A former legal official from the Bush administration has warned that the text of President Barack Obama’s resolution authorizing the use of military force on Syria is so broad that it could justify attacks on Iran and Lebanon. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor who resigned from the Bush administration over its executive overreach, wrote today in Lawfare that “the proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad” and that it “does not contain specific limits on targets.”
After Obama’s Rose Garden speech yesterday, he sent Congress the text of his proposed resolution on striking Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta. While Congress could modify the resolution, as it stands it’s a document authorizing the use of force on a broad array of targets and could justify deeper U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Here’s more of Goldsmith’s analysis:
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. Again, very easy to imagine.
It brings to mind the AUMF passed in the aftermath of September 11. While that resolution directly concerned Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it was later broadened to justify drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia–even on targets that were clearly not part of Al Qaeda.
The Obama administration has made its case for a strike on Syria by emphasizing that it would be a limited attack. “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,” the president said yesterday.
But the consequences of a strike on Syria are unpredictable, as the International Crisis Group said today in a statement cautioning against the use of military force and pressing for a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis. Any U.S. military action on Syria increases the chance for a regional escalation of the conflict.
While escalation is not guaranteed–the macho statements from Iran are likely bluster– injecting more firepower into a brutal civil war could easily spiral out of control. If Obama gets his Syria resolution passed, he will have the political backing to embroil America in another Middle Eastern war if the Syria conflagration spreads as a result of a U.S. strike.
“Syria resolution could authorize attack on Iran and Lebanon”
Cela va sans dire. I’ve had that on my mind for a few days.
““This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground”
I am sick of the ‘not put boots on the ground’ meme…..as if no boots on the ground makes it not a war…….as if even putting boots on the ground if this spreads means we are going to win anything against Syria or Iran any more than having ‘boots on the ground’ won us Iraq—-which we in f’ing fact lost…….a trillon dollars and x number of dead bodies later.
Yes only through this resolution can all the players sip at the trough, BPShell-Aramco interests are aligned with Raytheon
Study Group on the Arms Trade and the Transnationalization of the Defense Industry: Economic versus Security Drivers
http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/study-group-on-the-arms-trade-and-the-transnationalization-of-the-defense-industry-economic-versus-security-drivers/pr207
Look at the Board of the European Defense consotia EADS:
Daamler, Northrop, Deutsche Bank, ArcelorMittal, anglo american plc, bnp ..
Vertically and Horizontally Integrated Oil Weapons Cartel
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/our-governance/board-of-directors/members_new.html
To everyone who visits here:
Call your representatives!!! Ask everyone you know to call! Organize and take to the streets!
Stop this CARTE BLANCHE RESOLUTION for WAR!!! For once as Americans, doooooooo something! This is waaaaay worse than Iraq – get your butts off your couches and fight this for God’s sakes!!!
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/obamas-carte-blanche-war-resolution.html#comments
“While escalation is not guaranteed–the macho statements from Iran are likely bluster– injecting more firepower into a brutal civil war could easily spiral out of control.”
It may be a “macho” statement, but you’d better believe they mean it. Escalation IS guaranteed, Alex. Hizbollah’s silence throughout the ‘threat-attack’ for the past two weeks, put the heebeejeebeez in the israelis. The D.C. ziobots couldn’t take the israeli distress no more and rushed Feldman to Iran several days ago, specifically to get an answer from Iran on what Iran may do the morning after an attack on Syria. Apparently, the Iranian response was: “If Syria asks us for help, then we will help; and if Syria doesn’t ask for our help, then we will respect this”. Feldman then asked what Hizbollah would do about an attack on Syria, and the Iranians said: “Hizbollah’s weapons are not pointing at Syria”.
Masters of ambiguity, indeed. We all know that Syria will need immense help if attacked by USA from without, while being simultaneously attacked from within by the takfiri terrorist army. And. We all know where Hizbollah’s arsenal is pointing at.
I’ve also heard it from a couple of reliable sources that israeli intelligence gathering was indicating that Hizbollah’s silent and coiled stance, is offensive in character. Not defensive, but offensive. Israeli intelligence and political eggheads took these “macho” threats like a sudden reality slap in the face, Alex: they went from loudly supporting an attack to meekly declaring some kinda twisted neutrality – all this within a handful of days. Now how often do you see this kind of vacillation in behavior from israel during a dangerous crisis right there at its border? And did you by any chance see any footage of the fear-hysteria that gripped israel’s citizenry throughout the ‘threat attack’ dramarama?
Alex, there IS a ‘balance of terror’ clear and apparent now in the Levant. For those who didn’t believe it’s been there since 2006, think again.
A clear price has been set for any USA attack on any part of the Levant: and that penalty is an immediate and merciless attack on israel. They’re ready to go through with it from here on, obviously, and they’re ready to take the hits back – their countries are already war zones in ruin, their people are already dying anyway: therefore israel has more to lose. It’s as simple as that.
I think them Levantians were ahead of the game and drew a sudden red line for Obama and Netanyahu – and O and N gasped and stepped back.
The natives of the Levant, for sure, won this round.