Follow us:

Opinion Northwest

Join the informed writers of The Times' editorial board in lively discussions at our blog, Opinion Northwest.

August 30, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Congress should vote on Syria attack

 

Tomahawk cruise missile fired from U.S.S. Philippine Sea, 2001
(AP Photo / U.S. Navy, Terry Cosgrove)

Prime Minister David Cameron asked the British Parliament  to approve a military attack on Syria and it voted no, 285-272. Britain is staying out. France, the former colonial power, is the Obama administration’s only pal. And what does the U.S. Congress have to say?

Nothing. It’s not in session.  Keith Koffler at Whitehousedossier.com made the cynical comment that the real reason for no vote is, “They’re on vacation.”  Members of Congress don’t want to have to drop everything and come back to Washington, D.C., and listen to endless speeches and have to vote. “Do not underestimate the power of this,” Koffler writes.

In the House, 116 members have signed a petition for a vote. But that’s only a quarter of the opposition-controlled chamber. When it comes to U.S. military action in places like Syria,  Libya and Somalia, Congress has been constitutionally on vacation for a long time. It’s used to letting presidents make war.

Time magazine asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whether the Obama administration should wait for Congress to return and vote. Her answer. “There have been consultations.” But “consultation” is not a vote. British Prime Minister David Cameron could have skated through on “consultation.” On a vote, he lost.

The Constitution is unclear on this. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It makes the president the commander of military forces. Everyone agrees that the president can use the military to defend against an attack, or an imminent attack on American soil or forces. But Syria does not threaten us. U.S. forces would be committing an act of war—a “discrete and limited” act as Obama’s press secretary Josh Earnest says,  but still, blowing stuff up and killing people to punish Syria’s government for using weapons Obama told it not to.

Congress should vote on this. If the British people, who don’t have a written constitution, can have this sort of check-and-balance on the warmaking of their leader, Americans should have it too. We could have it if Congress called itself back from political vacation and insisted on it.

Comments | Topics: chemical weapons, congress, Obama

COMMENTS

No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.



The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►