美国律师解释为什么特朗普轰炸叙利亚违法？ [美国媒体]

 
Was Trump’s Syria bombing illegal? A constitutional lawyer explains.

美国律师解释为什么特朗普轰炸叙利亚违法？
 

 
President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Syria on Friday night has (once again) raised an important question: Does the American president have the legal right to order a military strike on another country without the consent of Congress?

上星期五晚上唐纳德·特朗普总统宣布轰炸叙利亚的决定（再一次）向我们提出了一个重要问题：在未经国会同意的情况下，美国总统是否有合法权力下令对另一个国家进行军事打击呢？
 
The simple answer is no, as Congress is charged with officially declaring war under the US Constitution. But it’s not that simple. For the past several decades, and especially after the 9/11 attacks, Congress has consistently failed to check executive power when it comes to authorizing the use of military force. As a result, the perception of what’s permissible and what isn’t has drifted.

很简单，答案是没有。因为美国宪法规定，美国国会才有官方上宣战的权力。但是事情没有那么简单。在过去的几十年里，特别是在911恐怖袭击之后，在军队的使用权限上，国会就一直未能对行政权力（总统）进行审查。因此，对于什么是允许的，什么又是不允许的概念已经弱化了。
 
注释：美国宪法规定，宣战权掌握在国会手里，总统虽为三军统帅，但派兵参战之前，必须经过国会的批准。然而，美国历史上发生的上百次战争，只有五次是由国会宣战的。
 
To find out what the law actually says, I reached out to Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional lawyer at the University of Texas. The recent strikes in Syria, he told me, are almost certainly unconstitutional, but there’s now a precedent for them, which means the institution responsible for this crisis — Congress — is the only one that can remedy it.

为了弄清楚宪法到底怎么规定的，我找到了Stephen Vladeck，德克萨斯大学的一个宪法律师。他告诉我，最近对叙利亚发动的军事打击几乎肯定是违宪的，但是现在已经有了先例，所以这意味着有责任应对这场的机构---国会，是唯一能作出补救的。
 
Our full conversation, lightly edited for clarity, follows.

以下是我们的完整对话（为清楚起见，有稍加编辑）：
 
Sean Illing
As a matter of US law, was the latest American military strike on Syria legal?

我：
就美国法律而言，美国最近对叙利亚的军事打击是合法的吗？
 
Stephen Vladeck
Almost certainly not. To be legal, the strike would have to be authorized either by some act of Congress or by the president’s own powers under Article II of the Constitution. And neither of those conditions appears to have been met here.

律师：
几乎可以肯定不是。要合法的话，此次打击必须由国会的某些法案授权，或者根据宪法第二条规定由总统自己的权力授权。在这件事情上，这两种情况似乎都没有存在过。
 
Sean Illing
What does Article II say, and why doesn’t it apply here?

我：
宪法第二条规定说了什么？还有，为什么在这件事情上不适用呢？
 
Stephen Vladeck
Article II doesn’t say that much; it’s actually quite cryptic in the powers it grants to the president. But two of the powers are important here. The first is what’s called “executive power” (and there’s legitimate debate about whether executive power includes the ability to make war), and the second is the power that makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces.

律师：
第二条并没有说太多，实际上它赋予总统的权力相当隐秘。但是这里有两个权力很重要。第一个是所谓的“行政权”（关于行政权也存在争议：行政权是否有包括发动战争的权力），第二个就是总统的三军总指挥权。
 
Since World War II, presidents of both parties have pointed to one or both of those provisions as giving them unilateral power to use military force even when Congress has not authorized it.

自第二次世界大战以来，共和、民主两党的总统都指出这其中的一个或两个条款赋予了他们单方面使用武力的权力，即使在国会没有授权的情况下。
 
Sean Illing
Okay, but under what conditions does a plausible reading of Article II give the president such power?

我：
好吧，但是在什么样的情况下，对宪法第二条貌似合理的解读会赋予总统这样的权力呢？
 
Stephen Vladeck
Well, that’s the million-dollar question. The only condition the Supreme Court has ever expressly endorsed is to “repel sudden attacks,” which basically means the president doesn’t have to wait for congressional authorization to respond militarily to an attack against us. And I think there’s widespread agreement that, at minimum, the Constitution gives the president that kind of defensive war power.

律师：
这是一个很难回答的重大问题。唯一一种最高法院曾经明确表示过赞同的情况是“击退突然袭击”，这基本上意味着总统不必等待国会的授权就可以军事回应我们受到的攻击。我认为普遍的观点是，至少宪法有赋予了总统进行防御战争的权力。
 
Sean Illing
That seems reasonable enough, but I don’t see any way to argue that the latest strike on Syria was “self-defense,” since there was no immediate threat to American security.

我：
这听起来似乎很合理，但我觉得没有任何方法可以证明最近对叙利亚的军事打击是在“自卫”，因为美国的安全没有受到直接威胁啊。
 
Stephen Vladeck
Exactly. And indeed we haven’t heard the term “self-defense” from the Trump administration. The term they’ve used instead is that the use of force here was “in our national interest.”

律师：
确实是这样。事实上，我们还没有从特朗普政府那里听到过“自卫”这个词。他们所用的术语是在叙利亚使用武力“符合我们的国家利益”。
 
Sean Illing
I think most people accept that the president should have the power to respond to an attack, but in this case, the president is using military force to defend international norms against the use of chemical weapons. Is there any reading of Article II that suggests this constitutes “self-defense”?

