Opinion: Politifact Is Wrong – Trump’s Attack On Syria Is Illegal

"The constitutional powers to introduce the United States into hostilities, are only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an attack upon the United States."

Opinion: Politifact Is Wrong – Trump’s Attack On Syria Is Illegal

Reputation is, or rather should be, something of utmost importance for an organization renowned for using facts to rate whether a politician is telling the truth or not. This week the highly-respected outfit “Politifact,” a Pulitzer prize-winning group cited by predominantly liberal pundits to prove that Republicans lie as a matter of course, rated a Democratic congressman’s statement “false” when it was patently and verifiably true. Now, no-one wants to say the Politifact is biased or pimping for Trump, so instead one will just say Politifact is wrong on what former Vice President Joe Biden would say is a very “big f*cking deal.” Dragging Americans into another Middle East war without Congress’ authorization or any threat to America’s national security.

Many pundits not aligned with Republicans, warmongers, Israel or Trump have noted that Trump’s launching a few dozen missiles at Syria was an illegal act, and that included one Wisconsin Democrat in Congress, Rep. Mark Pocan. Mr. Pocan earned a “false” rating by Politifact Wisconsin for his remark that “Trump’s military attack on Syria” had no legal basis and was thus, illegal. Representative Pocan said:

There is no legal basis for last night’s missile strike against Syrian military assets. Congress must be called back immediately if 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.” (author bold)

For some yet unknown reason, “Politifact Wisconsin asserted that under the War Powers Resolution (WPR), the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.”

Either Politifact Wisconsin failed to even peruse the WPR to discover what the justification is for a president to engage in military action legally, or they are part of the warmonger crowd that believes what makes a corrupt and treasonous criminal “presidential,” or reasserts America’s credibility as a bonafide warmonger, is illegally attacking a sovereign nation that has not attacked America.

The War Powers Resolution was a joint Congressional resolution created specifically to prevent an out-of-control president from waging war without a reason, or to distract the public from the investigation into treasonous collusion with a hostile foreign power. There are only three circumstances in which a president can “introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities” and not one of them are applicable to Trump’s illegal war acts against Syria.

The War Powers Resolution states:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

It is noteworthy that Politifact Wisconsin did, in fact, cite myriad “opinions” from several conservative warmongers that Trump’s violation of the War Powers Resolution was completely legal, and used those opinions to concluded that Representative Pocan’s statement was “false.” It is unclear which part of no congressional “declaration of war,” no Authorization for Use of Military Force (specific statutory authorization), or “emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” informed Politifact Wisconsin’s assessment, but none of those “circumstances” existed for Trump to “legally” order the launch of 50 or 60 cruise missiles at a Russian-Syrian airfield; or order the deployment of several hundred more American troops into Syria.

One of the things Politifact Wisconsin also failed to acknowledge was that Trump has, in fact, put an ever-increasing number of American troops in harm’s way by deploying American soldiers to Syria. After that inconvenient fact was revealed, Trump’s administration said it would no longer report to the American people or the media when he deployed American soldiers to fight in another Middle East War; he likely will not inform Congress either.

Again, Trump’s troop deployment actions were taken without congressional approval, without a declaration of war, and without an attack on America, its territories or possessions or its armed forces by the Syrian military. Unless Trump is aware of something no-one else in the worlds is, that Syria is America, an American territory or an American possession, he is in violation of the War Powers Resolution created specifically to prevent a criminal like him from doing what the Republican warmongers want or profits his investment portfolio.

It is noteworthy also that Trump is bound by the WPR to notify Congress 48 hours prior to any troop deployment or military attack; something he failed to do making that action patently illegal. He did, however, notify Russian President Vladimir Putin in advance of the attack so the Russian could warn his other puppet, Syrian President Assad, to move his military fighter jets and keep them out of harm’s way.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted:

Trump has unilaterally launched strikes against a country that has not attacked us, and without authorization from, [or notification to] Congress. Doing so violates some of the most important legal constraints on the use of force…we have been steadfast in insisting…that the decision to use military force requires Congress’ specific, advance authorization.”

When Representative Pocan said on Friday last that “There is no legal basis Trump’s missile strike against Syrian military assets,” he was making a true statement according to the War Powers Resolution. It is the “resolution,” and the federal law, that defines exactly what is a legal use of America’s military forces. It is noteworthy that even Republican warmongers opposed President Barack Obama’s potential use of America’s military in Syria, even to pursue George W. Bush’s confessed creation ISIS. But Trump’s use of force was not against ISIS; it was against Syria’s military; a military that has not attacked America, its territories or possessions or American troops.

Politifact Wisconsin is wrong and if they are to maintain any credibility whatsoever in the future, it would behoove them to retract their “faulty assessment” of Representative Pocan’s statement. They also need to start rating the veracity of a politician’s statements according to the how they conform to the letter of the law; not opinions of conservative warmongers or members of the military industrial complex like Trump who profit off of Middle East wars. Unless of course, Politifact Wisconsin is desperate to portray Trump as presidential because he violated the law and attacked a sovereign nation or complicit in claiming that what makes America credible is engaging in yet another “illegal” Middle East war.

Recent posts on PoliticusUSA