Legal & political aspects of military intervention in Syria

Should the US attack Syria? Has Assad used chemical weapons against his own people? Would US intervention violate public International law?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, an upcoming vote on Capitol Hill illustrates how foreign affairs are as much about domestic politics, as it is about International relations.

Syrian President Bashar  al-Assad and his wife, Amsa.

President Obama has played a brilliant game of chess against the Republicans. How you might ask?

Prudently, the President is wise in asking for a Congressional vote. It is a tough decision and vesting everyone in the decision process is smart.

Politically, a Congressional vote on Syria puts the Republicans on record prior to the 2014 mid-term

elections, which makes such a vote all the more sensitive and strategic.

The Constitution does not require the President to ask Congress’ permission to engage the armed forces in hostilities. War making powers are shared jointly between the Executive and Congress.

Is military action against Syria legal under public International law?

Under the UN Charter, states may only use force in two instances: self-defence or when the Security Council has authorized force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Here, Syria has not attacked American citizens, assets, or allies; nor has the Security Council authorized the use of force. The Syrian government is merely engaging in an internal conflict to suppress rebels.

Additionally, Customary International law would allow Syrian government officials, such as Bashar al-Assad to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and the use of chemical weapons, even though Syria has not become a party to the Genocide, Torture, or Ban on Chemical Weapons conventions.

Regardless of International conventions and customs, US law recognizes the ratified treaties at taking the same status as federal law. This means, the UN Charter, as a treaty, is tantamount to federal law. Congress is free to override federal law by adopting resolutions. So under an American law analysis, Congress can do whatever the hell it wants, so long as that action doesn’t violate the Constitution.

The notion that Congress must pre-approve military action is erroneous. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress a non-specific power to ‘declare war.’ However, of the 130 plus times military action has been taken abroad, Congress has only declared war 5 times.

US President Barak Obama with Speaker John Boehner (left).

Under the Presidential War Powers Act, President Obama, as commander-in-chief, may introduce the military to hostilities without Congressional notice for a period of 60 days. The Act goes on to mention that hostilities must comply with: (i) declaration of war, (ii) statutory authority, or (iii) national emergency. Additional time for hostilities is granted upon Congressional approval.

Here, President Obama would be allowed to introduce the military into foreign involvement without Congressional approval.

Why ask Congress for permission if President Obama doesn't legally need it?

Remember the mid-term elections are fast approaching. A Congressional vote on Syria puts the Republicans on record prior to the 2014 elections, which makes this vote highly political. This is why Speaker John Boehner, a supporter of Syrian intervention, isn't making this a partisan vote – he needs to ensure Republicans are re-elected.

Politically, the issue of Syria is dividing the Republican Party into the Paul Republicans (non-interventionists) and the McCain Republicans (the war-hawks).

Here in Western Colorado, Congressman Scott Tipton announced he would be voting ‘no’ during a town hall meeting recently in Durango.

Both of Colorado’s US Senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, are vacillating over how to vote regarding Syrian intervention to punish the use of chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, on the International stage (remember, I said foreign affairs was only partly about domestic politics), Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked the US to present evidence before the UN Security Council that the Assad government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

If the US proceeds without a UN Security Council resolution, then legally this action would be pre-emptive self-defence or a unilateral enforcement an International custom (the ban on chemical weapons). Both concepts would dramatically expand the Bush precedent.

Targeted Syrian assets.

Recently, in Stockholm, President Obama said, “My credibility isn't on the line, the whole international

community's credibility is on the line, Congress' credibility is on the line.”

Actually, Mr President, your credibility is on the line, as you’re the one proclaimed Syria used chemical weapons and that the US should take punitive action.

While the White House has gotten the entire International community in a frenzy, one thing is for certain, if the US strikes Syria, no longer will President Obama be able to blame the results on the George Bush Administration. 

Colorado Primary 2010: Post Election Analysis

Post election analysis are akin to Monday morning quarterbacking, but the opportunity to debrief and objectively look at what were strengths and weaknesses of certain political campaigns in Colorado’s 2010 Republican Primary Election is worthwhile. The majority of the candidates who won were novices to the grand political arena, backed largely by the right-wing movement known collectively as the “Tea Party,” a term conjuring thoughts of the Boston Tea Party of 1773, in which some 342 chest of East India Co. tea were destroyed by protesters, dressed as Mohawk Indians, who were against a series of taxes imposed on the colonists by Great Britain, including a tax on tea.

The current Tea Party movement is against the entire Washington establishment, regardless of political party, though ideologically it is more aligned with the Libertarian Party, than with the Republican Party. The mantra of “change” started during the 2008 US Presidential Election has sparked a revolutionary style movement from the grass-roots level and the message seems to be clear: No more individuals who are part of the establishment, no more career politicians, no more candidates with experience in the public sector, along with favouring fewer taxes, a balanced budget, and less government intrusion into the daily lives of citizens. Followers of the movement tend to be highly nationalistic and nostalgic about the good old days. Former 2008 GOP Presidential nominee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is considered the uniting figure-head of the Tea Party movement.

