HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Syria Doves In Congress W...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 10:53 PM

Syria Doves In Congress Want A Vote

“The decision to use military force should always be one made with the utmost caution, with U.S. interests at stake, and with the consent of Congress,” said Rep. Chris Gibson, a Republican ...."

“Importantly, rather than being solely concerned with U.N. approval, the President must come first to our own Congress for authorization ...."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/syria-doves-in-congress-worry-about-white-house-snub

19 replies, 1869 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Syria Doves In Congress Want A Vote (Original post)
dusty trails Aug 2013 OP
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #1
newfie11 Aug 2013 #5
dionysus Aug 2013 #18
newfie11 Aug 2013 #19
Hippo_Tron Aug 2013 #2
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #6
Hippo_Tron Aug 2013 #10
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #12
Hippo_Tron Aug 2013 #13
dtom67 Aug 2013 #3
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #7
dtom67 Aug 2013 #9
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #11
jakeXT Aug 2013 #4
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #8
razorman Aug 2013 #14
JayhawkSD Aug 2013 #15
razorman Aug 2013 #17
FairVote Aug 2013 #16

Response to dusty trails (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:28 AM

1. Yeah, they tried this with Libya, too.

Congress even passed a bill expressly prohibiting military action in Libya. Lot of good that did. Obama has made it clear the decision is his.

We will use military force in Syria. It will originally be phrased as an effort to prevent the "additional" use of chemical weapons, but will morph into "we will not stop until Assad is gone," otherwise known as regime change. Deja vu all over again. Libya redux.

Give Obama another Nobel Peace Prize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:57 AM

5. You nailed it

We are just going to distroy what's left of the country and oil companies will have a hayday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:49 PM

18. Syria's oil production is 0.48% of the worlds share.

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

there's plenty of arguments not to attack syria, this one is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:07 PM

19. Not so fast

The Kirkuk-Banias pipeline runs from Kirkuk in Northern Iraq, to the Syrian town of Banias, on the Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Lebanon. Ever since US forces inadvertently destroyed it in 2003, most of the pipeline has been shut down. While there have been plans in the works to make the Iraqi portion of the pipeline functional again, those plans have yet to come to fruition. And Syria has at least 2.5 billion barrels of oil in its fields, making it the next largest Middle Eastern oil producer after Iraq. After ten unproductive years, the oil companies dependent on the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline's output are eager to get the pipeline operational again. The tension over the Syrian oil situation is certainly being felt by wealthy investors in the markets, who are thus dictating US foreign policy.

It's easy to see why the oil-dominated US government wants to be involved in Syria's outcome. The Free Syrian Army has since taken control of oil fields near Deir Ezzor, and Kurdish groups have taken control of other oil fields in the Rumeilan region. Many of the numerous atrocities that Assad's government committed against unarmed women and children were in Homs, which is near one of the country's only two oil refineries. Israel, the US's only ally in the Middle East, is illegally occupying the Golan Heights on the Syrian border and extracting their resources. The US wants to get involved in Syria to monopolize its oil assets, while simultaneously beating our competition – Iran, Russia and China – in the race for Syrian black gold.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/17981-the-us-wants-syrian-oil-not-democracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dusty trails (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:59 AM

2. The framers likely intended for congressional approval for military action, but...

The problem is that they didn't foresee the large standing army that we have today. The constitution doesn't explicitly forbid military action absent a declaration of war. It just gives congress the power to declare war and fund the military, while making the President commander-in-chief.

The War Powers Resolution doesn't have the force of law because the Supreme Court won't rule on its constitutionality. Congress technically still holds the cards because they can impeach the President or cut off funding for the military, but modern political realities make both of those impossible.

The situation as it is now is that the President can use military force however he sees fit, because all of the legal remedies that congress has to stop him are not politically viable.

This is unfortunate and IMO needs to change. The President should be able to use force unilaterally in an emergency to defend the country, but a simple majority vote of congress should be required to enter into a military conflict and that same simple majority should be able to force the country out of a military conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:24 AM

6. A few problems with your dissertation

"The problem is that they didn't foresee the large standing army that we have today."

The framers, in the constitution which they wrote, expressly forbade the "large standing army which we have today," in saying that any bill funding the army could not be for more than two years. The executive branch is not the only one which abrogates the constitution.

They did forsee a large standing army and tried to prevent it. There are dozens of papers written by the founding fathers on the evils of a standing army, on the likelihood that if a nation has a standing army it will be tempted to use it, and on the importance that the new nation be prohibited from maintaining a standing army but rather base its defense on state militias. They thought that restricting spending on armies used in international war to two years would be sufficient to prevent the formation and maintenance of a standing army.

"The constitution doesn't explicitly forbid military action absent a declaration of war."

No, but international law, the Hague Convention, and the Sovereignty of Nations, a principle which goes back to the time of ancient Greeks, does. The United States considers itself above international law, and is so powerful economically and militarily that no other nation dares challenge us, but I don't consider our uncivilized, thuggish and and unlawful behavior anything to be proud of.

"The War Powers Resolution doesn't have the force of law because the Supreme Court won't rule on its constitutionality."

