While President Obama continues to maintain that only he decides what constitutes a war and requires consultation (let alone a declaration) from Congress, there remains a modicum of democratic process in England. The Obama Administration was surprised to learn that British Prime Minister David Cameron could not simply plunge his nation into another military conflict and that Parliament did not want to blindly follow the United States into attacking Syria. They would like to wait for all of the facts to be established by the United Nations before deciding how to act. It is of course a ridiculous notion that was long ago discarded in this country. If that was the approach in the United States, we would never have been able to invade Iraq on false pretenses and spend hundreds of billions in a war that has cost us tens of thousands of dead and wounded service members. Indeed, such knowledge is steadfastly avoided by our own politicians. By simply giving Bush a blank approval, politicians like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry could later deny that they really approved of the Iraq war and insist that they were misled by Bush.
What the English fail to understand is that our President stated publicly that he had a “red line” in Syria. Some say it was an off-the-cuff comment but he still said it. Now, either we go to war or Obama looks bad. For some reason, the Parliament does not see that choice as clearly as the White House. Of course, we have to go to war and spend a billion or so dollars to show that Obama means what he says. The White House has even promised to make the attack “limited and brief” — further conveying that this is just a face saving measure. For my part, I would rather keep the billion dollars for environmental and scientific programs being cut and have us all affirm that Obama is a leader not to be trifled with.
In the meantime, while insisting that we are only defending international law, the Obama administration has insisted that it would not allow Syria to “hide behind a U.N. investigation into the use of chemical weapons to prevent any response from the United States.” In other words, we need to support the United Nations and international law by ignoring the United Nations and international law. I fail to see what those English parliamentarians find so confusing.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-paul-warns-obama-of-starting-major-war-with-russia.html
Rand Paul: Obama Should Read Constitution to Avoid Allying with Al-Qaeda
Paul says that only Congress can declare war on Syria.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-paul-obama-should-read-constitution-to-avoid-allying-with-al-qaeda.html
So let me see if I have this straight. Our pretense for war according to the White House is the use of chemical weapons, which were outlawed for use during warfare by the Geneva Conventions following World War 1. John Yoo, the California law professor who wrote the legal memos rationalizing the use of torture on prisoners simply by calling them “enemy combatants” as opposed to soldiers and “detainees” as opposed to prisoners (can law really so easily be drilled down to almost juvenile semantic games?) is defending the Obama administration today making these claims. He was able to call them “detainees” and “enemy combatants” in the Iraq war simply because they were guerrilla fighters and not a uniformed army. But so are the Syrian rebels.
So question. Isn’t Yoo (and the White House) argument that because they are violating the Geneva conventions (by using Chemical Weapons which were outlawed by the Geneva conventions) defeated by Yoo’s (and the Bush administrations) earlier argument that since they’re not a uniformed army they do not qualify as soldiers and therefore are not protected by the Geneva conventions?
LJM The war powers act is irrelevant to the fact that President Madison who is credited for being the guiding spirit of writing the Constitution used military force in the Second Barbary War without any declaration by Congress. So I guess that you and others have such hubris as to think you are better informed about the Constitution than the guy who wrote it. Madison had no problem with using the US Navy against the pirates without a declaration of war. Then we have the campaign of Jackson in FL against the Spanish and Seminoles in his undeclared war there. So declaring war to carry out military actions is not required under the Constitution.
The War Powers Act can and has been used to justify many other military actions and he has full power to act on his own without Congress’ authorization. It is obvious that those who oppose any military action are more concerned with pacifism and hatred for the US military than any concern for legitimate legal questions.
I also recall that Pres. Clinton went to Rwanda and apologized for his inaction during the genocide that was being committed there. I hope that if Assad finally falls, Obama will not have to go to Syria and apologize to them for not acting to punish the regime for using chemical weapons. Then we have the problem of what nations should or could do if any regime does use banned weapons against its own citizens. I think that it is incumbent on advanced countries to act to stop such illegal activities. It would be a greater crime to allow such attacks to go without a military response.
It amazes that people have forgotten how we got embroiled in the Iraq war. If we are not going to launch air strikes to remove Assad, what do we gain from the strikes? I am all in favor of waiting to hear what the UN says. I am amused that many of the Congress critters who are constantly drumming the war drums are now trying to claim foul that any President would consider striking Syria. The best way Congress to control the ever expanding Executive powers is to terminate AUMF and the Patriot Act, just for a start.
Before Bush/Cheney US foreign policy was only moderately crazy as we squandered our troops lives in Viet Nam. After 9/11 Bush/Cheney moved the line from crazy to certifiably insane. Obama ran on changing that but he obviously got captured by the CMIC and allowed himself to believe their lies. Nothing has changed though he promised it would, it hss gotten worse. Domestically he gets some slack for dealing with a Congress that has failed in its duty. However, when it comes to Foreign Policy, Intelligence and the Military ALL the blame rests on his shoulders.
