As President Obama begins his lobbying campaign this week to convince Congress and the American public to support military strikes in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said today that Syrian President Bashar Assad could save his country from retribution by turning “every single bit” of his arsenal over to the international community by the end of the week.
But even as he made the statement at a news conference in London alongside British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Kerry acknowledged that Assad, who has continued to thumb his nose at the international community, is unlikely to do that.
Indeed, Assad granted an interview with Charlie Rose of CBS “This Morning,” which aired today, in which he accused the U.S. of perpetrating a “big lie” over his chemical weapons use, comparing it to the case for war in Iraq that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made to the United Nations over a decade ago.
The U.S. war in Iraq, which dragged on for more than a decade, continues to place a cloud over the Syria effort, as the American public and the world community has grown weary and distrustful of U.S. interventions in the Middle East.
Responding to Assad, Kerry said in London that he is confident enough in the U.S. claims that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, killing more than 1,400, that he would be willing to bring it into any courtroom.
“What does he offer?” Kerry asked rhetorically of Assad. “Words that are contradicted by fact.”
Kerry said it’s important for nations to “stand up for humanity.”
As for Assad’s credibility, Kerry said, “He sends SCUD missiles into schools.”
Obama sits down for a series of interviews with the major networks before he addresses the public tomorrow. Commentators and academics continue to debate whether he is establishing a precedence for future presidents by going to Congress for approval for an action that other presidents have taken without congressional approval, including Ronald Reagan in Grenada, Bill Clinton in Kosovo, and even Obama himself in Libya.
Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, told the New York Times that the president believed a strike would be lawful under both international law and domestic law, even if he never received the approval of the U.N. Security Council or Congress. She said Obama went to Congress to bolster the legitimacy of a strike because of the unusual circumstances.
Walter Dellinger, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration, said it was proper for Obama to seek congressional approval because the proposed attack is not “covered by any of the previous precedents for the unilateral use of executive power.”
“That doesn’t mean it couldn’t become another precedent,” Dellinger said to the Times. “But when the president is going beyond where any previous president has gone, it seems appropriate to determine whether Congress concurs.”
As the Times pointed out, the U.S. has used its armed forces abroad “dozens of times” without Security Council approval, but usually American leaders invoke self-defense as the justification. Sometimes, such as with Clinton in Kosovo, they act along with allies. But this time, the United States would carry out the Syria strikes alone, to punish an offense that has already occurred.
Steven G. Bradbury, head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, said it would be “politically difficult” to order strikes if Congress refused to approve them, but he didn’t think future presidents would feel legally constrained to echo Obama’s request.
“Every overseas situation, every set of exigent circumstances, is a little different, so I don’t really buy that it’s going to tie future presidents’ hands very much,” he said.
But University of Colorado law professor Harold H. Bruff, who co-authored a casebook on the separation of powers, predicted this situation would have longterm political ramifications.
“I’m sure that Obama or some later president will argue later that they can still choose whether or not to go to Congress,” he said. “But it does raise the political cost of a future president not going to Congress because the precedent will be cited against him or her.”
