TRUMP ATTACK ON SYRIA VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION & HIS PLEDGES
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/25795-trump-attack-on-syria-violates-the-constitution-and-his-pledges;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Donald Trump's attack on Syria last week was illegal and
unconstitutional, legal experts and even many of his leading supporters
argued, noting that the Constitution grants war powers to Congress and
not the president. The attack was also contrary to Trump's own repeated
pledges on the campaign trail to seek a constitutionally required
declaration of war prior to launching military interventions abroad. In
fact, Trump was a fierce critic of Obama's lawless and unconstitutional
military machinations in Syria and the broader Middle East, which was
among the key reasons so many Americans rallied behind his campaign. But
now, the tables have apparently turned. The Trump administration used a highly dubious legal explanation to justify its illegal attacks on a sovereign nation that did not attack the United States. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” Trump said after he ordered the attack, prompting outrage from many of his most loyal supporters. At first, in an unsourced document meant to help his officials answer questions, the administration cited various alleged violations of “international law” by the Assad regime for supposedly using chemical weapons. After the missiles began flying, though, instead of relying on “international law,” the White House legal office improperly invoked Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
In the invocation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the administration offered no specifics on how any of that language could possibly be interpreted as allowing the president to take military action without permission from Congress. Instead, the dubious “legal” justification cited the idea of promoting America's alleged “national interest” — a phrase that appears nowhere in Article II or anywhere else in the Constitution — as the basis for the attack. And according to the rationale, the “national interest” in bombing Syria was the notion that the attack would help in “promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens.”
“No authorization from Congress is necessary,” the talking points distributed by the Trump administration asserted, falsely. “The U.S. strikes were a justified use of force because of several factors, including promoting regional stability, discouraging the use of chemical weapons, and protecting a civilian population from humanitarian atrocities.” Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the president to take military action for any of those reasons without a declaration of war from Congress. Only Congress, under Article I, Section 8, has the constitutional authority to “declare War.”
Before becoming president, Trump understood that clearly, and indicated it publicly on numerous occasions. “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria — big mistake if he does not,” Trump wrote on social media in August of 2013, following a false-flag attack perpetrated by Obama's jihadist rebels aimed at blaming Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Trump was also fiercely critical of Obama's warmongering and lawlessness regarding the Middle Eastern nation. “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?” he asked on Twitter that same month. “Obama needs Congressional approval.” It was true then, and it is still true now.
The next month, Trump again warned “our very foolish leader” — a reference to Obama — not to attack Syria. “If you do many very bad things will happen and from that fight the U.S. gets nothing,” Trump warned. In another post, Trump warned Obama: “Don't attack Syria — an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!” Earlier that year, he said: “We should stay the hell out of Syria, the ‘rebels’ are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS? ZERO.” Many similar posts by Trump consistently made similar points.
It seems many of the officials surrounding Trump, though, are agitating for war and regime change in Syria. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for example, justified the military machinations by claiming it was “important” that “some action be taken on behalf of the international community to make clear that the use of chemical weapons continues to be a violation of international norms.” In other words, globalism and the “international community,” also known as the United Nations, supposedly require that the administration launch illegal military attacks. Of course, the Constitution does not provide any presidential power to engage in any sort of “global police action” or “limited military strike” or anything of the sort, whether justified under the guise of “international law” or not.
Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have recognized that Trump, as he himself pointed out for years, has no authority to attack Syria. Influential U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, pointed to Trump's past tweets on Syria noting that congressional approval would be necessary to attack Syria, and that attacking Syria would be a terrible idea possibly setting up a long-term conflict while costing U.S. taxpayers huge sums. “This remains true today as it was in 2013,” he said. “Both parts.” Paul, a leading constitutionalist and non-interventionist in Congress, made the same arguments when Obama was illegally meddling in the Middle East.
The popular and principled senator doubled down on his position. “Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution,” Paul wrote in a piece published by Fox News, adding that the Founders placed the war power with Congress because they wanted foreign policy to be thoughtful and to be debated by the people's elected representatives. “I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.”
“The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president,” Paul continued, adding that fighting Assad put the U.S. government on the side of al-Qaeda and ISIS in the civil war there. “Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act — a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States. That’s it. Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization. Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now. No president is above the law or the Constitution.”
The morning after Trump's missiles began flying, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made a similar argument. “There is no legal basis for last night’s missile strike against Syrian military assets,” he said in an April 7 statement, calling on U.S. officials to be accountable to the U.S. Constitution. “Congress must be called back immediately, if President Trump plans to escalate our military involvement. He must send a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to Congress, as I have previously called for. The American people deserve a thorough debate in and vote in Congress as required by law if any escalation is expected.”
