On September 09 2013 17:53 zatic wrote: Can someone explain what it would mean to Obama if the Senate agrees to military action, but the House doesn't (which seems likely at this point). I understand the Senate has more weight on international issues, could Obama get away with arguing Senate approval is enough to back up a strike on Assad?
It means he absolved himself of the blame of an unpopular course of action. Congress said no = "the people have spoken" and he'll probably back off. The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote - he just chose to do so, obviously to save face regardless of the outcome.
I know all that. I am just wondering if there is an out for him to go through with it with approval just from the Senate. I am not really asking for a strictly legal definition but much more if he could get away with it in the public eye.
On September 09 2013 17:53 zatic wrote: Can someone explain what it would mean to Obama if the Senate agrees to military action, but the House doesn't (which seems likely at this point). I understand the Senate has more weight on international issues, could Obama get away with arguing Senate approval is enough to back up a strike on Assad?
It means he absolved himself of the blame of an unpopular course of action. Congress said no = "the people have spoken" and he'll probably back off. The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote - he just chose to do so, obviously to save face regardless of the outcome.
I know all that. I am just wondering if there is an out for him to go through with it with approval just from the Senate. I am not really asking for a strictly legal definition but much more if he could get away with it in the public eye.
The President can strike to defend or respond to imminent threats with lil worry of political threats or retribution. The problem in this case is selling 'imminent threat'. The congress would eventually be called in to authorize, justify, or rebuke the hypothetical cause the President takes up. If there was a ICBM heading towards the U.S mainland, there's simply no time to wait on McCain to finish his hand before voting. Extended military action requires congressional authorization.
Anyone know this guy? Just hearsay o/c. Glad he's released and safe.
BRUSSELS, SEPTEMBER 9 - Pierre Piccinin, the Belgian national abducted in Syria last April with Italian journalist Domenico Quirico and released Sunday, said on Monday that the Syrian regime was not behind an alleged chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21. 'It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use Sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus', Piccinin told radio RTL-TV, saying he had overheard rebels talk about it together with Quirico, a veteran war correspondent working for Turin-daily La Stampa.
John Kerry has come out, Bush style, demanding Syria "hand over its chemical weapons," or face attack. The manner of these imperatives recalls the voice of the Roman Consul before the pleading embassies of Carthage.
Then Censorinus rose and replied as follows: "Why is it necessary that I should tell you the causes of the war, Carthaginians, when your ambassadors have been at Rome and have learned them from the Senate? What you have stated falsely, that I will refute. The decree itself declared, and we gave you notice in Sicily when we received the hostages, that the rest of the conditions would be made known to you at Utica. For your promptness in sending the hostages and your care in selecting them, you are entitled to praise. If you are sincerely desirous of peace why do you need any arms? Bring all your weapons and engines of war, both public and private, and deliver them to us."
The Carthaginians did so, and being so disarmed, the Romans made ever increasing demands after the fulfillment of the last, until that Carthage decided that death was preferable to slavery, rallied to resist Rome, and were annihilated.
On September 10 2013 00:13 MoltkeWarding wrote: John Kerry has come out, Bush style, demanding Syria "hand over its chemical weapons," or face attack. The manner of these imperatives recalls the voice of the Roman Consul before the pleading embassies of Carthage.
Then Censorinus rose and replied as follows: "Why is it necessary that I should tell you the causes of the war, Carthaginians, when your ambassadors have been at Rome and have learned them from the Senate? What you have stated falsely, that I will refute. The decree itself declared, and we gave you notice in Sicily when we received the hostages, that the rest of the conditions would be made known to you at Utica. For your promptness in sending the hostages and your care in selecting them, you are entitled to praise. If you are sincerely desirous of peace why do you need any arms? Bring all your weapons and engines of war, both public and private, and deliver them to us."
The Carthaginians did so, and being so disarmed, the Romans made ever increasing demands after the fulfillment of the last, until that Carthage decided that death was preferable to slavery, rallied to resist Rome, and were annihilated.
The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote.
The legal reasoning behind which is what?
If he does so, he will have taken the Presidential war-making powers a step beyond even the measures which Mr. Bush was prepared to annex.
