September 4, 2013

Just got home, what's the first tweet see? What you said

Even CNN won't deny it

September 3, 2013

How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria

Excerpt does not convey the importance of this article. Please read the whole thing.

September 2, 2013

'Success Story': NSA Targeted French Foreign Ministry

Colonial wars however, no problem.

September 2, 2013

More military members come out to oppose the strike on Syria

I couldn't find the original thread by MarkPressinger (sp?) where he had the first picture but now there are more.

September 1, 2013

This too- Turkey arrests Syrian Nusra Front militants with Sarin and heavy weapons

Turkey arrests Syrian Nusra Front militants -media
May 30, 2013|Reuters

ANKARA, May 30 (Reuters) - Turkish authorities have arrested
a group of Syria's al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front militants who
allegedly had been planning an attack inside Turkey and were in
possession of the nerve agent sarin, local media reported on
Thursday.

...

The 12 Nusra members were arrested in the southern city of
Adana, some 100 km (60 miles) from Syria, during raids at their
addresses where police uncovered 2 kg (4.5 pounds) of sarin as
well as heavy weapons, Taraf, Cumhuriyet and Aksam, as well as
several other dailies reported.

The men, who were allegedly planning a large attack in the
city, were formally detained by Adana's top court, the papers
reported, although it was not clear on what charges. The papers
did not reveal their sources.

...

Nusra is one of the most effective forces fighting President
Bashar al-Assad and last month pledged allegiance to al Qaeda
leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The U.S. State Department designated
Nusra as a terrorist organisation in December.

Experts have long said Nusra is receiving support from al
Qaeda-linked militants in neighbouring Iraq. The group claimed
responsibility for deadly bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and
its fighters have joined other Syrian rebel brigades.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-30/news/sns-rt-syria-crisisturkeyl3n0eb2uy-20130530_1_nusra-front-chemical-weapons-jonathon-burch

September 1, 2013

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

and not the first time either, like the time they cropped a PRO-Ahmadinejad rally and pretended it was opposition. It's always the same, they'll be greeting us with flowers and candy.

September 1, 2013

Center for Constitutional Rights Strongly Opposes U.S. Military Intervention in Syria

Press Releases

Center for Constitutional Rights Strongly Opposes U.S. Military Intervention in Syria

August 30, 2013 – In response to signals from the Obama administration that it will pursue U.S. military intervention in Syria in the wake of attacks last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:

We strongly oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria and urge the Obama administration to support increased diplomatic measures to protect civilians in the region. A United Nations investigation into the massacre of last week is still ongoing. For whoever is deemed responsible, accountability must come by way of investigation and prosecutions under international law, not further militarism in the region.

It is a manifest lesson of this country’s recent history that U.S. military intervention in conflicts of this kind has not served human rights or humanitarian purposes, even when these are the stated goals. The U.S. and Iraq are still reeling and suffering from a decade-long illegal war that was waged on the basis of false information about weapons of mass destruction and sold to the American people as a quick military intervention. Hundreds of thousands, including many civilians and children, died as a result of that war, in which the U.S. used weapons that have been widely condemned, such as white phosphorous, napalm-class weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium. Iraq is still dealing with the catastrophic aftermath, which includes skyrocketing rates in birth defects and cancer widely attributed to the use of these weapons. The U.S. should be accounting for this harm and making reparations, not readying to engage militarily once again.

UN officials are calling for political solutions to the crisis in Syria – not additional violence. The Obama administration needs to act in concert with other countries and international legal bodies to broker a political settlement in Syria and bring an immediate cessation of violence. Diplomacy and the rule of law, including international law, must be our guideposts for acting in this situation.

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. CCR has previously challenged U.S. military action and use of force as violating U.S. and international law, including in the invasion of Grenada, in El Salvador, in Panama, for the First Gulf War, Serbia/Kosovo and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. CCR is currently representing a group of U.S. veterans of the Iraq war and two Iraqi human rights organizations seeking accountability and reparations for the war as part of the Right to Heal initiative.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/center-constitutional-rights-strongly-opposes-u.s.-military-intervention-syria

September 1, 2013

Senator Harkin Statement on Syria. Evidence circumstantial. Must wait for these results of UN team

Senator Harkin > Press > Releases

September 1, 2013
Harkin Statement on Syria

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s announcement that he will ask Congress to authorize military force in Syria.

“I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial. The atrocious use of chemical weapons against civilian is an affront to human values and a violation of international law. It should be condemned by the international community as a whole.

“The coming debate in Congress will hopefully shine the light on outstanding questions -- as will the results of the U.N. inspection team. We must wait for these results before any action is taken. What I hear from Iowans is that the Middle East has a complex history and the conflicts there will not be solved by U.S. military action alone. We should not rush into what may become a new open-ended war without broad international backing or a full understanding of the ramifications.”

http://www.harkin.senate.gov/press/release.cfm?i=345625

September 1, 2013

Joint Statement from Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren Regarding... Syria

Representative Zoe Lofgren · 2,505 like this
4 hours ago ·

Joint Statement from Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren Regarding Congressional Debate and Potential Authorization of U.S. Military Action in Syria - August 31, 2013

We are pleased that President Obama will seek Congressional authorization before engaging in any military hostilities against Syria.

That authorization is legally and constitutionally required – the President cannot legally act alone without the U.S. Congress. This construct is part of the genius of our nation’s democratic system and our Constitutional checks and balances.

We welcome the opportunity to listen to the facts of this matter in the most public forum. While a review of the evidence, both classified and unclassified, as to the use of chemical is important, we are already inclined to believe that these horrific weapons were used based on public and social media accounts. We believe that the question before the U.S. Congress is not “can the Obama Administration prove that the Syrian government used chemical weapons?” Rather, the paramount question is, if that is true, “what is the best course for the United States to take, and why?”

Here are just a few of the questions that are at the heart of what Congress must debate as we and our colleagues determine the best course for the United States to take:

• What role should the United States play in enforcing international treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons?

• International treaties are frequently violated by various nations. What precedent does it set if the United States acts in this case? Will the U.S. be placed in a position where we must respond whenever treaties are seriously violated? If not, why?

• Civilian massacres have occurred in other countries without U.S. military intervention and are occurring today in Egypt, for example. Would action in Syria set a precedent for action in other parts of the world? If not, why not?

• Should the U.S. take action when international bodies, including the UN and NATO, have declined to do so?

• Should the U.S. take action when the United Nations has asked that we not do so?

• Should the U.S. act when other nations decline to participate with our country in taking such action, including Great Britain? Arab nations?

• If action is taken by the United States what impact will it have on the future behavior of the Assad regime? On what basis are we concluding that Syria will change its behavior based on a U.S. attack on Syrian targets?

• If the U.S. attack is limited in scope and time, what message will that give to Syria as well as other nations such as Iran? If the action is protracted in scope and time, what are the potential costs in American lives and U.S. taxpayer dollars? For U.S. prestige in the world and in the Middle East?

• How would U.S. military action against Syria make the American people safer? The Syrian people? The people of Israel?

• If a U.S. attack assists the rebels in overthrowing the Assad regime, who takes over in Syria? If the Assad regime falls, will further civil war ensue between competing rebel factions? What role will Al Qaeda play?

• The Syrian civil war is also a proxy war for other powers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and other non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. What impact would U.S. action have on these other actors?

• Will the unrest in Syria spread in the region if the U.S. acts? If the U.S. does not act?

• What impact would U.S. action have on our closest ally in the region, Israel? Would a U.S. attack on Syria lead to retaliatory attacks against Israel or others? What will the reaction of Israel be in that case? What U.S. action would then be required?

• If our country decides that some action by the U.S. is required, what should that action be? Should further diplomatic efforts, as opposed to military action, be considered? Are there feasible sanctions that could be put in place? Other actions?

• If military action is proposed, what are the targets, the scope and the cost? What is expected to be accomplished and how will that serve the interests of the United States? Syria? The Middle East? The World?

• What is our strategy for Syria (and for the Middle East generally) and how would military action support or damage that strategy?

• If the Assad regime, or even the rebels, were to engage in actions that appear to violate international treaties including the use of chemical weapons in the future what action would the U.S. take? What would be the consequences of further action or inaction in such a case in terms of spread of war, entanglement of the U.S. in the Syrian civil war, U.S. reputation around the world, and the perception of American strength and resolve by Iran and North Korea? To what extent is the U.S. “painting ourselves into a corner” by attacking Syria now? Will that force us to attack again in response to further violations? If not, why?

• What impact would U.S. military action have on relations between Russia and our country? What are the short and long term implications for Russia and the U.S., including efforts to continue the reduction of nuclear arms by our two nations?

• What are the possible adverse results of U.S. military action in Syria? What steps have been taken to address those potential adverse impacts? What is the “end game?”

We hope the Congressional debate will be carried out at the highest level, with the result that the United States acts, or does not act, after the most deliberative consideration. In that regard, we ask the President to make his case in the light of public scrutiny, not by “classified” briefings that are kept from the American people and which Members of Congress are prohibited from discussing publicly. This debate will have its needed effect only if it is fully transparent.

We pledge to our constituents and fellow Americans that we will carefully weigh the facts and options that face the United States at this juncture. We look forward to debating and hearing answers to these questions, and other relevant ones that may emerge, as we examine the facts and further hear from our constituents on this very serious issue facing our country.

https://www.facebook.com/zoelofgren/posts/10153168723800720

September 1, 2013

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made

Interesting article

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made


By MARK LANDLER
Published: August 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s aides were stunned at what their boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office on Friday at 7 p.m., on the eve of what they believed could be a weekend when American missiles streaked again across the Middle East.

...

He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.

...

Forty-five minutes later, shortly before 7, Mr. Obama summoned his senior staff members to tell them that he had decided to take military action, but with a caveat.

...

The resistance from the group was immediate. The political team worried that Mr. Obama could lose the vote, as Mr. Cameron did, and that it could complicate the White House’s other legislative priorities. The national security team argued that international support for an operation was unlikely to improve.

At 9 p.m., the president drew the debate to a close and telephoned Mr. Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to tell them of his plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/president-pulls-lawmakers-into-box-he-made.html