An act passed by Congress does not need to be validated by The Supreme Court. It has the force of law unless The Supreme Court overturns it. For that reason, the War Powers Act has the force of law in every respect.

"Congress technically still holds the cards"

And this is completely meaningless if they choose to fold their hand, which they have done. A meaningless point.

"The situation as it is now is that the President can use military force however he sees fit, because all of the legal remedies that congress has to stop him are not politically viable."

Otherwise stated; the president can do whatever he wants because no one chooses to stop him.

"The President should be able to use force unilaterally in an emergency to defend the country,"

The War Powers Act gives him that, but no one can rationally claim that anything going on in Syria presents a national emergency to this nation.

"but a simple majority vote of congress should be required to enter into a military conflict"

A simple majority vote of Congress is required to enter into a military conflict, and that has been ignored by presidents since the 1050's when wa went to war in Korea. Congress has been complicit in that abrogation of constitutional check and balance by not insisting on maintaining its prerogative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:46 PM

10. I think we agree on pretty much all of the points, except for the international law part...

Undeclared war has been almost a universal norm in the Post World War II era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 01:00 AM

12. By the US certainly, yes.

Can you cite who else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 06:34 PM

13. Formally declared wars since World War II number in the single digits

The exact number depends on how you define formal definition but if you scroll down to page 9-10 of this paper, you'll see the author notes that the data set political scientists use has the number at just two since 1950.

https://bc.sas.upenn.edu/system/files/Fazal_12.10.09.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dusty trails (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:31 AM

3. the unwashed peasantry....

Being too stupid to even warrant concern as far as approval as concerned.
Hate to be a broken record, but the money they will borrow to pay for war will be in OUR name; we will pay for it, financially and consequencially. We must pay in money and blood whilst the war profiteers laugh all the way to the bank.
And lets not kid ourselves. We will attack Syria because regime change will mean less reliance for the EU on Russian LNG. Its all about cheaper natural gas for the EU.
That is how the real world works. Nobody gives a fuck about dead children. We have killed children throughout the Middle East for years. And we are gonna keep doing it, while the TV pats us on the back for our nobility.

Its all to save Europe a couple of bucks per gallon on natural gas. And to further undercut Russian exports of same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dtom67 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:34 AM

7. You have to be dreaming if you think

that any gas lines are going to be built through a Syria controlled by the forces whichg overthrow Assad.

Could a major gas line be built through Libya today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to dtom67 (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 12:59 AM

11. Really?

A 52 kilometer (32 miles) pipeline from a production facility to the coast is a far different proposition than a transportation pipeline hundreds of miles through territory controlled by several different warring factions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dusty trails (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:55 AM

4. Not in the US / UK

Pressure grows for recall of Parliament on Syria

‘If, in reality, the Prime Minister is now considering military options involving UK personnel then of course I would expect him to seek a recall of Parliament and to come to the House of Commons and make his case in advance of a decision being made.’

‘In 2006 in opposition, David Cameron specifically promised political reform to ensure the Whitehall machine could not take us to war without Commons approval. Like so much else, it seems to have been forgotten. The Whitehall securocrats seem to have decided on military action, and the people’s elected representatives have been ignored. This is how our country is now run.’

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/pressure-grows-for-recall-of-parliament-on-syria/


“Congress hasn’t authorized war against Syria. Unless Pres Obama expects imminent attack on U.S., use of force is unconstitutional & illegal,” he tweeted Friday night.

But Syria hawks have said the president has the authority to act short of putting boots on the ground in Syria — something no one has advocated and the president has ruled out — without a vote of Congress.

And there is ample precedent in recent decades, including President Bill Clinton’s air war in Kosovo, and Obama’s strikes in Libya, of presidents acting without Congressional authorization.

With Congress at home this month, don’t expect that pattern to change if Obama decides to attack Syria.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/obama-will-consult-congress-on-syria/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jakeXT (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:38 AM

8. Yes, we are headed for a "Libya redux."

It will start out as "punishing Assad for use of gas," but will morph into the need to keep doing it to prevent further use of gas, and then into "we will not let up until Assad is gone," otherwise known as "regime change."

As I've said before, give Obama another Nobel Peace Prize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 28, 2013, 12:35 PM

14. I think it may even be "Iraq redux". For crying out loud,

"Weapons of mass destruction" is being used as an excuse again, even if they are not using those actual words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to razorman (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:23 AM

15. Well, that is a pretty all inclusive term

A pressure cooker bomb that kills three people is a "weapon of mass destruction," as is a lump of play-doh that was purchased from the FBI to destroy a bridge in Ohio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:17 AM

17. Technically true, I suppose. But as the term, "WMD" has been used in recent years,

I think it has been taken to mean things like nukes, bio and chemical weapons that can result in thousands of deaths. Minor weapons that usually only kill a few dozen, are not considered on the international scale of scary things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dusty trails (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:48 AM

16. Everyone is so negative here its depressing.

Just because people make money of of war does not mean that is why we are attacking. I'm hoping the media is talking out of their as again and Obama decides not to attack. I don't really see the point. I don't see an attack being beneficial to anyone. I am concerned he won't go to Congress fort heir permission first. That would really upset me. BTW, I'm new here. I hope I can fin some hope on DU, Reddit has me depressed as fuck. Hi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread