There is no way that President Barack Hussein Obama can justify committing an act of war against a sovereign nation without the express permission of Congress unless that foreign sovereign nation poses an actual or imminent threat. This, the opinion of Constitutional lawyer Barack Hussein Obama. Since Barack Hussein Obama does possess the intent to knowingly violate the Constitution of the United States and commit an international crime, it should be recognized that such action should be the grounds for impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate. The sentence should go beyond removal from office and the perpetrator should be tried in a military tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
It appears that the motivation for such an action presents two alternatives. Alternative one, Barack Hussein Obama is willing to use United States forces to attack a foreign sovereign nation for the purposes of burnishing his reputation, and alternative two, Barack Hussein Obama is aiding and abetting the rebels which appear to be aiding the Muslim Brotherhood and is infiltrated by representative of al Qaeda.
Should the rebels force the ouster of the Syrian government, it is most likely that they will move to install strict Sharia law; with the possibility of ethnic cleansing of all persons they consider to be traitors and infidels, namely the Alawites, Coptic Christians, and others who represent a loose interpretation of Islam. In this case, Barack Hussein Obama should be tried as a co-conspirator and charged with crimes against humanity.
However, in the event that sending Cruise Missiles into Syria is an impotent show of force, Kabuki Theatre if you will, President Barack Hussein Obama should be charged with the willful and illegal destruction of government assets.
|“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat.” ~ Barack Obama speaking to the Boston Globe in reference to George Bush’s foreign policy.
In 2007, Barack Obama was asked when Presidents have the authority to launch a military strike without congressional authorization. He had a precise answer at the ready.
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat,” Obama told the Boston Globe.
Back then, the target in question was Iran, and Obama was a first-term Senator running for President against the excesses of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. But the statement stands in stark opposition to Obama’s view now. The Obama Administration is on the cusp of intervening in a Syrian civil war that by all accounts does not pose an imminent domestic threat to the U.S. And Obama appears set to unilaterally authorize punitive strikes against Bashar Assad’s regime.
It would not be the first time Obama acted outside his own previous definition of presidential war powers. In 2011, with a bloody conflict escalating in Libya, Obama authorized the U.S. to join an international coalition that established a no-fly zone in order to stem the threat of mass slaughter. Obama argued the intervention was justified.