So what happened in Colorado in August 2010? An election change, while subtle had a major impact on campaign strategy. This election was completely mail-ballot, which meant a campaign had to adjust political marketing tactics accordingly. Voters also tended to vote in three waves (early, middle and near election day), a candidate like Ray Scott managed to capitalize on these voting waves by sending out three mail pieces, one was a get to you letter, the next was a positive/negative comparison with his opponent, Bob Hislop, and the third was a Political Action Committee (PAC) funded mail piece which aggressively attacked Hislop. These mail pieces were very effective and managed to give voters a sense of who he is/was, on his terms, and put his name in front of the voters at the same time they had their ballots.

Bob Hislop on the other had had three times the campaign budget of Scott, but took an entirely different strategy. Hislop invested in radio and television ads and later online and in-print advertising. While effective to raise his name ID in the target market that listens to certain radio stations, watches certain TV programming, or reads certain newspapers, but failed to consider the entire voter-universe, that being all registered voters in Colorado House District 54. This is the same reason why Doug Atchley defeated Vern McCracken for Delta County Commission, district one. Atchley out-raised and out-spent McCracken, but Atchley invested in four direct mail-pieces: one to the county assembly delegates, another inviting folks for a regional meet & greet / coffee, a third the day the ballots were received, and a fourth hitting the middle wave of voters. Vern opted to walk precincts, use robo calls, and radio ads, rather than sending a single direct mail piece. Atchley won with nearly 70% of the vote. This is also the reason why Greenwood Village Mayor, Nancy Sharpe, defeated former 4-term Colorado House Representative Lorry Clapp for Arapahoe County Commissioner. Sharpe had the good fortune of having Clapp’s campaign manager caught on video-tape by the police having her young son steal signs and then bringing them back to her car. Clapp picked up a bizarre sympathy gain on Election Day, which is worthy to note.

Jane Norton, a former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, lost to Ken Buck, the Weld County District Attorney. Norton became blamed as being part of the establishment, while Buck early on touted himself as the Tea Party candidate. Both Norton and Buck used direct mail pieces, but while Jane’s were clever, Buck’s were hard hitting, liking Norton to tax hikes, failed policies, and wasteful spending. These mail pieces, radio ads, TV ads, online ads, and print ads started early and continued to build. Norton first began attacking US Senator Michael Bennet, whom she assumed she would be facing in November. After State Senator Josh Penry dropped out of the governor’s race, Norton tapped Penry to be her campaign manager, a move which stunned many regional political junkies. The change in strategy occurred too late, the damage was sticking, because the attacks had been used long enough and hard enough that by Election Day, many voters believed the fallacies about Norton to be true. Buck made two off-the-wall comments in the late part of the election, which Norton capitalized on to gain lost ground, but unfortunately there wasn’t enough time in the game to score the needed percentage points in order to squeak out a victory which had been winnable back in January.

Dan Maes, an Evergreen, Colorado businessman, defeated former six term Colorado congressman, Scott McInnis by one percentage point. Maes, who claimed the title of Tea Party favourite was never suppose to win, however McInnis was attacked relentlessly by the media, who alleged he plagiarized multiple documents, including portions of a series of 26 papers he wrote on water policy, a line in a Washington Post editorial and a sentence in a Congressional House speech. Insiders claim the attack was leaked to the media by Maes’ camp and given the Denver media’s affinity towards their mayor, John Hickenlooper (who is the Democrat running for governor), it is no surprise they ran with it. Maes was fined $34,000 for illegal transfer of campaign monies, something which would be called boarder-line money laundering in the business world, but received a plea down $17,500 fine, which is still one of the largest rendered in Colorado history. McInnis defeated himself through the handling of the plagiarism scandal, as he went into hiding, then continued to make it worse for himself by placing the blame on an 82 year old, whom he had hired to do research for the water papers, not to mention failure to communicate with those involved to nip the story, before it could snowball. Maes is being preasured to leave the race by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, who is running for governor on the American Constitutional Party ticket and is polling at a higher level than Maes. Top donors and party officials would also like to see Maes replaced with a much more electable candidate like Josh Penry, Mark Hillman, or the founder of ReMax, though serious talk cannot begin until Maes resigns from running, a move he said he will not take.

The victories indicate the Tea Party has clout in the Republican Party and that certain party members want to see completely new faces in politics. While Tea Party candidates were on the whole, terrible fundraisers, they were tremendously helped by PACs and 527s which funnelled millions of dollars into defeating opponents of the Tea Party. The real test will be in November 2010, when the general voting population will be asked to evaluate a Tea Party candidate v. a Democrat one.