British Parliament votes against military action in Syria

[River]

Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since WWII. This is historic fact. Presidents have since gone to Congress to get funds released and a political seal of approval but Congress itself has not declared war.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's true, but not (to me at least) particularly relevant to the discussion. The more interesting question is why people across the political spectrum have treated Obama's call for congressional authorization so differently than they treated the two Bushes', with some progressives and non-interventionist Tea Party members (including Rand Paul) praising the reining of presidential power, and interventionist Republicans (such as McCain and Graham) decrying the same thing.

[Infidel]

Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since WWII. This is historic fact. Presidents have since gone to Congress to get funds released and a political seal of approval but Congress itself has not declared war.

If I am not mistaken, the AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no constitutional requirement that it say 'war' in it. As I recall, in cases related to it, the Supreme Court has said that the AUMF is a declaration of war.
But that is, not the point I was making. I was correcting your claim that "Every military action since has been initiated by the President and later rubber-stamped by Congress", while I just named several where Congress gave approval first.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, the SCOTUS has not said that. You may be thinking of Doe v. Bush, a case in which members of the military and some liberal Congress members sued in order to prevent the Iraq war. The Court of Appeal ruled that Congress had not abdicated its power to declare war by giving the president authority to decide what circumstances would justify using military force in Iraq. The court did not, however, say that an AUMF is the same thing as a declaration of war. And the SCOTUS did not review the case, and has not addressed the question directly. So far as I know.

In any event, I am curious to know what your opinion is about the fact that certainly GOP hawks have complained about President Obama's request for congressional authorization because it undermines presidential power to use military force, given the fact that the two Bushes did the same.

[Infidel]

No, the SCOTUS has not said that. You may be thinking of Doe v. Bush, a case in which members of the military and some liberal Congress members sued in order to prevent the Iraq war. The Court of Appeal ruled that Congress had not abdicated its power to declare war by giving the president authority to decide what circumstances would justify using military force in Iraq. The court did not, however, say that an AUMF is the same thing as a declaration of war. And the SCOTUS did not review the case, and has not addressed the question directly. So far as I know.

I think I was thinking of one of the Ham... cases, but probably misremembering, this guy gives some review here:

http://malor.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/l ... -addendum/

noting that AG Gonzales said:

There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you’re possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we’re not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

That Senator Biden said:

The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

and on Courts:

Courts have, however, issued dicta on the issue, especially when discussing the Vietnam War. An important case discussing the war powers of the executive and legislative branches is Orlando v. Laird. Orlando was an enlistee ordered to serve in Vietnam during the war. He sued, claiming that the Congressional authorization for war in Vietnam (the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which was not a formal declaration of war) was insufficient to actually declare war in accordance with the constitutional requirement.

The Second Circuit ultimately ruled that this was a political question:

The form which congressional authorization should take is one of policy, committed to the discretion of the Congress and outside the power and competency of the judiciary, because there are no intelligible and objectively manageable standards by which to judge such actions

.

But on the way to that conclusion, the court wrote that war authorization can occur informally through “a resolution and war-implementing legislation” rather than a formal declaration of war and still satisfy the Declare War Clause.

and then notes the Hamdan case.

In any event, I am curious to know what your opinion is about the fact that certainly GOP hawks have complained about President Obama's request for congressional authorization because it undermines presidential power to use military force, given the fact that the two Bushes did the same.

I don't know who has been saying what, so I can't give an opinion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, that's convenient.

Here's an example:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/31980 ... r-in-chief

So, do you agree with Rep. King that President Obama was abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents? And if so, do you think that the two president Bushes were as well?

[Infidel]

Well, that's convenient.

What precisely do you mean by that Voronwë?

Here's an example:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/31980 ... r-in-chief

So, do you agree with Rep. King that President Obama was abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents? And if so, do you think that the two president Bushes were as well?

No, or maybe partially. The essential difference here, is that both presidents Bush were engaging in military action that they knew was going continue. Had Obama actually enforced his red line I am reasonably certain that any strike he would have done would have been a hands off one time thing. So I can understand that King, wanting to be President, would not want the precedent set that presidents need to get Congressional approval for limited actions, Panama, Haiti, Grenada etc, as opposed to extended actions, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, Libya etc.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, that's convenient.

What precisely do you mean by that Voronwë?

A bit of unnecessary snark, for which I apologize.

Here's an example:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/31980 ... r-in-chief

So, do you agree with Rep. King that President Obama was abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents? And if so, do you think that the two president Bushes were as well?

