Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Minnesota delegation wants Obama to consult Congress on Syria

REUTERS/Jason Reed
Protesters gathered outside the White House on Thursday to demonstrate against possible U.S. strikes on Syria.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by James Hamilton on 08/30/2013 - 09:23 am.

    An act of war

    An armed assault on a sovereign nation clearly is an act of war. As I understand international law, it in theory recognizes only three legal grounds for going to war: self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or when sanctioned by the UN. None of these apply here. Presumably, the President will argue that a fourth basis exists: when necessary to protect a population from slaughter by its own rulers. The line between such slaughter and civil war is a thin one, if it exists at all.

    Whether or not any legal justification exists for an attack on Syria, the Constitution expressly provides that Congress shall have the power to declare war. We’ve ignored that requirement far too often. It’s time to honor it once again, this time insisting on concrete evidence that a legal justification exists and that we have a plan for more than “shock and awe”.

  2. Submitted by David Frenkel on 08/30/2013 - 11:05 am.

    No end game

    The US military is already stretched thin in terms of equipment and morale. The military is tired of these costly interventions by US politicians that have no end game. Remember VP Cheney saying the Iraq’s will greet US troops in Baghdad with flowers? The US certainly has air superiority but how long before the Russians who have been uncooperative tell the US to leave the region. Will Syria start Cold War II with the Russians?

  3. Submitted by Virginia Martin on 08/30/2013 - 11:46 am.

    Congressional approval for Syrian strike

    Congress should do everything in its power to stop this. Franken is correct, in a way, that Obama can unleash an attack without Congressional approval–but I think we’ve seen this before and by now, after years and years of warfare–Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq–we all know just where this goes. Our two senators are both wrong: the only response needed is a diplomatic one or nothing. Many more people will be killed in a U.S. attack than have been killed by some group (we don’t really know for sure who) in Syria.
    The most peaceful and prudent thing to do is to back off. Offer medical and other help.

  4. Submitted by Sue Halligan on 08/30/2013 - 01:05 pm.

    Presidential Power

    Maybe if Congress would repeal The Patriot Act…

  5. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 08/30/2013 - 10:29 pm.

    That’s it?

    No outrage? Where’s Betty! in all this? If only our last President had had all this support to go to war it might have been over much sooner. Instead, America gave only a half-hearted effort to appease the peaceniks (who have disappeared) and cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers. We pulled out of Iraq and the continuing bloodshed there doesn’t seem to matter anymore even though the evil warmongers said that it would happen.

    I’m not sure that repealing the Patriot Act helps the Syrians, but if you are against the President it might well get you noticed. Oh, and it makes you a racist. But only if the President isn’t white.

  6. Submitted by Bruce Pomerantz on 08/30/2013 - 10:45 pm.

    Nobel Prize retraction

    I voted for President Obama twice but I considered awarding the Nobel Peace Prize premature. Sadly, I was correct. If the president orders the military action against Syria without congressional approval, I hope that the Nobel committee would rebuke him by admitting publicly its mistake.

    • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 08/31/2013 - 09:37 pm.

      Giving Obama the Nodel Peace Prize

      before he even took office said more about the committee than it did about Obama. They effectively destroyed their own credibility then so admitting their mistake now won’t be necessary.

Leave a Reply