Friday, August 30, 2013
US Invasion of Syria
|Will Libya be the beginning of World War 3?|
Here’s my prediction for Syria.
I may be wrong, but I’d put money on this bet.
Mr Obama will likely launch an assault on Syria this weekend while much of America will be engaged in holiday activities or travel — or both. Mr Obama continues to talk on the phone with various Congressional Representatives and Senators in a ploy to legitimize his actions in the absence of their consent.
Once the attack is launched, complete with collateral damage, the reaction will likely extend far beyond immediate retaliation against Israel and Jordan and the rest of the Middle East; we can expect a response against the US [real or contrived] — with a highly predictable new Executive Order declaring still another National Emergency, and a further restriction of our Constitutional Rights while DHS hunts down “evil-doers“.
|Zoom in on the guy with the sucking chest wound!|
CNN, having been tipped off by the Oval Office, will be poised with hundreds of cameras to give us a a 360 degree blow-by-blow account of the action, likely with a personal interview with Mr Obama to give us a stirring speech while patting himself on the back.
We’ll have reporters on the ground to interview the valiant rebels, and perhaps a few captured Syrian troops. Add in clips of Syrians dying of bio-chems, some of which may real, while others are reportedly staged by the rebels, and the groundwork is laid. Of course, we’ll have corpses, some fresh, others rotting in the sun so our reporters can grieve over the horrors of war — but rationalizing it all with the prediction that Assad will be tracked down and brought to justice for “Crimes against humanity” and salvation fromWeapons of Mass Destruction.
Isn’t it odd that Saddam’s [Bush’s Adversary] use of biochemical agents against the Kurds and Iranians did NOT qualify as WMDs, yet Assad’s [Obama’s Adversary] use of the same agents [from Saddam’s inventory] DO qualify as WMDs.
Ah, but the Liberal Media is SOOOO fickle.
Mr Bush sponsored a Bad War because of these same WMDs, and Mr Obama is sponsoring a, a, a, um, a Political War because of these same WMDs — obtained from Saddam?
Mr Obama has invested quite a bit of time and effort in rationalizing his planned invasion of Syria.
He [or Valerie Jarrett] ordered US military elements into the region to prepare for the invasion. And, there are lots of these elements close by. EUCOM [the European Command] AFRICOM [the African Command], the Fifth and Sixth US Navy Fleets, and variety of special operations elements [none of which seemed to be available during the attack on Benghazi.
The scandal-ridden USS San Antonio [built for $1.7 Billion – only $840 million over budget by Northrup Grumman] transited the Suez Canal and is now poised in the Mediterranean as a “contingency“, carrying up to 800 Marines, landing craft, and helicopters.
[After christening, the ship was reportedly unable to move under her own power and had to be towed to the Pascagoula shipyard — and was not fit for sea duty for two more years. Subsequently, it has had a series of expensive repairs to keep it seaworthy. Operationally, its commanders and crews have demonstrated excellence, in spite of the ship’s construction problems.]
|Welcome to Jordan, son. Got your gas mask?|
He’s positioned US troops in Jordan as well as lots of Marines [more than 20,000] aboard ships in the 5th and 6th Fleets, poised and ready for the Commander-in-Chief’s order to attack.
These would be the same fleets turned invisible by Valerie Jarrett’s edict during Benghazi.
We’ll then see an amphibious assault by Marines, some of whom will be filmed wading [needlessly] ashore, grim-faced, and perhaps wearing gas masks.
Oh, the drama!
Some of you [with the exception of Congress] will inevitably ask:
If we have all these 5th and 6th Fleet forces in the Mediterranean for this assault,
where were they when Benghazi was under attack, and why weren’t some of these
20,000 Marines rescuing the Americans at the Benghazi Consulate.”
Ah, but that’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it.
As Hillary aptly commented What difference does it make!
There will likely be a missile bombardment to the delight of the Media with “bombs bursting in air” and perhaps stirring background music by Mahalia Jackson, bellowing out something other than the Star Spangled Banner.
Jet fighters will zoom around Syria’s airspace, making for more excellent footage for the Media,
We”ll have visuals of aircraft carriers, helicopters and assault craft by the hundreds, and a few AC-130s circling to show off their deadliest gunnery capabilities — all to the amazement and the delight of the viewing audience as they gather around their grills drinking beer — or a fine 6th .
It will be the best Labor Day fireworks show in history.
CNN will run these fireworks displays over and over and over, because the viewing public likes color and excitement, with the hushed voice of a reporter sadly commenting on the immense death and destruction being waged in “… this horrific onslaught!”
By the time Tuesday rolls around, and folks are back at work or following events on TV, all that will be left will be talking heads deciding how long the US will remain engaged in Syria — will it be weeks, months, years?
|GEN of the Universe – MacBama|
All that would be missing would be a video of Mr Obama, a la MacArthurimage, wading ashore with corncob pipe gritted between his clenched teeth.
Will Mr Obama finally look “Presidential”?
Will he be like Mr Jimmy who prepped his Iranian Rescue Mission and had a room full of medals and citations for valor already prepared, lacking only names to be inserted — followed by disasters on the ground and his own humiliation?
Look for the terms: Peacekeeping and Stability Operations,
and lots of grim-faced CNN reporters. This event may even win an Emmy or two.
BREAKING… Fukushima Crisis Escalates Tons of Radioactive Waste Released into the Pacific Causes Ocean to Boil…
By Nigel J. Covington III
<National Report> Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe just minutes ago announced that an emergency at the unstable Fukushima Nuclear Plant less than an hour ago is responsible for dumping “thousands of tons of highly radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean.” The Prime Minister said the government has sent in its own nuclear experts who are teamed with TEPCO management who are now attempting to regain control of the facility.
Japan has been anything but forthright with the people of the world about the Fukushima Nuclear Plant disaster that occurred on March 11, 2011.
More than two years after the event just ten days ago its was announced that a “recent incident” had resulted in 300 tonnes (300 long tons; 330 short tons) of “heavily contaminated water” being leaked from a storage tank into the ocean.
On August 26, the government decided to take over running the emergency measures to tackle the radioactive water leaks, reflecting a lack of confidence in TEPCO. Now four days after the government took control the plant “thousands of tons” of highly radioactive material was dumped into the Pacific. This incident could be as much as five times greater than the one of August 20, 2013. The government has not commented on the cause of the incident nor the effect this will have globally.
Thirty-five minutes ago the government released a public statement calling for the immediate evacuation of residents within a 50 miles radius of the facility claiming the leaked material has caused the ocean to boil for several hundred yards offshore from the crippled plant.
Almost two hours after today’s incident what’s being called the “Fukushima Plume of Death” is rapidly bearing down on Hawaii. It’s estimated once Hawaii is hit California will be hit about 90 minutes after. The effects the nuclear plume are either unknown or being kept from the public. Neither the Japanese or American government has commented on what threat the plume may pose. Right now its anyone’s guess.
As this breaking story develops look for regular updates from the National Report.
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops — either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president’s authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court’s several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.
Some further points:
The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.
11. Who are your campaign’s advisers for legal issues?
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)
Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.