Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Barack goes to Sweden while others battle for his virtue

Barack wants to attack Syria.  Ed Krayewski (Reason) brings everyone up to speed:

 Now, President Obama, who unilaterally declared chemical weapons use in Syria would constitute a “red line,” is seeking authorization from Congress to take military action in response to a chemical weapons attack the US says the Syrian regime is responsible for. But he says he doesn’t need that authorization. Obama’s “coalition of the willing” started coming apart when the Parliament of the United Kingdom took a non-binding vote against British intervention in Syria. The French, fresh off a military intervention in Mali to expel Islamist militants partially enabled by the post-intervention chaos in Libya, are still eager to strike against Syria, but they are increasingly alone. The UN chief has warned intervention in Syria could lead to more turmoil.
Even though he says he doesn’t need the authorization (following his own precedent in Libya in 2011 and Bill Clinton’s in Kosovo in 1999), President Obama is busy personally lobbying members of Congress for support on Syria. He’s got Boehner’s support, and says he’s confident Congress will vote in favor of military action, though some members of Congress on both sides are skeptical.



A former US House Representative expressed skepticism --  Ron Paul told Wolf Blitzer (CNN), "It's a civil war and there's no way you're going to figure it out. I smell Iraq all over again. I remember the assurances that were given us 10 years ago and members of Congress believed that. But let me tell you, the situation is a lot different. The American people are on my side on this issue today and there's a lot more people in Congress now who are saying, it makes no sense."  Sadly, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee set aside skepticism to sport their gullibility.  Susan Page (USA Today) explains, "Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution."  Terry Atlas, Michael C. Bender and Kathleen Hunter (Bloomberg News) add, "The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote today on a use-of-force resolution that sets a 90-day limit on U.S. military action against Syria and explicitly doesn’t authorize use of ground troops in combat."

As Betty notes, Secretary of State John Kerry, as Betty pointed out, babbled on repeatedly at the Senate Foreign Committee hearing yesterday about "reputation."  An attack must take place, Kerry repeatedly insisted, and it must take place because how will Barack look if it doesn't happen now after all he's said?

As Betty pointed out, "And for that, you want innocent Syrians to die in your pretend 'precision strike'."  Hillary Is 44 responds to the 'reputation' spin:

The only argument that carries some weight is the “what will the world say about us if we don’t attack Syria for the use of chemical weapons?” But the question should be “what will the world say about us if we do attack Syria?”
If the Congress votes to give Barack Obama authorization to attack Syria for use of chemical weapons the answer to the latter question is “What is wrong with Americans? Do they never learn? Do the Americans still not understand that the problem is Iran, not the sideshow client Syria? Does the American Congress still not realize that Barack Obama is a clueless, treacherous man-child not to be provided with matches? Why are Americans about to follow callow Obama into a trap he talked himself into in order to cover up the fact that Obama does not know what he is doing? Are Americans suffering from collective Attention-Deficit-Disorder?”


Exactly.  Barack screwed up, the argument goes, so Congress should risk their own reputation and that of the country in order for Barack to save face?  They should put at risk innocents in Syria to protect Barack's fragile ego?

Everything comes to a halt while Congress debates this issue.  And Barack?

He's out of the country, in Sweden.  The Press Association notes,  "With Mr Obama in Europe, his top national security aides are taking part in a series of public and private hearings in Washington to advance their case for limited strikes against president Bashar Assad's regime."  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes:



Officials are throwing every rhetorical trick in the book at Congress to see what sticks at this point, from Hitler to Iran, and making any empty promises about keeping the war limited to skeptics while talking up escalation to hawks.
There is palpable desperation in the administration’s attempts to sell the war at all costs, and while officials have regularly tried to trick the country into war throughout history, there have been few that have been so flagrant about it. Fortunately, the polls are still not on their side, and the American public appear unwilling to be fooled this time.
Antiwar.com urges all readers to contact their Congressmen and urge them to vote against attacking Syria. Click here for contract information.



 The following community sites -- plus Dissident Voice, The Diane Rehm Show, Pacifica Evening News, Susan's On the Edge, Antiwar.com





We'll close with this from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Secret Interrogation Tapes Should Be Public, Attorneys Argue

Tapes May Cast Light on Torture of Guantanamo Prisoner 
 press@ccrjustice.org
September 3, 2013, New York – Today, in a case filed on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), attorneys argued that video recordings of CCR client Mohammed al Qahtani at Guantanamo Bay should be released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.  The government possesses tapes of al Qahtani  made when he was in solitary confinement immediately prior to a period, detailed in a log published by Time Magazine in 2006, in which al Qahtani was systematically tortured.  He is the only Guantanamo prisoner whom the U.S. government has explicitly acknowledged torturing.  Al Qahtani’s attorneys at CCR have viewed the tapes, but are prohibited from discussing their contents, including confirming or denying whether they contain footage of abuse. 
 
“Without access to documentation of abuses such as the torture of Mr. al Qahtani, the public is deprived of its best mechanism for holding officials accountable and its most powerful impetus to change policies.  The government has already destroyed hundreds of hours of videotape depicting harsh interrogations of prisoners by the CIA, for the express purpose of avoiding public scrutiny.  Release of al Qahtani’s tapes will provide a unique opportunity for accountability—one that was lost when those other tapes were destroyed.” said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Shayana Kadidal, referring to an order by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., former head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, to destroy 92 video tapes of interrogations at CIA black sites.
 
Between November 2002 and January 2003, al Qahtani was subjected toforty-eight days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory overstimulation, and other harsh treatment. Al Qahtani was hospitalized twice after coming close to death during his interrogations.  Immediately preceding this period, al Qahtani was held in solitary confinement and was videotaped. Those tapes were labeled as classified by the government but copies were shown to Al Qahtani’s lawyers as part of his separate habeas corpus case challenging the legality of his detention at Guantanamo.
 
“The American people have a right to know what their Government is doing in their name, behind closed doors, to prisoners who have been locked up, isolated, tortured, and never charged with any crime.,” said attorney Larry Lustberg, who argued today.
 
The case is CCR v. DOD, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Center for Constitutional Rights is the plaintiff in the case, which is being litigated by Larry Lustberg and Benjamin Yaster of the law firm Gibbons PC, and Professor Sandra Babcock of Northwestern Law School.  Today’s hearing was an oral argument on CCR’s motion for summary judgment.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
 
 



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.











 






 antiwar.com












 

















 

















iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Posted by at