Politfact.com, a self-styled “fact-checking” operation that is really just a mouthpiece for the establishment, suggested the congressman was wrong. “Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief,” Politifact propagandists for war and unlimited executive authority claimed. But rather than citing the language in the Constitution, they pointed to discredited “experts” who also did not cite any real constitutional or statutory authority.
Multiple propaganda organs of the warmongering globalist establishment also trotted out pseudo-“experts” to assure everyone that because other presidents have similarly flaunted the Constitution, Trump's illegal act is legal. Indeed, some lawless neoconservatives and globalists were downright giddy at the thought of Trump abandoning the Constitution and his campaign pledges to join their deadly warmongering faction.
While the American Civil Liberties Union often works to subvert the Constitution, in this case, perhaps because a Republican it dislikes is in office, it correctly noted that Trump's attacks were illegal. “In the face of constitutional law barring hostile use of force without congressional authorization, and international law forbidding unilateral use of force except in self-defense, President Trump has unilaterally launched strikes against a country that has not attacked us, and without any authorization from Congress,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Doing so violates some of the most important legal constraints on the use of force.”
Among other points, she highlighted the indisputable fact that Congress, and only Congress, has the power to launch a war. “In order to ensure that war powers are exercised with wisdom, restraint, and popular approval, our Constitution assigns to Congress its most important and fundamental responsibility: to declare war by specifying enemies, defining clear objectives, and setting limits that keep the executive’s power as commander in chief within bounds,” the ACLU expert added. “This fundamental principle of separation of powers lies at the core of the Constitution.”
Indeed, there is a very good reason why the authors of the Constitution delegated the war powers to Congress and not the president. They debated it and decided that the American people's representatives must control the awesome power to start wars, not a single man. Chief among those reasons is that the Founders understood the danger of war — and especially ill-thought-out wars — and they knew that allowing the president alone to declare war would lead to more war, and therefore less liberty.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other,” noted James Madison, widely viewed as the “father” of the Constitution:
War is the parent of armies; from these
proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known
instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In
war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its
influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied;
and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing
the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may
be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of
fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners
and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom
in the midst of continual warfare.
Congress must stand on the Constitution and ensure that no more
military scheming takes place without the constitutionally required
declaration of war. Trump and every member of Congress took an oath to
the Constitution — not nebulous “national interests” or anything else.
The American people must ensure that they all adhere to that oath. If
the American people truly feel a war is necessary, then Congress should
discuss the objectives and vote to declare it. Otherwise, the
Constitution demands that the United States stay out. Related articles:
Citing Possible False Flag, Trump Launches Illegal War on Syria
Was Chemical Attack in Syria a “False Flag” to Trigger U.S. War?
The War Power Belongs Only to Congress
Does Obama Have the Constitutional Power to Go to War in Syria?
Has the President Usurped the Constitutional Authority of Congress?
Rand Paul: Power to Wage War Must Be Reclaimed by the Congress
Obama Redux? Trump Sends Marines, Rangers Into Syria
Some of Trump's Picks Have Troubling Links to Globalism, CFR
U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Linked to Bilderberg, CFR, Goldman Sachs & George Soros
After Trump’s Syria Attack, What Comes Next?
______________________________________________________
Was Chemical Attack in Syria a “False Flag”
to Trigger U.S. War?
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/25785-was-chemical-attack-in-syria-a-false-flag-to-trigger-u-s-war;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
While there is no proof yet either way, there are good reasons to at
least consider the prospect that the sarin gas attack on civilians in
Syria this week could have been a “false flag” operation. The last time
Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad supposedly used chemical weapons, the story quickly collapsed under scrutiny. The more likely scenario, according to United Nations investigators and virtually every credible analyst who looked at the 2013 crime, was that globalist-backed jihadist “rebels”
used the chemicals in a “false-flag” scheme. The goal: Blame Syrian
authorities in a bid to trigger U.S. government intervention against
Assad.Foreign officials and more than a few prominent analysts have suggested the same deception may have just played out once again, albeit more successfully this time. Former Congressman and longtime non-interventionist Ron Paul, for example, declared that there was “zero chance” that Assad had ordered the chemical attack. “It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poisonous gases,” he said, noting that the situation for Assad and his regime was looking better until the chemical attack this week. In a tweet that sparked headlines around the world, Paul called the attack a “false flag.”
Syrian officials were among the first to allege that a false-flag operation was underway in the chemical attack that killed over 100 civilians in northern Syria this week. In a statement released by the Assad regime's Foreign Ministry, authorities denied responsibility for the deadly attack. Instead, the regime said the gruesome killings with banned weapons were actually a “premeditated action that aimed to justify the launching of a U.S. attack on the Syrian army.” The regime claims it destroyed all its WMDs under United Nations supervision years ago. Russian authorities, allied with Assad, agreed.
Of course, even if Damascus did use chemical weapons on civilians, it would be unlikely to admit that. But a simple analysis of motives — a basic first step in any serious investigation — would suggest that Assad had every reason to avoid the use of chemical weapons at all costs. On the other hand, jihadist rebels on the verge of annihilation had every reason to use them. After years of fighting globalist-backed jihadists and terrorists, the dictatorship in Damascus was reportedly close to victory — at least until Trump intervened by firing dozens of missiles at Syrian targets.
Russian authorities, which have stood by Assad in the war against jihadist groups backed by Western governments and Sunni dictatorships, echoed the claims of Syrian officials and blasted certain globalist governments for being “obsessed” with regime change in Syria. Kremlin officials suggested that a strike by Assad's war planes in the rebel-held area hit a jihadist weapons-production depot that was manufacturing chemical weapons for terrorists in the region. That explanation would appear to make more sense, multiple analysts said.
Russian officials, also citing intelligence, were unequivocal in explaining what happened. “Yesterday [Tuesday], from 11:30am to 12:30pm local time, Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhoun town,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konoshenkov was quoted as saying in media reports. “On the territory of the depot there were workshops which produced chemical warfare munitions.”
Western governments and supposed “experts” trotted out by establishment propaganda organs promptly ridiculed the claims. Instead, they claimed to have alleged “intelligence” that supposedly showed Assad was guilty. Despite the non-stop videos on TV of dying children likely played for emotional manipulation, the alleged intelligence proving Assad's guilt was not released to the public. First, the attack had Assad's “fingerprints” on it, alleged "anonymous" and potentially fake “U.S. intelligence” sources were quoted as saying. Then, there was “no doubt.”
However, when Obama cited alleged “intelligence” purporting to blame Assad for a similar 2013 attack, a very similar situation unfolded. Top Obama officials claimed with certainty that their “intelligence” proved Assad was guilty. But as the days, weeks, and months went on, it quickly became evident to virtually every credible analyst that it was, in fact, the Obama-backed jihadist rebels who had used chemical weapons in a bid to set up Assad's regime for elimination via international intervention. Only a massive outcry by Americans and Congress stopped the plot.
But the evidence showing what really happened was clear. A 2014 MIT report and analysis on that attack the year prior, for example, offered evidence that the Obama administration almost certainly used deception and bogus “intelligence” in its failed bid to more deeply embroil the United States and its military in Syria’s ongoing war. Entitled “Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” the report found the nerve-agent attack in Syria “could not possibly” have come from the center or even the Eastern edge of regime-controlled territory. Other evidence also showed that the rebels, not the regime, deployed the chemical weapons.
Citing “egregious errors in the intelligence,” the explosive MIT report warned that the process by which those errors were made must be rectified to avoid future tragedy. “If the source of these errors is not identified, the procedures that led to this intelligence failure will go uncorrected, and the chances of a future policy disaster will grow with certainty,” concluded the authors, former United Nations weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and MIT Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Professor Theodore Postol. It seems likely that the warning went unheeded, and many of the same “Deep State” operatives behind the previous scam remain employed in the federal bureaucracy.
U.S. officials already knew that the jihadist “rebels” had access to chemical weapons at the time of that 2013 attack, too. A classified U.S. military document obtained by WND the month after the attack confirmed that al-Qaeda-led fighters with the “rebel” Jabhat al-Nusra Front in Syria, which top officials admitted was supported and armed by Obama's “coalition,” were in possession of sarin gas. U.S. officials knew that because about five pounds of the toxic gas was confiscated from the terror group earlier that same year by authorities in Turkey.
And after the previous use of chemical weapons in Syria, which Obama claimed was perpetrated by Assad, even UN investigators concluded “rebels” were responsible. “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of Sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” said Carla Del Ponte, the former attorney general of Switzerland and a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria. “This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.”
According to a January 29, 2013, article published by leading British newspaper the Daily Mail, the Obama administration actually backed a scheme to have jihadist rebels use chemical weapons — and then blame it on Assad. The article, which received widespread publicity at the time but has since been deleted for reasons that remain unclear, pointed to an alleged leaked e-mail from defense contractor Britam. The December, 2012, document in question refers to chemical weapons and claims the scheme is “approved by Washington.”
Ironically, certain Western governments, as well as establishment and globalist war propaganda organs, pretended to be shocked at the mere mention of the term false flag following the latest attack. However, more than a few establishment sources suggested the recent terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, Russia, may have been just such an event. Putin's regime has previously been accused — credibly — of having staged such attacks as a pretext to advance certain policies. But the double standard is glaring. How establishment propaganda organs can be so sure that designated terror groups and jihadists — or rogue Western bureaucrats — would not perpetrate a false flag was not explained.
Just last month, though, left-wing extremist Noam Chomsky suggested President Trump might stage a false-flag terrorist attack to rally his supporters and distract from his failure to follow through on his promises. “We shouldn't put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly,” Chomsky declared, with establishment media voices dutifully reporting the remarks by the “left-wing intellectual” as if they were perfectly sane and reasonable. A false-flag attack by an embattled jihadist terror group in Syria with nothing left to lose is almost certainly a more likely possibility than a false flag by Trump to rally supporters.
Already, smoking-gun evidence exists proving that the globalist establishment was willing to facilitate unspeakable crimes to remove Assad from power. In fact, the Obama administration, Sunni Muslim dictators, and others were so determined to achieve regime change that they were willing to support a rebellion that they knew was led by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, according to a 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document. That same document outlines an illegal plot to help create a “salafist principality” — known today as the Islamic State, or ISIS — in Eastern Syria to destabilize Assad. Trump is well aware of this scheme. And top Obama officials admitted it in public.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), among America's most prominent lawmakers, has taken what may be the most sensible approach to the issue: Demanding to see the evidence. Speaking of Assad, Paul said “he’s either the dumbest dictator in the world, or it may be more confusing.” Speaking on The Laura Ingraham Show, the senator noted the obvious: It would not make sense for Assad to use such weapons when he was winning the war, had strong Russian support, and had already learned that the Trump administration was abandoning the Obama administration's failed “regime change” scheming. “I would like to see the evidence,” Paul added, saying he did not dispute it but would like to see it.
To the horror of some of Trump's most loyal and important supporters, many of the same establishment-globalist institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations that dominated Obama's warmongering administration have burrowed their way into Trump's administration, too. And that is despite Trump's oft-repeated promise to fight against globalism, the warmongering establishment, and other evils. The Trump administration should present whatever evidence it has about the source of the latest attack to Congress and the public. That way, Americans and their representatives can judge the facts for themselves instead of relying on warmongering “deep state” bureaucrats and their discredited propagandists in the establishment media.
Related articles:
Citing Possible False Flag, Trump Launches Illegal War on Syria
MIT Report: Obama Used Bogus Intelligence to Push Syria War
U.S. Military Document: Syrian Rebels Had Chemical Weapons
UN Investigator Claims Evidence Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Gas
Obama Redux? Trump Sends Marines, Rangers Into Syria
Some of Trump's Picks Have Troubling Links to Globalism, CFR
U.S. Defense Intel Chief: Obama Gave “Willful” Aid to Al-Qaeda
Globalists Using Muslim Terrorists as Pawns
U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria
ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy
Doubts Grow About Perpetrators Behind Chemical Attack in Syria
Syria Tells Russia that Rebels Used Chemicals
Reports: U.S.-led Rebels Sent into Syria Before Chemical Attack
Rebel Atrocities in Syria Escalate, Sparking Alarm Over Obama Plan
U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Linked to Bilderberg, CFR, Goldman Sachs & George Soros
_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
White House Source: Trump Pushes Back Against Neo-Con Plan to Invade Syria
Troops massing as deep state plots regime change
Insider Warns Generals Not To Trick America
Into A War In Syria
Published on Apr 10, 2017
Steve
Pieczenik joins the Alex Jones to break down why attacking Syria would
be a fatal mistakes for the Trump presidency and how it would put him
into the hands of the globalists.
H. R. McMaster: Islamic Apologist
Published on Apr 10, 2017
Unlike
General Flynn, McMaster is a complete tool of the globalists and a
continual apologist for Islam. Doing his best to muddy the water about
who the real enemy is.
Russian Pol Calls For “Retaliatory Strikes” Against U.S.
State Duma member wants to send a message to Trump
"RUSSIA SHOULD DECLARE PARTIAL MOBILIZATION":
Unusual Navy Patrol Sparks Fear of Foreign Sub
Off California Coast
