Syria missile strikes: based on what evidence?
Based on what constitutional authority?
By Jon Rappoport
"Let's see, US Deep State actors from intelligence agencies,
the Pentagon, and the Department of State, along with US allies, played a
MAJOR role in creating, funding, supplying, and sustaining ISIS, while
purportedly doing everything possible to destroy ISIS. No problem. Why
should there be a problem?" (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Trump and the Pentagon claim the strikes were based on clear
evidence President Assad's forces used chemical weapons on their own
civilian citizens.
The Russians point out that international inspectors were due
to investigate the chemical-weapons claims on Saturday---and their
findings would have denied Assad chemical attacks took
place---therefore, to prevent this embarrassment, the US-led missile
attacks were launched one day earlier.
Posted at Washingtonsblog.com: MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Evidence Required for Military Decision on Syria
Mr. President,
"We the undersigned Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity join a number of other credible experts including former UK
Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford...former UN weapons inspectors and
former military officers who are strongly recommending that you obtain
and review actual evidence from the site of the alleged chemical attack
in Douma, Syria, before ordering any military action. We have long
brought to light significant evidence questioning the provenance of
chemical weapons indicating that rebel forces may have tried to produce
and use such toxic agents in Syria."
"The main question that arises is, 'What motive would the
Syrian government have to attack its own people when it is enjoying
popular support for routing anti-government rebels? Why would it risk
Western ire?'..."
Attacks and wars initiated by governments aren't prefaced by
detailed evidence made available to the people. Presenting the whole
story isn't necessary, as far as governments are concerned.
In the US, Congress goes along with the White House. The media go along with the White House.
The last time "evidence" was rolled out---"Saddam was
developing WMDs, bought uranium from Niger, bought aluminum tubes for
nuke weapons production"---the whole show devolved into a farce and fell
apart.
Now, it's just "trust us."
Many Trump supporters aren't buying the package. They
believed Trump when he said the US was going to abandon empire-building
and leave foreign nations alone and let them settle their own conflicts.
Now, a number of theories abound. Trump was duped by the
military-industrial complex. Trump was never serious about refraining
from launching military attacks. Trump is compromising now, but he has a
further secret strategy in mind, a brilliant strategy against the Deep
State. Trump is bowing to the Globalists, who want to continue
destabilizing the Middle East. Trump is actually carrying out an Israeli
(and/or Saudi) agenda. Attacking Syria is part of a US, British, and
French plan involving access to oil in the region. Trump is pretending
to step up his opposition to Russia (Assad's ally), to prove he isn't
soft on Russia, to deflate the ferocious assault on him vis-à-vis the
"Russia influenced the election" claim, to deflect Robert Mueller's
ongoing investigation. Trump wants to improve his poll numbers, which
always rise for any president in a time of war. Trump has no idea what
he's doing. And so forth and so on.
There is no will, no determination, no desire, within the US
government colossus, to be responsive to the wishes of the American
people, when it comes to making war. There is no felt need to explain
why war is necessary, in very specific terms that can be verified or
rejected. There is no need to wait until evidence is thoroughly
investigated.
This is nothing new. Trump is no exception.
Since 1998, how many Americans knew about, cared, responded,
or tried to investigate US Tomahawk Cruise missiles launched at Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Bosnia & Herzegovina?
And these attacks don't include the recent history of untold numbers of
drone strikes.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution
grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile,
derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional
declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces." (Wex Legal Dictionary)
Presidents, of course, have wormed and weaseled their way
around these strictures by calling war "police actions" or "single
attacks."
And now we have this missile attack on Syria, purportedly launched to knock out chemical-weapons facilities.
This is a classic Orwellian operation: The enemy is who we
are told the enemy is, and he will remain the enemy as long as our
leaders say he is.
Images sent our way are described by official voice-over and given meaning, which we are supposed to accept without question.
The "good forces" opposing the enemy in Syria are named the
"rebels," instead of ISIS terrorists our leaders helped create. This,
too, we are supposed to accept.
But wait. According to The Intercept, "So while
over 80 members of Congress wrote to Trump on Friday night stating that
'engaging our military in Syria ... without prior congressional
authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly
delineated in the Constitution,' their action has no impact."
Strange. Major media haven't blasted, with big headlines,
Congressional opposition to the Trump missile strike. News coverage has
been urging and supporting the strike.
It gets stranger. The Intercept: "Trump almost certainly does
have some purported legal justification provided to him by the Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel [OLC] - but no one else, including Congress, can read it."
What?
"The Office of Legal Counsel is often called the Supreme
Court of the executive branch, providing opinions on how the president
and government agencies should interpret the law."
"We know that Trump received a top secret OLC opinion
justifying the previous U.S. strike on Syria on April 6, 2017. Friday's
bombing undoubtedly relied on the same memo or one with similar
reasoning."
The US Justice Department is "its own judiciary." And its legal justifications for green lighting military attacks are secret.
Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine?
Irrelevant.
Former long-term US Congressman and presidential candidate,
Ron Paul, did much to stir up the American people with libertarian ideas
and proposals, and, in the process, large numbers of Americans
eventually went over to Trump's side, believing he was the reincarnation
of Paul's positions---but with a much better reach into the heartland
of the country.
Read what Paul wrote on October 2, 2017, and compare it with
Trump's present stance. Paul: "Now that the defeat of ISIS in Syria
appears imminent, with the Syrian army clearing out some of the last
ISIS strongholds in the east, Washington's interventionists are
searching for new excuses to maintain the illegal US military presence
in the country. Their original rationale for intervention has long been
exposed as another lie."
"Remember that President Barack Obama initially
involved the US military in Iraq and Syria to 'prevent genocide' of the
Yazidis and promised the operation would not drift into US 'boots on the
ground.' That was three years ago and the US military became steadily
more involved while Congress continued to dodge its Constitutional
obligations. The US even built military bases in Syria despite having no
permission to do so! Imagine if Syria started building military bases
here in the US against our wishes."
"After six years of war the Syrian government has nearly
defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda and the US-backed 'moderates' ['rebels']
turned out to be either Islamist extremists or Kurdish soldiers for
hire. According to a recent report, the US has shipped two billion
dollars worth of weapons to fighters in Syria via eastern Europe. Much
of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS directly, or indirectly
through 'moderates' taking their weapons with them while joining ISIS or
al-Qaeda."
"'Assad must go'," proclaimed President Obama back in 2011,
as he claimed that the Syrian leader was committing genocide against his
own people and that regime change was the only way to save Syrians.
Then earlier this year, when eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated by
the Syrian government, the neocons warned that Assad would move in and
kill all the inhabitants. They warned that the population of eastern
Aleppo would flee from the Syrian army. But something very different
happened. According to the UN's International Organization for
Migration, 600,000 refugees returned to Syria by August. Half of the
returnees went back to Aleppo, where we were told Assad was waiting to
kill them."
"What happened? The neocons and 'humanitarian interventionists' lied. Just as they lied about Libya, Iraq, and so on."
If Trump is sounding like Ron Paul on the issue of Syria, an elephant is a space ship.
No comments:
Post a Comment