我：
我认为大多数人都接受总统应该有权力对袭击作出回应这种说法，但在这种情况下，总统正在使用军队来捍卫国际准则、反对使用化学武器。那么宪法第二条有没有一种理解可以表明这种行动构成了“自卫”？
 
Stephen Vladeck
It’s an interesting question whether that “ought” to constitute self-defense, but I can tell you that it certainly never has. And if we expanded Article II to allow the president to use force without Congress any time it furthered some international norm, that would open up a whole host of problems down the road.

律师：
“是否应该”构成自卫，这是一个有趣的问题。但我可以告诉你，肯定是不能的。如果我们延伸宪法第二条，允许总统在没有国会授权的情况下随时使用武力来维护一些国际准则，那么这将在未来带来一大堆的问题。
 
Sean Illing
The Trump administration might also claim that the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF), which was passed by Congress after 9/11 and allowed the president to use military force against virtually anyone associated with 9/11, gives the president the power to do what he did in Syria. This is certainly something the Obama administration often invoked in its strikes against suspected terrorists around the world.

我：
特朗普政府可能也会声称：2001年国会在911恐怖袭击后通过的武力使用授权书，允许了总统使用武力来对付几乎任何与911有关的人。这也赋予了特朗普总统在叙利亚动武的权力。无疑地，这也是奥巴马政府在全世界打击可疑恐怖分子时经常提到的（说辞）。
 
Stephen Vladeck
The 2001 AUMF is very specific about who it authorizes the use of force against, and it authorizes uses of force against terrorist organizations responsible for or connected to the 9/11 attacks.

律师：
2001 年的武力使用授权书非常具体地规定了授予武力使用权给谁，也规定了所授予的武力使用权是用来对付发动911袭击、或者与之相关的恐怖组织。
 
The uses of force we’ve engaged in Syria have largely been against ISIS on the theory that ISIS is sufficiently connected to al-Qaeda that it falls within the purview of that 2001 statute, but there’s no real argument that Assad was in any way connected to the 9/11 attacks, so I see no reason to believe that the AUMF applies.

我们在叙利亚使用武力的理由历来都是为了打击跟基地组织有很大关系的ISIS组织，这在2001 年武力使用授权书的规定范围之内，但是并没有存在真实的证据表明阿萨德与911袭击有任何关系，所以我没有理由相信武力使用授权书适用于这种情况。
 
Sean Illing
So we’re now in a situation in which consecutive presidents are unconstitutionally engaging in acts of war without congressional approval, and it continues because Congress lacks the institutional will to do its job — is that right?

我：
所以我们现在的状态是：接连有总统没有得到国会批准，违反宪法进行军事行动，而且这种情况还将继续下去，因为国会没有履行本职的意愿。是这样理解的吗？
 
Stephen Vladeck
That’s perfectly said. It may be that for each of these uses of force, Congress is acquiescing because they’re satisfied with the practical results. But from a separation of powers perspective, that’s very dangerous. Congress has a vital role to play in the operation of our government, and it’s not playing it.

律师：
说得完全正确。也许每次总统擅自使用武力的时候，国会都是默许的，因为他们对实际的结果很满意。但是，从权力分立的角度来看，这是非常危险的。因为国会在我们政府的运作中扮演着至关重要的角色，然而国会并没有履行好本职。
 
Sean Illing
We seem to be in something like a constitutional crisis in terms of how we’ve allowed executive power to expand on this front.

我：
我们允许行政权在这方面得到扩张，就这个而言，我们似乎处在一场宪法危机中。
 
Stephen Vladek
“Crisis” is a strong word. A true crisis would be if Congress actually tried to assert itself and was unable to do so. I think we’re witnessing the effects of a long-term drift in how we understand the war powers of the executive. We’ve come to accept the general unilateral authority of the president to use military force, and that is definitely problematic.

律师：
“危机”是一个很重的词。一场真正的危机应该是，国会确实试图要有自己的主张，但却没办法这么做。我想我们正在经历总统拥有军队使用权这个长期理解错位所带来的影响。我们渐渐接受总统可以单方面、不经授权便拥有军队使用权。这无疑是个问题。
 
Sean Illing
So where does this leave us? Congress has allowed this precedent to take root, and now it seems the only remedy is for the very institution responsible for this to finally assert itself and exercise its constitutional authority.

我：
那么，这会对我们造成什么影响呢？国会已经允许这种先例存在了。现在看来，唯一的补救办法就是这个问题的相关机构（国会）最终坚持自己的主张，并行使宪法赋予的权威。
 
Stephen Vladeck
The short answer is that we really need a Congress that cares more about its institutional relationship to the president than it does about the partisan politics of the moment. And I think both parties have been guilty of losing sight of that when they’ve been in power. But I hope we can all agree that we’re better served when every branch of the government plays its role in making these sorts of life-and-death decisions.

律师：
简单说来，我们真的需要一个更加关心其与总统之间机构关系的国会，而不是现在这个关心党派政治的国会。而且我认为两党在他们掌权的时候都犯了这样的错误，他们都难辞其咎。但我希望我们大家都能明白一点：当要作出这些重大抉择时，政府的每一个部门都能各司其职，这样才能更好地服务我们。