US Military Strike Against Syria Would Amount to Treason

President Obama speaks to US troops
The most deadly and damaging attack against the mainland of the United States occurred on September 11, 2001. The entity responsible for that attack was al Qaeda; the same terrorist network that is now fighting to overthrow the ruling regime in Syria. Since there can be no doubt or dispute that al Qaeda is an enemy of the United States, there can also be no doubt that a US military strike against the government of Syria would constitute an act of treason on the part of anyone who authorizes it or carries it out.

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution specifically addresses the crime of treason against the United States, which is defined as “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Whilst the Syrian regime, led by President Bashar al-Assad, could hardly be described as a friend to the US, it is not directly engaged in waging war against America. The rebels who have been attempting, for the past two years, to overthrow it, however, are actively in league with al Qaeda and, as such, are enemies of the US. The notion that individuals and, perhaps, entire political organizations linked to the terror network will have no part in a post-Assad Syrian government is beyond preposterous. Following this logic, therefore, it is beyond question that any action taken by the United States to bring about a rebel victory in Syria could clearly be described as “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The President of the United States of America is currently signaling his willingness to commit treason against the United States: This is a legal fact. The United States government does not consist merely of an executive branch – despite President Obama’s apparent belief that it does; there also exists a legislative and judicial branch. This was a governmental mechanism designed to ensure the functioning of the much discussed “checks and balances.” Every member of Congress – Democrat or Republican – is a functionary of the federal government, as are each of the Supreme Court Justices. To contemplate a military strike against Syria, thereby facilitating the victory of an enemy of the US, is to contemplate treason. Every member of Congress who votes to authorize such action is guilty of treason, regardless of political affiliation. Should Congress approve such action, the only correct way to proceed would be hand the matter over to the Supreme Court. Were the Justices to decide that military action against the government of Syria amounts to giving aid and comfort to enemies of the US, then the President, along with every member of his cabinet; every member of his staff and every member of Congress who supported him should be removed from office and charged with conspiracy to commit treason. No member of the Supreme Court, of course, has either the integrity or the courage to make such a ruling and they would most certainly decline to hear the case.

Without absolution by the judicial branch, the United States faces the scenario of two branches of the government voting to commit a crime against the nation and the third branch abdicating its responsibility. What little credibility the federal government has left – after many years of politicians from both parties abusing and undermining that credibility – would finally be shredded in the worst manner; waging a war on behalf of the nation’s own sworn enemies.

It cannot be denied that past administrations have made foreign policy decisions that have proven detrimental to US interests. Further; the alleged connections between the families of the two former Presidents Bush and Osama bin Laden have yet to be thoroughly investigated. The undeniable ties between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Iranian government deserve scrutiny, as do the close, personal ties between President Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood. Should Obama authorize a US military strike against Syria’s government – and should Congress authorize it – then two branches of the federal government would have initiated an action that will directly benefit an enemy of the US; those two branches would have committed treason. In addition, any US military commander who carries out such orders would be equally guilty. Every US soldier, sailor, marine and airman who participates in such an action will be guilty; it is not enough to say that you committed treason because you were following orders. Indeed, many serving military personnel understand this and have recently taken – anonymously, of course – to the internet, expressing their objection to fighting on behalf of the very terrorists who attacked America in 2001 and have sworn to destroy the country.

The excuse for what seems to be an imminent attack is the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The United Nations has already determined that the rebels – the very people that President Obama wishes to aid – were almost certainly responsible for one chemical attack; the second is still being investigated, but no proof has been presented that the Syrian regime, and not the rebels, was responsible for this.

Ironically, George W. Bush was berated repeatedly for leading the United States into war, based on questionable intelligence. His critics are now beating the war-drums in a strange, parallel scenario. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified is an issue with many facets and remains open to question and debate. Directly intervening to ensure a military victory for an enemy of the US, however, is something that most certainly should be beyond any reasonable discussion.


An Editorial by Graham J Noble