Skip to main content

Hans von Spakovsky: Trump killing of Soleimani and action against Iran legal – Despite Democratic complaints

President Trump reveals new details on imminent threat from Soleimani, responds to criticism of intel briefing

Watch part 1 of Laura Ingraham’s exclusive interview with President Trump on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’

The War Powers Resolution passed Thursday by the House in an effort to restrict President Trump’s ability to take military action to defend America against attack from Iran is a meaningless political document designed only to embarrass the president.

The nonbinding resolution criticizes the president for not “consulting” with Congress and receiving its “authorization” before ordering the killing of Iranian general and terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani. The resolution also orders Trump to stop using military force against Iran until he gets congressional approval.

Trump acted fully within his constitutional authority when he ordered the drone strike against Soleimani, a mass murderer responsible for thousands of deaths – including over 600 Americans – who was engaged in planning additional imminent and ongoing deadly attacks.


President Trump told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham in an exclusive interview Friday that Soleimani was planning attacks on four U.S. embassies.

Nine other terrorists traveling with Soleimani were also killed in the U.S. drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq last week.

Imagine how much better off we would be if U.S. forces had been able to kill Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden and nine of his fellow terrorist leaders while they were planning the horrific Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly than 3,000 people. Can anyone seriously argue that preventing those tragic deaths would not have been the right thing to do if a past president had the opportunity?

We’ll never know how many more people Soleimani would have murdered if he had lived longer, but it’s a safe bet that the number would be a big one, and that Americans would be among the dead. President Trump should be applauded for eliminating this very real threat.

Imagine how much better off we would be if U.S. forces had been able to kill Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden and nine of his fellow terrorist leaders while they were planning the horrific Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly than 3,000 people.

The framers of the Constitution understood we needed a strong president to defend our country. One reason they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to create the office of president with the powers it currently possesses.

Article II of the Constitution makes the president the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”  He is also vested with all of “the executive Power” and the duty to execute the laws.

The text, structure, and history of the Constitution make it clear that this article gives the president broad constitutional authority to use military force to support our foreign policy and to respond to threats to our national security.  And that’s the way it has been interpreted by successive administrations and the courts since the very beginning of our nation

As the U.S. Justice Department said in a 2001 legal opinion issued after the 9/11 attacks, the “power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President.”


No law and no congressional resolution – such as the one passed Thursday by the House – “can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make,” according to the Justice Department legal opinion.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Congress has done so five times in our nations’ history and also authorized the use of military force over 40 times. But the commander in chief is charged with defending the country. He – and he alone – has the authority to use the armed forces for our defense.

In cases such as the killing of Soleimani – a situation calling for self-defense based on a verifiable, ongoing and imminent threat – a president can clearly act based on his constitutional authority. Neither Trump – nor any other American president – need ask for a congressional declaration of war or even an authorization for the use of military force in cases like this. 

Trump acted wisely, quickly, and constitutionally to save American lives. That’s something we are entitled to expect all our presidents to do – regardless of their political party.

You can be sure that if Trump had done nothing and Soleimani had gone on to stage a nightmarish terrorist attack that claimed hundreds or even thousands of American lives, the president’s critics would be screaming at the top of their lungs that Trump was incompetent and derelict in his duty for failing to prevent the mass murder.

The simple fact is that the authority of Congress to declare war does not limit the ability – in fact, the responsibility – of the president to direct the armed forces to respond either defensively or offensively to terrorist threats.

If Congress wants to flex its constitutional muscles on this, it can cut off funding for the military.  After all, Congress has the power of the purse. If it really wants to stop specific military actions, it can use its budget authority to withhold appropriations and to ban the use of any public funds for specific purposes.

The War Powers Resolution passed by the House Thursday does not do that. The fact that the House is not willing to use its actual authority in this matter strongly suggests that this resolution is just political theater meant to score points against the president.


In addition, the nonbinding resolution puts members of the House in the embarrassing position of seemingly defending a terrorist mass murderer. It may give the rest of the world – including our most dangerous enemies – the impression that our government is in disarray and doesn’t want to respond to attacks on our embassies, our citizens and our armed forces.

This, in turn, could invite further attacks. 

Soleimani was unquestionably a legitimate target – someone who could have and should have been taken out years ago by a past president in the interests of our national security. Had that happened, an untold number of innocent civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces whose deaths were caused by Soleimani would still be alive today.


Those condemning President Trump for taking out Soleimani should answer this question: How many American military personnel and others is a terrorist allowed to kill before you think he is a legitimate military target?

And Trump’s critics should be willing to sit down with the widows, widowers, orphans and parents who lost loved ones because of Soleimani’s barbarism and explain to them why it was a good thing than an earlier American president did not rid the world of this monstrous mass murderer.


Source: Read Full Article


Popular posts from this blog

Google accused of creating 'creepy' spy tool to squelch worker dissent

Google workers are accusing the company of developing an internal surveillance tool that they believe will be used to monitor their attempts to organise protests and discuss labour rights.Earlier this month, employees said they discovered that a team within the company was creating the new tool for the custom Google Chrome browser installed on all workers' computers and used to search internal systems. The concerns were outlined in a memo written by a Google employee and reviewed by Bloomberg News, and by three Google employees who requested anonymity because they aren't authorised to talk to the press.The tool would automatically report staffers who create a calendar event with more than 10 rooms or 100 participants, according to the employee memo. The most likely explanation, the memo alleged, "is that this is an attempt of leadership to immediately learn about any workers organisation attempts."Google is using the new software tool to police its own workers amid r…

At Least 23 People Dead in Australia Bushfires As Blazes Continue Raging

SYDNEY (AP) — A father and son who were battling flames for two days are the latest victims of the worst wildfire season in Australian history, and the path of destruction widened in at least three states Saturday due to strong winds and high temperatures.The death toll in the wildfire crisis is now up to 23 people, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said after calling up about 3,000 reservists to battle the escalating fires, which are expected to be particularly fierce throughout the weekend.“We are facing another extremely difficult next 24 hours,” Morrison said at a televised news conference. “In recent times, particularly over the course of the balance of this week, we have seen this disaster escalate to an entirely new level.”Dick Lang, a 78-year-old acclaimed bush pilot and outback safari operator, and his 43-year-old son, Clayton, were identified by Australian authorities after their bodies were found Saturday on a highway on Kangaroo Island. Their family said their losses left them…

It will take 100 years for women to earn the same as men at this rate

The wage gap between men and women is 20%, meaning women get paid 80 cents to every $1 men earn, according to a recent study.The pay gap narrowed about 2% in the last ten years. If things don't improve, it will take a century for women to reach equal pay, according to Goldman Sachs.The firm said at least part of the unexplained gap could be due to the lack of women in highly-paid senior roles, despite being on average more educated than men.It could take a century for women to be paid as much as men, if things stay as they are now.The wage gap between men and women is 20%, meaning women get paid 80 cents for every $1 men earn. In the last ten years, the pay gap only narrowed about 2%, and if performance stays consist with the past decade's, it would take 100 years to reach equal pay, according to Goldman Sachs."The latest data show there's more work to do," said Amanda Hindlian, global COO of global investment research at Goldman Sachs in a note titled "Clos…