Posted on 04/11/2017 6:31:29 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
By ordering last week’s Tomahawk strike on a Syrian airbase, the president usurped Congress’s exclusive power to declare war. He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
Make no mistake: President Trump’s airstrikes against Syria were unconstitutional. Military action may well have been justified from a moral standpoint. The Assad regime’s war on its own people and its use of chemical weapons required a response, arguably including a retaliatory strike to deter further such attacks. Inaction, as much as action, has profound human consequences. There is a case to be made that America should have taken military action against Assad in 2013, or even as early as 2011, in order to protect innocent Syrians from their own government.
The strikes may have been justified from a strategic standpoint, too — as a means of both advancing America’s interests in the region’s security and counteracting the perception of American weakness left by President Obama’s dithering response to past Syrian chemical-weapons attacks. A feckless, feeble United States — one that retreats from declared “red lines,” abandons the region to Vladimir Putin, creates a vacuum for the rise of ISIS, and generates a massive humanitarian and refugee crisis — is good for nobody.
But from a legal standpoint, there can be no doubt that Trump’s Tomahawk strike on the Syrian regime was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“National Security Council officials just held a background briefing with reporters on the declassified intel assessment of last week’s chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, Syria. Full story coming soon, but a few takeaways:
Sarin confirmed as the nerve agent used via testing on victims as well as symptoms. Secondary responders also suffered exposure symptoms.
Su-22s from Shayrat airfield dropped the sarin on Khan Shaykhun; conventional weapons were dropped about six hours later on hospital treating sarin victims - “no comment” from officials on if Russia did latter.
No ISIS or other terrorists in area have sarin (just mustard gas) - attack was “not a terrorist holding of sarin or a terrorist use of sarin”
WH official on if Russia, present at airfield, knew of sarin attack: “We don’t have information on that per se... still looking into that.” Adding: “We do think that it is a question worth asking” Russians how they were with Syrian forces at airfield “and did not have knowledge” of the attack in planning/prep stages.
“Leakage inconsistent” with Russians saying sarin came from opposition stocks on ground - “we don’t see a building with that chemical residue”
On Syria hoax conspiracy theories: Body of evidence “too massive” for anyone to fabricate. Official added that videos released of attack did correspond with that date, time, location. “
Directive 17 is classified, its statutory and made during Bush’s time. It authorizes the strikes. We are tired of the anti Trump BS.
Please note nobody is really saying its wrong other then the usual anti-Trumps in the legislative branch. So get a clue, its not anything to go after Trump with.
Without a reference it’s just your say so.
I am an America of Serbian heritage you dumbass, if you’re implying I
agreed with Clinton’s actions somehow then your powers of deduction need some serious recalibration.
Pizda jedan.
Try Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. One could also attempt the case that Congress should be involved even for this, under Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 10 - I think we can both agree that employing chemical agents against a civilian population is an affront to (if not an outright violation of) the Law of Nations. But even that is likely more directed at instances involving American citizens, rather than those of another nation.
Look up Hamilton's commentary on Jefferson's 1807 address to Congress, regarding the Barbary Pirates for perspective on this issue.
When a belligerent party attacks its victim, a de facto ('by that act' for those in Rio Linda) state of war exists, and the victim need not declare so in order to retaliate. The Barbary Pirates having attacked American ships and enslaving American citizens and sailors thereby filled the role of the belligerent party, and Jefferson was therfore well within his powers to attack them (as agents of the Barbary States) without a Declaration of War.
As for others pointing to President Bush (43) and AFG/IQ, those states hosted belligerent non-state actors who had attacked us (or supported those who did). As allies/enablers, they are party to that attacks and therefore as liable to our retribution as Al-Qaeda itself. Taking out the enemy's support network and training areas (in concert with direct attacks on the enemy forces) is actually a very productive approach to eliminating an enemy. See Sun Tzu for thoughts on the indirect approach to warfare.
A Declaration of War is nice when someone attacks us, but not absolutely necessary to launch a military response to an attack. However, it does have the effect of resetting the national mindset and enabling the mobilization of the entire will and resources of the Nation toward the single goal of destroying the enemy. And that, IMNSHO, is where President Bush (43) missed a step.
And as we have seen over the past 8 years, a President will press his advantage so far as Congress allows him to do so. Congress chickened out with the AUMF for AFG/IQ, and completely ran away from BJCs use of cruise missiles and excursion into Serbia, and BHOs indiscriminate use of drones (particularly against an American citizen (al-Awaki) who should have either been brought to trial and stripped of his citizenship (that pesky Due Process thing), before termination). Congress needs to step up to its Constitutional responsibilities, and is complicit in any un-Constitutional acts by the President until it does.
In this case, President Trump (and I supported his candidacy after my first choice dropped out) has not articulated the same attack on Americans or our allies, nor an imminent or developing threat to America. Therefore, the cruise missile attack is a belligerent act, by any definition (we weren't responding to an attack on us or our allies, or to an imminent/developing threat). Therefore, President Trump needs a Congressional Declaration of War (or as a bare minimum, articulation of the national-interest reasons for doing so under the War Powers Act or an existing Authorization for the Use of Military Force).
Notwithstanding others' unfounded assertions that the American President has any sort of duty to citizens of any other nation (expressed nowhere at all in the Constitution), he indeed has no responsibility, duty, or other obligation of that kind. We The People simply DID NOT delegate that specific power to the Executive Branch. We could not if we wanted to - we have no such duty to other nations inherent in ourselves that we could delegate to our government.
Retired Army myself (over 32 yrs Active & Reserve, 3 mobilizations, 1 overseas deployment), with a son and a nephew on Active Duty, and a student of the Constitution. I highly recommend actually reading it, and the Federalist Papers, as a minimum. Hillsdale College has an excellent Constitution 101 course in 10 segments of an hour each to jump-start the process.
Either we are a Nation of Laws, or we are not.
Probably for the best
You brought him up, not me.
So what? I guess you’ll never have to worry about becoming a MENSA candidate.
Are you drunk?
Every President has to have the flexible to take a military action immediately.
Get the hell over it. Trump just stated in an interview on Fox Business we weren't going to war in Syria. Unwad your panties.
“Only Congress has the power to declare war.”
Sure, that’s what Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says. But, that’s an almost illegible, dusty, old parchment that was written by a bunch of dead white men about a hundred years ago. All that old stuff is as obsolete as a slide rule or a buggy whip.
Apparently lots of self-identifying conservatives now agree with liberals that US has a Living Constitution.
No need to apologize. Being zotted takes care of the need for that.
“A military strike is NOT a declaration of war.”
—
Nope !
Remember the Granada invasion-—1983
.
It’s like being at an intellects’ round table isn’t it?
Yes even the War Powers Act concedes that the president has the Constitutional authority to send troops or conduct warfare without Congress’s consent as the law only says notify within 48 hours.
Thank you.
“Either we are a Nation of Laws, or we are not.”
You guys championed a Canadian dork in an American Presidential race and you’re still not over it. Now you’re going to lecture us on the rule of law?
Reagan did not need approval because the WPA covered his actions anyway, the same for the recent event in Syria. Pres. just did that out of courtesy and to cover his bases. In this day and age its hard to trust anyone. Also it would be pretty stupid arguing a surprise surgical strike out in the open, the President needs a lot of slack in this Information Age.
[[By ordering last week’s Tomahawk strike on a Syrian airbase, the president usurped Congress’s exclusive power to declare war.]]
War was declared? Since when does a WARNING turn into a ‘declaration of war?
I’ve no idea why you posted to me on this. I’m not even sure I can discern what you’re getting at. It looks like you agree with the actions of the President. If so, then we’re in agreement. If not, then I respect that you have a different opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.