Listen to "Reality Check with Ben Swann" on Spreaker.

White House Legal Justification for Syria War Nebulous as War Broadens

Must Read

New CDC Study: 70% Always Masked Contracted Covid, VS 3% Non-Masked

A new CDC study finds that 70% of those who ALWAYS wore a mask contracted C0VlD 14 days after...

President Trump: “Total Declassification” of Any/All Documents Related To Russia Investigation

Handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan prove that the Trump/Russia connection appears to have been approved first...

Media Blackout of Third Option For President on Every Ballot in the U.S.

Our exclusive one on one interview with Libertarian Presidential Candidate Jo Jorgensen about the media blackout that is keeping...

Officials Cite ‘Article II’ Without Providing Specifics

by Jason Ditz, August 09, 2015

At one point, the Obama Administration wanted a Congressional authorization for their war against ISIS. They openly bragged about the vague language allowing them to do more or less anything, and never got Congress to agree. Still, the war continued.

Instead of worrying about what the legal justification of the war might well be if the law was different, however, people are increasingly asking what the current justification is, particularly as the Syrian part of the war broadens, with more targets and more enemies. The answer is complicated, and unsatisfying.

- Newsletter -

When they’re attacking al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, the justification is the 2001 AUMF for the Afghan War, because it’s al-Qaeda. When they’re fighting ISIS, it’s sort of the same, on the grounds that ISIS is sort of al-Qaeda, even though they’re actually not.

Then there’s talk of attacking Syria’s own military. The justification there is even less obvious, and the administration is claiming Article II of the US Constitution allows them to defend “assets,” and that they consider the rebels they’re trying to create in Syria assets, and therefore they can do whatever they want to any conceivable enemy of those rebels.

Constitutional scholars are spurning this argument, noting that Article II isn’t nearly specific enough to justify anything, and that with such an overbroad interpretation the US could declare whatever it wants in whatever country to be an “asset” and then fight a war on that basis.

- Advertisement -

Featrued Sponsors

Unstoppable Domains

Uncensorable blockchain domains. Every domain purchase supports Ben Swann and Truth in Media

Holland Center

Holland Center is a day treatment program and medical clinic for children with autism.

Pure VPN

Military grade privacy on all devices.
- Advertisement -

Latest News

video

New CDC Study: 70% Always Masked Contracted Covid, VS 3% Non-Masked

A new CDC study finds that 70% of those who ALWAYS wore a mask contracted C0VlD 14 days after...
video

President Trump: “Total Declassification” of Any/All Documents Related To Russia Investigation

Handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan prove that the Trump/Russia connection appears to have been approved first by the Hillary Clinton campaign...
video

Media Blackout of Third Option For President on Every Ballot in the U.S.

Our exclusive one on one interview with Libertarian Presidential Candidate Jo Jorgensen about the media blackout that is keeping her out of the polls...
video

Exclusive Interview: Kyle Rittenhouse Unfairly Smeared by Facebook and MSM?

I interview the attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse about the new video which claims to prove that the 17 year-old acted in self-defense during the...
video

“Massachusetts Destroys Ballots”: Exclusive Interview With Senate Write-in Candidate Dr. Shiva

Breaking news in the race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts as write-in candidate Dr. Shiva has established that the Massachusetts Secretary of State's Office...
- Advertisement -

More Articles Like This