SyriaWhite House seeks broad Syria mandate

President Barack Obama and top administration officials described the proposed military strike against Syria as limited in scope, intended to send a signal to Syria that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated rather than change the balance of forces in the Syrian civil war.

The language of the proposed authorization of force, however, for which the White House is seeking congressional support, appears to be asking for a much broader authority.

Finance Post reports that the main part of the administration’s proposed authorization for the use of military force, circulated to members of Congress over the weekend, consists of 172 words, which is considerably more than the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution which authorized the Johnson administration to use force in Vietnam, and the 2001 resolution authorizing U.S. retaliation for the 9/11 terror attacks.

The proposed authorization would allow the president to go-ahead and use the American military however he “determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria.” The president could act to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of the weapons or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners” from the weapons.”

The resolution is also open-ended in that it has no sunset date.

University of Texas Law School Professor Robert Chesney told the Post that “if the administration is serious about wanting to act in such a truly narrow, time-limited way,” then a sunset measure could be useful.

“These details may not matter much if all the president intends is a modest shot across the bow, as he suggested a few days ago,” said George Mason University School of Law Professor Ilya Somin Sunday. “But they could be significant if U.S. military intervention goes beyond that — including if it ends up expanding farther than the president may have originally intended.”

Legal scholars point out that a congressional resolution would meet the requirements of domestic U.S. law under the War Powers Resolution, such a resolution has little to do with the requirements of international law.

“Unfortunately, the president’s draft (authorization) states a violation of international law in every line,” Mary Ellen O’Connell, a University of Notre Dame law professor, told the Post. “Resort to military force is not permitted to punish the use of banned weapons; to address arms proliferation, or to respond to vague threats to the United States.”