The right to authorize military action short of war is given to the president in the US Constitution (the WPRA exists, but it is arguably unconstitutional and neither pres nor Congress want to find out). The president is considered the head of the US military.
On September 09 2013 17:53 zatic wrote: Can someone explain what it would mean to Obama if the Senate agrees to military action, but the House doesn't (which seems likely at this point). I understand the Senate has more weight on international issues, could Obama get away with arguing Senate approval is enough to back up a strike on Assad?
It means he absolved himself of the blame of an unpopular course of action. Congress said no = "the people have spoken" and he'll probably back off. The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote - he just chose to do so, obviously to save face regardless of the outcome.
I know all that. I am just wondering if there is an out for him to go through with it with approval just from the Senate. I am not really asking for a strictly legal definition but much more if he could get away with it in the public eye.
It sounds about as convincing to the American people as it sounds to any outside observers. You can judge this yourself.
The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote.
The legal reasoning behind which is what?
If he does so, he will have taken the Presidential war-making powers a step beyond even the measures which Mr. Bush was prepared to annex.
In case of military operation which duration will be less than 60 days ONLY, the president of the USA is allowed to strike without any approval of the congress.
Even if Asad army won't defeat the US Army, they could probably resist more than 60 days. Therefore Obama needs to have the congress approval.
The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote.
The legal reasoning behind which is what?
If he does so, he will have taken the Presidential war-making powers a step beyond even the measures which Mr. Bush was prepared to annex.
In case of military operation which duration will be less than 60 days ONLY, the president of the USA is allowed to strike without any approval of the congress.
Even if Asad army won't defeat the US Army, they could probably resist more than 60 days. Therefore Obama needs to have the congress approval.
The situation was the same for the Iraq war.
It was not. In the WPR bill, the President is permitted to initiate hostilities under one of three circumstances: in case Congress has declared war upon a foreign state, in case congress authorised action by specific statute, or in case of national emergency produced by foreign attack upon the United States, in which case Presidential action is permissible for sixty days while duly informing and consulting congress.
In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration asked for and obtained from congress authority to use force against Iraq in any number of cited circumstances. When the enumerated circumstances came into existence, the Bush administration was authorised by the same bill to use its discretion on the subject of military action. This was stretching the conditions laid out by the WPR, which was itself stretching the Constitutional authority of the Presidency, however, in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration could at least make a circumstantial argument that it had acted legally.
In the case of a strike on Syria, none of the three circumstances listed by the WPR apply: the United States will not declare war on a foreign enemy, Congress has not given extraordinary authorisation to a specific military action, nor has the United States been attacked, nor is she under the imminent danger of being attacked by a foreign state.
In sum, the basic logic of the legal argument is simply what Kerry said: this is not a war, but a limited policing measure. Such a definition is of course, completely contrary to international law as well as common sense.
Wasn't the Libya intervention done without congressional approval? What I don't really understand is: if he really wanted to intervene in Syria what kept Obama from using the same argument that was used for the intervention in Libya? The simple answer would be that he's unsure about intervention, so a negative from the US congress would be a way to legitimize him not going through with it, but maybe I'm missing something.
Looks like Putin is puting the nail in the coffin to USA's warmongering . If Syria gave up it's chemical weapons , what would Obama's excuse to attack be ?
Looks like Putin is puting the nail in the coffin to USA's warmongering . If Syria gave up it's chemical weapons , what would Obama's excuse to attack be ?
Wouldnt it be funny if Syria did hand over all its chem weapons and they found out it was all accounted for? Wonder what the American responce to this will be. Its in there interest to agree if Syria does aswell because of the lack of congress/allies support.
On September 09 2013 22:14 sekritzzz wrote: For people who are buying into the obama-Cameron bullshit of enforcing a 100-year treaty to avoid chemical weapons being used freely.
Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 - 2009
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 - 1945
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
If you have no time read just the first paragraph I would like to remind you that all the military horrors committed by and in other country doesn't justify to let more of them happen. Because USA committed chemical attacks doesn't means that others are allowed to do so... Even when USA remains unpunished.
If you have nothing else to do, please read what follow I would like to discuss some point of this "Chemical Weapon Attack" list a bit. This article sounds clearly prejudiced to me and some points are even wrong.
