• Vive la suède (2)

    Frappes en Syrie : pas de soutien suédois pour Obama | [VIDEO] - Actualités France
    http://fr.news.yahoo.com/video/frappes-en-syrie-pas-soutien-140711020.html

    Sur la route du G20 à Saint-Pétersbourg, Barack Obama a fait le crochet par la Suède. Objectif, trouver un soutien à son projet de frappes en Syrie. Mais le Premier ministre Reinfeldt refuse de participer, il attend un feu vert de l’ONU.

    (Curieusement sur son site Euronews a un autre commentaire où les propos du Premier ministre Reinfeldt sont passés sous silence : http://fr.euronews.com/2013/09/04/obama-exhorte-la-communaute-internationale-a-faire-respecter-la-ligne-r )

  • Syrie : le scénario envisagé par le Sénat américain
    http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/09/04/syrie-le-scenario-envisage-par-le-senat-americain_3470698_3218.html

    Cette version du texte remplacerait celle envoyée au Congrès par la Maison Blanche samedi, et qui était considérée comme donnant trop de latitude au président.

    Pas tout à fait selon le site Lawfare,

    Lawfare › The Senate Draft AUMF for Syria is Narrower Than the Administration’s Draft, But Still Broad In Some Respects
    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-senate-draft-aumf-for-syria-is-narrower-than-the-administrations-dr

    Th[e] language is narrower than the administration’s draft. It limits the use of force to “targets in Syria,” and has a more narrowly tailored purpose. It would not give congressional sanction to the use of force outside of Syria (in, for example, Iran or Lebanon). It would, however, authorize attacks on the Syrian command hierarchy in Syria, all the way up to Assad himself, as long as the President determined such attacks to be “necessary and appropriate” to respond to and deter and degrade Syrian WMDs. (The “limited and tailored manner” qualification is not much of a restriction, since all DOD uses of force are, under the laws of war, proportionate and discriminate, and since the President is charged with determining what is necessary and appropriate in any event.)

    Ground Troops “Limitation.” Section 3 of the draft provides: “The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.”

    This is a limit on the authority conferred by Congress in Section 2, and not a limit on the President’s independent constitutional power to send ground troops into Syria, even for combat purposes. Section 3 merely says that the congressional approval of the use of presidential force in Syria does not entail approval for the use of ground troops in Syria. But it does not speak to, much less prevent, the President from using ground troops on his own authority.

    Moreover, even the ground troop limitation on Congress’s authorization contains an exception for ground troops introduced into Syria for a purpose other than “combat operations.” In other words, Sections 2 and 3 in combination affirmatively authorize the President to introduce U.S. ground troops in Syria for non-combat purposes if he thinks they are necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes of the authorization. Section 3 is probably written this way to capture the fact DOD Special Operations Forces are being used in Syria, or will be used there, for intelligence-related and other “preparation of the battlefield” tasks. (I imagine, but of course do not know, that this is a nod to operational reality, since DOD has probably already sent Special Operations Forces into Syria, under the President’s Article II power, to prepare the battlefield.) It is also probably meant as a carve out for search-and-rescue missions, and the like, if necessary.