No, or maybe partially. The essential difference here, is that both presidents Bush were engaging in military action that they knew was going continue. Had Obama actually enforced his red line I am reasonably certain that any strike he would have done would have been a hands off one time thing. So I can understand that King, wanting to be President, would not want the precedent set that presidents need to get Congressional approval for limited actions, Panama, Haiti, Grenada etc, as opposed to extended actions, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, Libya etc.

A good answer. I think there is a difference between the kind of limited military force that President Obama contemplated here in Syria and the more extended campaigns that both President Bushes conducted in Iraq. President Obama did not ask for congressional authorization in Libya, although that action was much a part of an international effort. Still the question could be asked as to whether the difference between Libya and Syria was a result of an evolution in the president's thinking with regard to obtaining congressional authorization for the use of even limited military force, the difference in the two situations, or the fact that despite the president's rhetoric he did not really want to use military force in Syria and was looking for a way out (or perhaps even hoped that a diplomatic solution would develop, as seems to be the case).

[Holbytla]

I'll give "someone" credit for avoiding further war to this point.
I suspect the credit should go to many people, but I'm really not sure who those people are. Maybe the President, maybe the Foreign Relations people, maybe the grunts.

Honestly, as long as less people are being inhumanly disposed of, it doesn't really matter.

Congratulations to whomever, and thank God the death toll has been at least flat lined for us.

[Primula Baggins]

You know more about this than most of us, unfortunately. I'm glad that this time around, it seems to be working out in a rational manner.

I'm not sure I believe it yet, but so it seems to be.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think a diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons issue is the best path. However, I do believe that the U.S. and its allies should have staged a forceful military-led humanitarian intervention in Syria a few years ago - back when a relatively secular Free Syrian Army was the main player in the opposition, and Assad was slaughtering innocents en masse. Alas, we now have something much more complex.

Nonetheless, I believe the opposition, even in its complexity, is still preferable to Assad staying in power. Some limited airstrikes against the Assad regime could certainly help tip the balance in their favor, and I would favor such an action by NATO forces. A UN Security Council resolution authorizing such force, as in Libya, would be preferable, but China and Russia will certainly stop that from happening, no matter what kind of horse-trading the U.S. does.

I say this is an American liberal Democrat. I think there are times and places and circumstances where war is just, and this is one of them. IMO.

[Túrin Turambar]

I've been willing to accept going to war against Assad would be just, but I'm less willing to accept that it would be to our advantage. I'm reminded of Talleyrand's famous remark: "It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake!"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think a diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons issue is the best path. However, I do believe that the U.S. and its allies should have staged a forceful military-led humanitarian intervention in Syria a few years ago - back when a relatively secular Free Syrian Army was the main player in the opposition, and Assad was slaughtering innocents en masse. Alas, we now have something much more complex.

Nonetheless, I believe the opposition, even in its complexity, is still preferable to Assad staying in power. Some limited airstrikes against the Assad regime could certainly help tip the balance in their favor, and I would favor such an action by NATO forces. A UN Security Council resolution authorizing such force, as in Libya, would be preferable, but China and Russia will certainly stop that from happening, no matter what kind of horse-trading the U.S. does.

I say this is an American liberal Democrat. I think there are times and places and circumstances where war is just, and this is one of them. IMO.

While I largely agree with this in theory, in practice, the American people are just too weary of war after one completely unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq, and the longest war in our history in Afghanistan, that completely came apart because of the diversion to said unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq. Not to mention the fiscal implications that yet another war would have meant.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I perfectly understand that, but also believe that the kind of intervention I would have supported would have been nothing like either Afghanistan or Iraw. It would have been closer to Libya, or even Kosovo, though necessarily a bit more difficult to execute. In any event, a no troops (or very limited number of troops) on the ground scenario.

And though WWII analogies are rarely helpful, there was little popular appetite in the US for the country to go to war with Nazi Germany. Had the U.S. not been attacked by Japan, we likely would have stood and watched Hitler march across Europe.

Assad does not pose that kind of threat to Europe, but in a modern humanitarian age, where the responsibility to protect has been gaining moral and legal currency, I find the responsibility to intervene similar.

I still argue for a limited intervention that helps tip the balance away from Assad, just as the intervention in Libya tipped the balance away from Qaddafi. IMO, the intervention in Libya was a model of effective (and moral) U.S. foreign policy.

That model cannot be replicated in Syria, but a similar action is called for, IMO.