In one hand, like sekritzzz said, point 6 seems definitly weaker than other, that's only tear gas... (sekritzzz is probably right when saying that it's just use in order to have 10 points in the list.
On the other hand point 7 is completly one-sided. (here is a more unbiased story : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege). The "peaceful" community of Seventh Day Adventists had about 150 arms and knew how to use it. If the use of tear gas can't be disputed, the pretended fact of this point can be. other reason could have created the ignition (please see wikipedia).
About point 9, when white phosphorus (point 2 and 3) is chemical weapon, napalm isn't. Both are used as inciendary weapon, both were used against civilian and this is unforgivable. But only white phosphorus is directly toxic.
About point 10, Nuclear weapon shouldn't be considered as chemical weapon. First there are not. Second there effect is completly different.
About point 8: First of all, Christopher Busdy (who is quote) has no known expertise. the "Eropean Committe on Radiation Risk" is informal and higly political. Second, depleted uranium is not toxic (in contrary to plutonium for example). Moreover, the radiation it creates are low and can be stopped by a sheet of paper (alpha radiation).
Looks like Putin is puting the nail in the coffin to USA's warmongering . If Syria gave up it's chemical weapons , what would Obama's excuse to attack be ?
The purpose of sending arbitrary ultimata in such instances where a great power molests a minuscule opponent is not in the spirit of compromise, but is merely a measure in an ongoing process of tactical escalations.
At the risk of outrunning my own historical metaphor, here is what the Romans did when the Carthaginians handed over their arms and defenses:
Consul Lucius Marcius Censorinus said to the Carthaginian envoys:"Your ready obedience up to this point, Carthaginians, in the matter of the hostages and the arms, is worthy of all praise. In cases of necessity we must not multiply words. Bear bravely the remaining commands of the Senate. Yield Carthage to us, and betake yourselves where you like within your own territory at a distance of at least fifteen kilometers from the sea, for we are resolved to raze your city to the ground."
While he was yet speaking, the Carthaginians lifted their hands toward heaven with loud cries, and called on the gods as avengers of violated faith. They heaped reproaches on the Romans, as if willing to die, or insane, or determined to provoke the Romans to sacrilegious violence to ambassadors. They flung themselves on the ground and beat it with their hands and heads. Some of them even tore their clothes and lacerated their flesh as though they were absolutely bereft of their senses. After the first frenzy was past there was great silence and prostration as of men lying dead.
In Syria, I think the parallel is apt. In the first place, the United States would gain greatly if she could obtain in Syria the same results by mere threats what she would otherwise enforce at her own expense. Should threatening fail, the United States would benefit from a boon in the legitimacy of such a strike, as in the tradition of the Second Hague Conference, all military action must be preceded by either a declaration of war, or the issuance of an ultimatum, the rejection of which was an automatic catalyst to war. In the third place, the partial acceptance of some ultimata would enfeeble the remaining powers of resistance once the accumulated pressure produced a situation where the intended target had no choice but to resist.
Therefore I think Assad giving up his chemical weapons would be a tremendous strategic error. It would by no means disarm the tenacity of his enemies. It would produce no echo of sympathy among the Western public, who are apt to forget such gestures of compliance momentarily. It would throw away much of his feeble means of deterrence. It would negatively influence the domestic anti-war arguments in the West, to the extent that Assad's very possession of chemical weapons is a reason not to back him into a suicidal corner. Kerry was quite right when he said that he had no expectations of compliance from the Syrian government, because he himself had no intentions of making a serious offer.
Second, depleted uranium is not toxic (in contrary to plutonium for example). Moreover, the radiation it creates are low and can be stopped by a sheet of paper (alpha radiation).
Thats right and wrong. Depleted uranium is actually toxic, as most heavy metals are. They're poisonous. You're right when you say the radiation isn't too strong (it's still enough though, it CAN have consequences, especially to pregnant women) - but i'm not sure that these would not have an impact on ecosystems.
edit: there's a reason why soldiers use ABC-masks in territories in which DU-ammunition was used.
On September 09 2013 22:14 sekritzzz wrote: For people who are buying into the obama-Cameron bullshit of enforcing a 100-year treaty to avoid chemical weapons being used freely.
Points 6/7 seem like the author just wants to complete a list of 10, not sure why he would include them but the rest are solid.
Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 - 2009
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 - 1945
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
About point 8: First of all, Christopher Busdy (who is quote) has no known expertise. the "Eropean Committe on Radiation Risk" is informal and higly political. Second, depleted uranium is not toxic (in contrary to plutonium for example). Moreover, the radiation it creates are low and can be stopped by a sheet of paper (alpha radiation).
Do you have any source for that? Because everything i find online tells me that Uranium is toxic, both in metal form and in various compound forms.
Hard decision from Syria to give away their chemical weapons considering they have ever expanding imperialistic Israel next to them which illegally occupies their territory and have no problem with using chemical weapons even against not well equipped Palestinians. But I guess you have to make desperate decisions if bloodthirsty america decides your country is the next one on an endless list of countries to bomb.
On September 09 2013 22:14 sekritzzz wrote: For people who are buying into the obama-Cameron bullshit of enforcing a 100-year treaty to avoid chemical weapons being used freely.
Points 6/7 seem like the author just wants to complete a list of 10, not sure why he would include them but the rest are solid.
Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 - 2009
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 - 1945
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
About point 8: First of all, Christopher Busdy (who is quote) has no known expertise. the "Eropean Committe on Radiation Risk" is informal and higly political. Second, depleted uranium is not toxic (in contrary to plutonium for example). Moreover, the radiation it creates are low and can be stopped by a sheet of paper (alpha radiation).
Do you have any source for that? Because everything i find online tells me that Uranium is toxic, both in metal form and in various compound forms.
Not to mention the direct effects it has had on the children of falluja and Basra where 1 in 4 children is born with a defect due to depleted uranium which is proof in itself.. It might not be like sarin gas but as the guy above said, it has effects which show on pregnant women in particular.
The president is allowed to do this strike without Congressional approval. He didn't have to put this up to a vote.
The legal reasoning behind which is what?
If he does so, he will have taken the Presidential war-making powers a step beyond even the measures which Mr. Bush was prepared to annex.
In case of military operation which duration will be less than 60 days ONLY, the president of the USA is allowed to strike without any approval of the congress.
Even if Asad army won't defeat the US Army, they could probably resist more than 60 days. Therefore Obama needs to have the congress approval.
The situation was the same for the Iraq war.
It was not. In the WPR bill, the President is permitted to initiate hostilities under one of three circumstances: in case Congress has declared war upon a foreign state, in case congress authorised action by specific statute, or in case of national emergency produced by foreign attack upon the United States, in which case Presidential action is permissible for sixty days while duly informing and consulting congress.
In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration asked for and obtained from congress authority to use force against Iraq in any number of cited circumstances. When the enumerated circumstances came into existence, the Bush administration was authorised by the same bill to use its discretion on the subject of military action. This was stretching the conditions laid out by the WPR, which was itself stretching the Constitutional authority of the Presidency, however, in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration could at least make a circumstantial argument that it had acted legally.
In the case of a strike on Syria, none of the three circumstances listed by the WPR apply: the United States will not declare war on a foreign enemy, Congress has not given extraordinary authorisation to a specific military action, nor has the United States been attacked, nor is she under the imminent danger of being attacked by a foreign state.
In sum, the basic logic of the legal argument is simply what Kerry said: this is not a war, but a limited policing measure. Such a definition is of course, completely contrary to international law as well as common sense.
The US went to it allies, the US went to the UN and the US is seeking congressional approval.
But....
Our ally, dropped that bomb in Syria and they did none of that. Essentially, Israel and Syria are at war and the "international community" just looking for a legit reason to join in. Note: International community always means the US and those who agree with the US.
Who condemn Israel for their attack on Syria? Where is the outrage? Why doesn't the UN come down on Israel for an unprovoked attack?
Hypocrisy thats why. The US is playing Judge/jury and presiding over a corrupt court. The UN is a tool that can only be used to promote US interests. When has the UN ever enforced something against US interests? It can't happen.
Israel is at war with Syria and Iran and the US is playing it out in the UN/courts to try an legitimize Israels unprovoked attacks. They've bombed Syria several times, they've attacked Iran countlessly with cyberattacks. Why are these example not examples of unprovoked attacks? Why? Because the US/Israel did them. If it were reversed, they'd be war crimes.
EPT
