Trump Could be Impeached for Downing Syrian Jet
By: Daniel Gil/ Contributing Writer
The downing of a Syrian warplane by the American military made international headlines Monday and served as a manifestation of escalating tensions between Moscow and Washington as the fighting in Syria reaches a pivotal point. What was left out of the headlines however, was that the US military’s strike on a sovereign nation’s military without congressional approval was, in fact, unconstitutional and could qualify as grounds for impeachment of President Trump.
Although it is unlikely the downing of the Syrian warplane would likely amount to impeachment, the incident serves as an example of the increasingly thickening blanket of fog during war surrounding the power the President has to issue an attack.
The United States constitution divides the power to make war between the executive and legislative branches with the President as commander and chief of the military and Congress as the federal body capable of making declarations of war. However, following the Vietnam War questions about the extent of the President’s power to send troops to war arose and so Congress passed the War Powers Resolution as an attempt to mitigate this.
What the resolution did was establish procedures for both federal branches when American troops were deployed abroad so as to add more checks on American military escalation. However power, once held, hardly ever lets go willingly and the resolution’s usage in practice hasn’t come close to its intention in theory.
In recent history its practical usage has been undercut by generations of presidents who believe the War Powers act is unconstitutional and sets too much of a limit on their ability to lead the armed forces. That is also considering the fact that the United States has military bases in every corner of the world. President Obama used that as a justification to wage drone wars in the Middle East but was reportedly nervous of being impeached if he proceeded on attacking Assad’s forces without congressional approval.
And now, President Trump has violated the War Powers act in his downing of the jet on Monday, which Moscow condemned with immediacy whilst also threatening the US by declaring Russia’s military would target any US military planes west of the Euphrates river valley. Russia also cut off an emergency phone line used by the Russian and American militaries to avoid collisions while flying in Syrian airspace.
In a press conference the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Marine General Joseph Dunford what the legal justification for targeting Syrian forces. Joseph responded by saying, “We are there and have legal justification under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, we are prosecuting a campaign against ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria.”
However, according to Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, this is completely false.
Boyle told the Institute for Public Accuracy, “Gen. Dunford is totally incorrect. The AUMF passed after 9/11 has indeed been used to justify the bombing campaign purporting to target ISIS, but it cannot possibly be used to justify targeting the Syrian government. Those attacks are in fact clearly illegal and impeachable.”
Boyle notes that the impetus for the impeachment is mired in partisan politics, which really isn’t very surprising. This is especially true when both the executive and legislative branches are controlled by republicans.
Boyle said, “Many have put forward dubious arguments for impeaching Trump — or arguments that they would never apply to a Democratic president. Similarly, some threatened Obama with impeachment and are not doing so now that Trump is engaging in exactly the activity they threatened Obama about. Hypocrisies and hypocrites abound.”
The nature of conflict hasn’t changed dramatically since the implementation of the war powers act, however as the United States involves in itself in more conflicts the more likely it is we will see sitting presidents stretch its interpretation and in effect we have war without really having war.