Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 6 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend (10 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   No comments

General News

A Syrian Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   News 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 9/4/13

Become a Fan
  (28 fans)
- Advertisement -

" Republican Devin Nunes of California: "The apparent chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime is an appalling, unconscionable act by a bloodthirsty tyrant. The 'limited' military response supported by President Obama, however, shows no clear goal, strategy, or any coherence whatsoever, and is supported neither by myself nor the American people." 

The blank check comes with no due date, late fees, or penalties

The White House draft "authorization for use of United States armed forces" is problematical from the first "whereas," which asserts as a fact a charge that remains in dispute:

"Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians"." 

If this premise is wrong, as seems quite possible, than the following seven "whereas paragraphs are mostly accurate but irrelevant, with some demagoguery thrown in to persuade or intimidate Congress. 

But even if the premise turns out to be correct, the "authorization should be unacceptable for the unlimited scope of action allowed to the president, who still uses the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) against terrorism to justify his authority to wage war by whatever means he chooses in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, and elsewhere.  That law remains open-ended and unmodified by Congress, allowing the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against pretty much anyone he "determines" deserves to be attacked. 

The new authorization gives the president the freedom "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria," which seems as if it's at least limited to the geography of Syria, and only as long as there's a conflict there.  Of course it implicitly leaves it up to the president to determine what a "conflict" is and even, arguably, what "Syria" is. 

Such limitation is a chimera.  Unfettering the president from even that illusory constraint, the authorization goes on to allow him respond to any "proliferation" inside -- or outside -- of Syria "of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons"." 

- Advertisement -

And just in case that's not broad enough to let the president do most anything he chooses, the authorization goes on to allow him to do anything necessary to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

 

When protecting against a "threat," nothing is ruled out, no matter how crazy paranoid the threat may be.  In post-9/11 United States, threat perceptions don't have much restraint on the paranoid crazy. 

In a fundamentally cowardly Congress, members are unlikely to oppose this kind of threat to the national interest, especially now that they getting their egos stroked by the White House.   

 

- Advertisement -

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Vermonter living in Woodstock: elected to five terms (served 20 years) as side judge (sitting in Superior, Family, and Small Claims Courts); public radio producer, "The Panther Program" -- nationally distributed, three albums (at CD Baby), some (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Perceptions Fight Reality

Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Fukushima Meltdowns: Global Denial At Work

Vermont Asks: "What the Fukushima"?

Military-Industrial Complex Owns Vermont

Accountability in Vermont?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments