Authorization for Military Force Against Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

[L. Coyote]

This is what having a legitimate, intelligent President looks like:

Obama Speaks on Syria --- Aug. 31, 2013 | 10:00 VIDEO

President Obama spoke in the Rose Garden at the White House on Saturday, saying that he would seek Congressional approval for a strike on Syria.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria
AUG. 31, 2013

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (S.J.Res 21) is a United States Senate Joint Resolution that would authorize President Barack Obama to use the American military to intervene in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The bill was filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 6, 2013 in a specially scheduled pro forma Senate session that took place during the last week of the August recess.[1] The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days.[2] The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops.[2]

.....

Section Two of the bill authorizes the President of the United States to use the American Armed Forces "in a limited and specified manner against legitimate military targets in Syria" only to achieve four particular goals:[36]

(1) to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria;[36]
(2) to deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect United States allies and partners against the use of such weapons;[36]
(3) to degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future;[36] and
(4) to prevent the transfer to terrorists groups or any other state or non-state actors within Syria of weapons of mass destruction.[36]

The bill specifies (in section two, subsection b) that, before taking any such action, the President must make available to Congress his determination that six conditions have been met. These conditions are (direct quotes):

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction by Syria;[36]
(2) the Government of Syria has conducted one or more significant chemical weapons attacks;[36]
(3) the use of military force is necessary to respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Government of Syria;[36]
(4) it is in the core national security interest of the United States to use such military force;[36]
(5) the United States has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of (A) responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Government in Syria in the conflict in Syria; (B) deterring Syria's use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect United States allies and partners against the use of such weapons; (C) degrading Syria's capacity to sue such weapons in the future; and (D) preventing the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors within Syria of any weapons of mass destruction;[36] and
(6) the use of military force is consistent with and furthers the goals of the United States strategy toward Syria, including achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict.[36]

Section Three of the bill states that the authorization in section two does not authorize the "use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations."[36]

....

[Cha]

1. Thank you for this, Coyote

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Yup. The American Way to do thing right.

[L. Coyote]

14. Ben Rhodes: Obama worried about impeachment for Syria actions

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/314778-top-aide-obama-worried-about-impeachment-for-syria-actions
By Nikita Vladimirov - 01/18/17

President Obama's deputy national security adviser says in a new interview that the threat of impeachment "was a factor" in Obama's decision not to pursue a tougher intervention policy in Syria.

"We actually had Congress warning us against taking action without congressional authorization, which we interpreted as the president could face impeachment," Ben Rhodes told Politico Magazine.

When asked to elaborate, the president's adviser said that Republicans, including then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), made it clear that premature military action without congressional approval would be unconstitutional.

"That was a factor. Go back and read the letters from Boehner, letters from the Republican members of Congress. They laid down markers that this would not be constitutional.

........................

Link to tweet

[Baitball Blogger]

16. Let it be known. It needs to get out in the mainstream.

Another example of the right's hypocrisy.

[L. Coyote]

17. Plus: missile barrage against the Syrian governments al-Shayrat airfield was a $70 million failure

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/07/fail-syrian-airfield-trump-attacked-already-launching-strikes/

Link to tweet

Local sources indicate that Russian and Syrian military units were evacuated and moved out of the area before the barrage hit. ABC News has confirmed that the Russians were made aware of the strike four hours before it happened, who almost certainly warned the Syrian air force.
.....
The lack of lasting damage against the airbase only solidifies the suspicion that Trump’s grand gesture was nothing but a shameful charade intended to boost his poll numbers, create the perception that he’s a strong president who decisively takes action, and pull the public’s attention away from the investigation into his potentially treasonous collusion with Russia.
.........

[L. Coyote]

3. Potential Turkish Role in Syria Chemical Strike That Almost Sparked U.S. Bombing

[L. Coyote]

4. UN Peace Council Drops The Truth On Syria And Propaganda Media

[TomVilmer]

21. Not much truth and even less UN...

... but interesting anyway. It would be very interesting, if this story about Assad being a peaceful hero, wrongfully accused and fully supported by all of the Syrian people was correct. But we also had such Peace Council-people in Denmark, and it is a private activist group in no way supported by the United Nations. This group has little credibility, since they were normally blindly supporting Russia - emphasis on the blindly part, since their arguments seems very naive. A bit of of this video is OK though, like some of the history and the shady background of the White Helmets.

[Javaman]

5. I miss him. nt

[riversedge]

6. And the Republican Congress did not even hold a vote.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. So they could forget / obscure what they did and BLAME OBAMA

[L. Coyote]

7. Russia warns of 'negative consequences' if U.S. targets Syria

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-un-russia-idUSKBN179039

Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned on Thursday of "negative consequences" if the United States carries out military strikes on Syria over a deadly toxic gas attack.

"We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise," Safronkov told reporters when asked about possible U.S. strikes.

When asked what those negative consequences could be, he said: "Look at Iraq, look at Libya."

[jeanmarc]

8. Yes, Golden Showers for billionaire US citizens. Nt.

[L. Coyote]

9. Putin and Obama face off Over Syria

[L. Coyote]

10. Rachel covers trump's past Twitter activity telling Obama to stay out of Syria.

[ffr]

12. It's a good day for the military industrial complex. We just fired off a bunch of missiles

that will now need to be replaced. I'm sure more weapons will be burned up too.

Time to turn some profits on the defense stocks. Go Raytheon!

[L. Coyote]

15. I wonder how much missile industry stock the Trumps bought yesterday.

[L. Coyote]

13. Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise The military intervention solved nothing.

Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise

The military intervention solved nothing, while bypassing Congress, betraying the president’s non-interventionist supporters, and highlighting his hypocrisy.
Conor Friedersdorf

Early the morning of August 21, 2013, six densely populated neighborhoods in Syria “were jolted awake by a series of explosions, followed by an oozing blanket of suffocating gas,” the Washington Post reported at the time. “Unknown to Syrian officials, U.S. spy agencies recorded each step in the alleged chemical attack, from the extensive preparations to the launching of rockets to the after-action assessments by Syrian officials. Those records and intercepts would become the core of the Obama administration’s evidentiary case linking the Syrian government to what one official called an ‘indiscriminate, inconceivable horror’—the use of outlawed toxins to kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children.”

Days later, President Obama declared that he was ready to order a military strike on Syria ... but added that as “president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy,” he would consult Congress. Legislators never did vote to approve a strike, in part because the American public did not want to intervene militarily in Syria.

And a bitter Obama Administration critic, Donald Trump, took to Twitter to weigh in. “If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!” the real estate developer wrote. “What I am saying is stay out of Syria,” Trump added days later. “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER,” he emphasized, “DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

Most importantly, Trump Tweeted this:

Link to tweet

................................

[L. Coyote]

18. Top 10 Republicans who have done a complete 180 on Syria now that Obamas not president

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/here-are-10-republicans-who-have-done-a-complete-180-on-syria-now-that-obamas-not-president/

In 2013, President Barack Obama went to Congress to ask for an authorization of force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — and he was turned down, in large part thanks to opposition from Republicans in Congress.

Here are the biggest Republican flip-flops in Syria that have happened over the last four years.

1.) President Donald Trump. Trump is, of course, the most notable person to change his mind ..............

Link to tweet

...............

2. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Although Ryan gave Trump his approval for Thursday night’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that Obama’s proposed military strike “cannot achieve its stated objectives” and could make things worse.

3. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). On Thursday evening, Chaffetz sent out a tweet that read, “God bless the USA!” But in 2013, he said he would oppose the use of force in Syria on the grounds that he saw “no clear and present danger” to the United States that would justify using force.

.........

5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Although Rubio has been blanketing the airwaves praising Trump’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that “I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict.”

.....

[L. Coyote]

19. Sen. Murphy: I dont trust the Trump admin. on Syria

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[bigtree]

20. one key objection

(4) it is in the core national security interest of the United States to use such military force;

This is a stretch of the meaning of national security. President Obama and Trump both are arguing that there's some future threat which precipitates military action now, but under the War Powers Act, there must be an immediate threat which renders military action unavoidable.

Pres. Obama used the same weak justification of some future threat for his Libya strikes.

The 'national security' hook used by Obama hasn't been challenged in any substantive way by Congress. He backed away from unilateral action, but I think codifying the notion that a Syria strike is in the 'national interest' is a slippery slope to an even more unaccountable and autocratic use of our military forces than what's allowed now.

Rep. Pelosi gave her approval to Trump's airstrike, but insisted he must come to Congress for any future airstrikes against the Syrian regime. That's consistent with how presidents have been using their powers to commit forces under the WPA in instances where there might be controversy in Congress - striking out initially, then pulling back short of seeking an authorization. "One and done" is what they call it.

The weak 'national interest' provision in his resolution (and in Trump's justification) regarding Syria and the argument behind it is an unnecessary power grab by the Executive and should be rejected by Congress.