I’m all for free speech, but Yoo should really STFU.
“Declare” is not a word that has changed due to semantic drift since the Constitution was drafted. But what do you expect considering the mental contortionist act he did to justify torture? He’s not exactly an A game legal scholar despite having a degree. Schmuck.
I would rather live free in an unsafe country than as a slave in a “safe” one.
And I really don’t give a tinker’s damn about President Obama’s “face.” He opened his own mouth, stuck both feet in it, and now wants to blow up some Syrians and have our country take the blame for what Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Zionist Entity won’t do themselves.
And it would really help things if the U.S. government would stop all the transparent and damnable LYING.
http://www.zerohedge.com/node/478219
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-08-29/shoot-first-and-ask-questions-laterand-no-matter-what-happens
I haven’t had time to read all fourteen pages of this argument, but James Madison pretty well eviscerates any claim by the Executive branch to authority over deciding when a war should commence, how long it should continue, and under what circumstances it should end. The Executive can only operate pursuant to existing laws and the Legislative branch properly makes those laws. According any President the authority to make a treaty or declare a war — actions which have the force of “law” — simply makes an irrelevancy of the Legislature and a monarchy out of the former Republic.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s15.html
While Obama would not allow Syria to “hide behind a U.N. investigation into the use of chemical weapons[…] I think he just might be willing to hide his forthcoming efforts at a full frontal assault on Social Security and Medicare behind any excuse that comes along, and military action against Syria which would in effect simply punish a bunch of innocent bystanders for crimes we have no idea who committed would fit the bill perfectly.
Here’s what an investigation can get for you-actual facts! OMG! We can’t allow that!!! “(Reuters) – The Paris prosecutor’s office said on Wednesday it had launched a preliminary investigation into the U.S. National Security Agency’s Prism surveillance program after French rights groups complained it was snooping on citizens’ emails and phone calls.
The probe, which was opened in mid-July, followed a legal complaint earlier that month by two human rights groups denouncing U.S. spying methods revealed by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
The groups filed their complaint against “persons unknown” but named Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Paltalk, Facebook, AOL and Apple as “potential accomplices” of the NSA and FBI.
The original complaint was filed by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the French Human Rights League (LDH).”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-usa-security-france-idUSBRE97R0WE20130828
OT
DOJ surrenders on legal weed (I’m Gettin High … Doing all Right).
The Black Knight Non Surrender Monkey:
English Parliament?
Bunch of surrender-monkeys!
How’s everyone’s memory working in the continued face of these mass data dumps by the Govt/Wallst/MIC?
“The beatings will continue until morale improves”
Remember last spring when Obama had Nuke launch commanders disciplined… something, something,…. they needed to get their minds right. 🙂
Seems to me now he was attempting to force them to agree to launch all birds if the Emperor decides to go forward with this current effort for preemptive WW3 Worldwide Nuke War.
Remember the recent memos going though all military/police attempting to find out which in the groups would Murrrder American Citizens if order by the Emperor?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+remove+nuclear+missle+launch+commanders#q=Obama+removes+nuclear+missile+launch+commanders
Word has it that the missiles are being fired on Syria tonight. The word in Den Haag is that Obama thinks he can bomb Syria and then bring all sides together and have peace. I think he ought to pull out now like his father should have.
If poison gas is an international war crime like Obama says then why do Missouri, Maryland and Wyoming have laws authorizing the use of poison gas to kill inmates? Maybe the Syrians can just take the position that they were “executing” criminals and that they ran out of lethal injection so they resorted to poison gas like Missouri, Maryland and Wyoming can do. Allah said that they can kill all infidels and that includes women and children. I guess when Obama bombs Syria and women and children are killed he can call that collateral damage with the grace of God.
What a BS world we live in.
I propose a three state solution to the Syrian crisis. The three states that still have laws authorizing the state to kill people should repeal those laws and destroy their gas. That would be Mizzoura, Maryland and Wyoming. The Syrians can then in good conscience say that they will do the same and when they do so we can stop the war.
In the meantime we must Occupy DC to stop the War.
The poison gas issue. The President says that they crossed the Red Line by using poison gas. Missouri, Maryland and Wyoming have poison gas laws which allows them to kill people on purpose with poison gas. Bomb them first. Where, I don’t know. How to avoid killing civilians, I don’t know. Neither does Obama as he prepares to bomb the Syrians for using the same gas we use in those three states.
As President Eisenhower used to say when anyone tried to give him the bum’s rush: “Don’t just do something. Stand there.”