Threats to U.S. National Security and Vigilante Justice

Vigilante:   A member of a self-appointed group that undertakes law enforcement without legal authority

"Vigilante justice" is rationalized by the idea that adequate mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient.   Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law;  and such individuals often presume to justify their actions as fulfillment of the wishes of 'the community.'"


President Obama has asked Congress to authorize military strikes on Syria in response to the apparent use of poison gas by the Syrian government on the civilian population.   First of all, as I have advocated in the past, I believe that ALL decisions to carry out a military attack ought to be authorized by Congress, with the exception of a legitimate national emergency such as an actual attack on the United States.   President Obama's action in seeking Congressional authority may be motivated in whole or in part by political concerns, and although in doing so he claimed that he he power as Chief Executive to authorize an attack on his own authority, under the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Congress clearly has the final authority on this question.   It is long past time to reign in the Executive power to decide when our country goes to war.   Checks and balances is the essential idea behind our system of government.   There needs to be a check on the Chief Executive's authority to commit the country to military action.

Secondly, Congress will hopefully tune in to the overwhelming sentiment of the American people and vote down the Syria resolution.   President Obama cites a threat to our national security but I did not hear him specify exactly what that threat entails.    The Executive Branch has become expert at spinning out some possible scenario in which our national security is imperiled.    A tree grows in Brooklyn and our national security is threatened.   We have used that excuse to justify unprovoked invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.    The Pentagon and the Executive can come up with some kind of parade of horribles to justify virtually any foreign intervention they desire to make.   It is time to raise critical and skeptical voices when "national security" is cited to justify sending cruise missiles into a country engaged in a civil war halfway around the world.   Enough already.   There is no concrete, realistic threat to our national security represented by the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

I have not heard any persuasive reason given for why we should shoot missiles into Syria and kill a whole bunch more people.   That we will have lost credibility internationally because President Obama drew his "red line" last year at the use of chemical weapons is not a good reason for us to become involve in a war.   The President has no business drawing such red lines and committing the rest of us to foolish military action in the first place.    Bluffing is an accepted part of statecraft in any event.   Maybe if Congress votes down the Syria resolutions, then Chief Executives will think carefully before drawing any future "red lines."

Nobody has explained how lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria, Damascus I guess, is going to improve the situation in Syria.   We may kill a few Assad loyalists and most certainly will further damage our once respected international standing.   If President Assad has violated international law, we have ways of punishing that type of conduct.    Using chemical weapons is clearly a war crime and responsible individuals can eventually be held accountable.

The thing that bothers me most about all this is the continuing assumption that the United States has the right to make unilateral decisions about what needs to happen in other countries around the world.   We have well established international apparatus to deal with the kind of problem presented in Syria.   However, if we continue to try to enforce our own vigilante justice around the world, without regard for the opinions of other nations, then we continue to undermine those established international institutions and, indeed, international law itself.   To make it worse, we are rightly being perceived as an international bully trying to get our own way on every occasion.   For once, let's mind our own business and stay out of Syria.   Let the Syrians resolve their own problems.    Launching cruise missiles into Syria without U.N. approval or at least a strong coalition of international partners would constitute international vigilantism at its worst.