to a larger engagement than what will initially be undertaken.
[I am in no rush to see engagement in Syria, and
the administration has my support. Consulting congress and seeking authorization is a good thing.]
I found it interesting to hear and read
“experts” disagree about whether the president can act without the authority of
Congress. The wordplay in the president’s announcement was skillful and political.
To find out the answer [which I feel I and we (if you don’t know) all should
know definitively, shame on me]—can the president engage the U.S. Armed Forces in war
without approval from Congress—I did some research to educate myself.
Based on what I’ve found the answer is yes, in a national emergency and under the war powers resolution, which provides the president
60 days to engage and conclude the engagement or receive authorization from Congress
for further action.
In 2007, while a candidate for office, President Obama stated, “History
has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful
when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always
preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military
action.” It's somewhat clear where President Obama stands and his
actions are consistent with the approach to Syria.
When pursuing engagement in Libya the president
sent a letter to Congress informing:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all
necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under
threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a
"no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military
efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities
to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the
measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
…I have directed these actions, which are in the
national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant
to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as
Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
In short he informed Congress and the method in
which he chose was consistent with the War Powers Resolution which provided
legal authorization.
Further, he had additional legal precedent under
the U.N. Security Council Resolution. The U.N. has not authorized action in Syria.
The Library of Congress informs some U.S.
Presidents have taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an
unconstitutional infringement on the power of the presidency. Examples of the
Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:
1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order
to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which
had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited
Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution,
triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60
days had expired.
1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El
Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a
federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the
U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the
judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed
involved in hostilities.
1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in
peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress
under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger
the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire
and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a
compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983
authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was
signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed
legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.
1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding
the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the
position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out
the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all
necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional
"support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed,
and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use
force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had
failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various
operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in
the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were
pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in
conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President
made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers
Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1),
and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided
and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated
without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation
challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other
Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District
of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers
Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military
operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers
Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the
President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit;
this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir.
2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in
effect letting it stand.
2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing
President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to
prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by
such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time,
"organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional
authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than
just nations.
2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to
use force against Iraq (did not declare war), pursuant to the War Powers Resolution,
in Public Law 107-243.
I can see why a president would take issue with the
War Powers Resolution and aim to strengthen the presidency, there is the
possibility that we could cut our nose to spite our face. Regardless, war is no
effortless undertaking and should be entered with the full engagement with the
“American people’s representatives in Congress.” Because of politics I assess
the majority of future presidents will act alone which will be within their legal
authority [once started, Congress won’t stop it]; a few will
engage Congress, and Congress will likely not declare war ever again.
“Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry
out this military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know
that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will
be even more effective,” President Obama.
-----
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
·
The Congress shall have Power... To declare War.
-----
War Powers Resolution:
·
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 [U.N.
Resolution], or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the
United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
§ 1543. Reporting requirement
(a) Written report; time of submission;
circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case
in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a
foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate
solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United
States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
[t]he President shall submit within 48 hours to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the
Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction
of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority
under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the
hostilities or involvement.
-----
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 21, 2011
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time,
on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations
to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.)
Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab
partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to
international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the
multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973,
U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command,
began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields
for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in
their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international
coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage
for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all
necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under
threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a
"no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military
efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities
to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out
the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message
that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community
made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop
his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata,
and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas.
Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of
Libya.
Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an
immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such
a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on
Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and
civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and,
as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a
threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate
use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians
among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring
countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left
unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in
the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests
of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the
broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the
authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the
region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens
and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and
protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces
into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined
mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a
humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi
regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other
capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian
populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of
operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are
postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives
of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions,
which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign
relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to
keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I
appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
BARACK OBAMA
# # #
-----
President Obama's remarks on possible U.S. military
action in Syria, as released by the White House:
Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world
watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the
worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States
presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this
attack on its own people.
Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its
forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly
populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack
took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see —
hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well
over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young
girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.
This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also
presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery
of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our
friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan,
Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons,
or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.
In a world with many dangers, this menace must be
confronted.
Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided
that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime
targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots
on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration
and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their
use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their
capacity to carry it out.
Our military has positioned assets in the region.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike
whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our
capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective
tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that
order.
But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief
based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also
mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.
I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but
in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization
for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
Over the last several days, we've heard from
members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So
this morning, I spoke with all four Congressional leaders, and they've agreed
to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into
session.
In the coming days, my administration stands ready
to provide every member with the information they need to understand what
happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's
national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and
that can only be accomplished with a vote.
I'm confident in the case our government has made
without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the
approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely
paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many
people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly,
they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when
the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar
goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.
Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry
out this military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know
that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will
be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too
big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy
Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our
democracy.
A country faces few decisions as grave as using
military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those
who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war
that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from
taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we
just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.
Here's my question for every member of Congress and
every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator
can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's
the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on
the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98
percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of
the United States is not enforced?
Make no mistake — this has implications beyond
chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this
heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout
fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build
nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who
carry out genocide?
We cannot raise our children in a world where we
will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values
that define us.
So just as I will take this case to Congress, I
will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has
some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed
with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.
I don't expect every nation to agree with the
decision we have made. Privately we've heard many expressions of support from
our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international
community to stand publicly behind our action.
And finally, let me say this to the American
people: I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq.
We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good
sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our
military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences,
and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going
to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting
our troops in the middle of someone else's war.
Instead, we'll continue to support the Syrian
people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the
opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political
resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.
But we are the United States of America, and we
cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the
ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that
gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of
individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of
nations. We aren't perfect, but this nation more than any other has been
willing to meet those responsibilities.
So to all members of Congress of both parties, I
ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to
the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that
some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the
moment.
Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this
office at any given time; it's about who we are as a country. I believe that
the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and
now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do
what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other
way around.
We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn't
elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and
the Senate. I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values
demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with
chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the
people's representatives stand together.
I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today
I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move
forward together as one nation.
Thanks very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment