by
Phillip Todd
The president
needs congressional authorization for military action as required by
the Constitution. The Constitution says
“war must be declared by Congress."
For
most of American history, the consensus view among politicians and
legal scholars was that the Founding Fathers meant for Congress to
have the "sole authority" in deciding to initiate any
hostilities or war with another country. Although this remains the
most common view among academics, actual practice has diverged
significantly, said Andrew Kent, a law professor at Fordham
University and an expert in the Constitution
and
national security.
The Constitution
says only Congress has the power to declare war, but throughout the
past 70 years or so, presidents have adopted a flexible view of their
own constitutional role as commander-in-chief in order to engage in
military action without congressional approval.
Yet the courts have not settled some constitutional questions
about what is war and who gets to decide when the United States
attacks. "Hence, there is a kind of
customary law of war initiation in modern times that has supplanted a
long-held view, and the view of the Founders, about what the
Constitution means," Kent said.
That said, the
strike against the so-called culprits in the chemical attacks, were
blatantly unconstitutional because they were first, not needed to
defend our country and in no way were in the national interest,
secondly, against a foreign government that is not a threat nor have
ever threatened the United States, thirdly, and most important, there
is no reliable proof that the Syrian government was responsible –
just the opposite.
Many, around the
world who are not afraid of the power of the United States, have
openly criticized and offered proof that this was a false flag
operation perpetuated by the “shadow government” that many feel
now controls America.
Here are the facts
and the comments, not propaganda, of
those outside the U.S. control of information:
- “In the light of recent developments and accusations directed against the Syrian government, it is important once more to set the record straight: the US supported rebels possess chemical weapons. Documents how the Pentagon not only provided chemical weapons to Al Nusra, an affiliated Al Qaeda terrorist organization, but also provided training to the rebels in the use of these weapons. While Washington continues to point its finger at president Bashar al Assad, a United Nations independent commission of inquiry confirmed as early as May 2013 that the rebels rather than the government have chemical weapons in their possession and were using sarin nerve gas against the civilian population.- Michel Chossudovsky, an award winning author, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, Montreal, and the Editor of Global Research.
Evidence Shows Pentagon Trained Syria’s Rebels in the Use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/04/11/evidence-shows-the-pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-rush/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Collective-evolution+%28Collective+Evolution%29
The problem here is that not long ago Democratic
lawmakers and Obama administration officials touted that Syria
turned over 100% of it's chemical weapon stockpile.
“We struck a deal where we got a hundred percent of the chemical
weapons out,” then Secreatry of State
John Kerry stated.
- "...there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind thispropaganda is the United States."- Robin Cook, former British Foreign SecretaryWHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY SLIPS UP & ADMITS U.S. PLANS TO “DESTABILIZE SYRIA?”
- http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/04/10/white-house-press-secretary-slips-up-admits-u-s-plans-to-destabilize-syria/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Collective-evolution+%28Collective+Evolution%29
If this were clearly a surprise attack by the Syrian government - how did the rebels have knowledge of it before it happened and if so, why did they not bring it to the attention of the world? Something is rotten and it's not in Denmark, Patriots.
UPDATE: MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged
UPDATE: MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged
No comments:
Post a Comment