By Michael Collins

The Obama administration finally got what it wants, a free fire zone at Syria to tip the civil war in the favor of Christian killing, jihadist, Al Qaeda dominated Syrian rebels. Mission accomplished.

::::::::

The United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved a modified version of President Obama’s authorization to attack Syria on Tuesday, September 4.  Remarkably, the resolution gives the president sixty days to attack Syria.  It doesn’t place any limits on the type of attack, although cruise missiles have been mentioned frequently.

The sixty days is far beyond what the White House floated as their target time frame.  The administration spoke of a few days worth of cruise missile attacks.  The resolution gives the president nearly two months to bomb and strafe Syria, a nation that has not attacked or threatened to attack the United States or its allies.

The president’s option to tip the balance of the civil war

The Senate authorization moves the effort from a focused missile attack to deter future use of chemical weapons to an opportunity to shift the tide of battle from the Syrian government to the Free Syrian Army and their Al Qaeda jihadist allies. 

The Syrian government has been winning the war against the rebels in the past two months.  Victories in the critical cities of Qusayr and Homs were decisive and poised the Syrian government for a strike on Aleppo, the nation’s largest city now divided between rebel and government forces with a portion of the city controlled by Kurdish forces.   Jihadist factions of the rebels and the Free Syrian Army faction have battled each other, decreasing rebel potency.  After multiple attacks on Kurds by the Al Qaeda faction of the rebels, it is reasonable to assume that their efforts would favor the Syrian government.

But, two months to “degrade” the Syrian Army might be too tempting to pass up if the president and his war supporters in both parties decide that they want to achieve their initial goals of ending the rule of President Bashar Al Assad, seeing the country dissolve into chaos, and ending any alliance between Syria and Iran and Russia.

Military intervention in Syria has long been a goal of the White House.  Obama and Secretary of State Clinton pushed for a repeat of the Libya “no-fly” zone, which turned into an air-ground coordinated effort with Libyan rebels to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi.  A veto by Russian and China stopped that pattern in Syria.  That left the administration, and governments of the United Kingdom, France, Turkey and the Gulf oil sheiks without their essential tools for victory.  The “Assad must go” coalition was limited to importing lethal arms, foreign fighters, and large sums of cash which seem to have no audit trail.

If the resolution passes, it remains to be seen if Obama takes advantage of the sixty days to effect regime change.  He will have the opportunity to do just that.

Split parties

The vote was ten in favor, seven opposed to the attack authorization.  Seven Democrats and three republicans voted for approval.  Five Republicans and two Democrats voted against authorization.  Chairman Robert Menendez, D-NJ, and senior committee members Bob Corker, R-TN, Dick Durbin, D-IL, and Barbara Boxer, D-CA, led the effort for approval.  Rand Paul, R-KY, along with four conservative Republicans, voted with moderate to liberal Democrats Chris Murphy, D-CT, and Mark Udall, D-CO.  The 60%-40% split may or may not be replicated in the full Senate depending on public response to the latest gateway to U.S. involvement in another Middle East war.

The ideological alignment of the Senate vote is of real interest.  Of the five Republicans voting against approval, all are strong core conservatives including Libertarian leaning Senators Rand Paul and Ron Johnson; the Senate’s most conservative member, Senator James Risch of Idaho; and Florida’s Marco Rubio, “the crown prince of the Tea Party movement.”  With forty-nine members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives and the balance of mostly hard right Republicans, the ideological climate is more belief driven than the Senate Republican contingent.

If there is a conservative revolt against House Speaker Dick Boehner, Republicans, the House Black Caucus (on record demanding congressional consideration), and an assortment of constitutionalist and other principled Democrats could generate a lively debate.  If the issues of Al Qaeda involvement and the murder of Christians by rebels are raised, the administration risks popular outrage making a vote for attack very difficult for any representative planning to run in 2014

Flawed resolution

The authorization vote today was based on one day of closed session hearings on Monday plus Tuesday and Wednesday’s public hearings.  Apparently the seven Senators voting against authorization were unmoved by the “slam dunk” case blaming the chemical weapons attack on the Syrian government.   No evidence has been released for public review.  If proving the case to the public is important, the Senate committee failed entirely.

The resolution blames the “regime of Bashar al-Assad” for the conflict in Syria and the 100,000 deaths estimated by the United Nations.  This is factually incorrect and naïve, in the extreme.

The UN total was deaths on all sides.  It did not parse the figure by government or rebel actions.  The naïve element of the resolution is so fundamental, it is shocking that no one brought it up.  The Syrian rebels entered cities to initiate the armed attack against Syrian government police and other officials.  They chose an urban battleground.  They city dwellers didn’t invite the rebels; they just showed up and started fighting.  This was the essential step to reach the high death toll.  What did the Senate expect; that the Syrian government would give up its cities?

The resolution has as one of its rationales:  “4) it is in the core national security interest of the United States to use such military force.”  Which national interest might those be?  Syria is not attacking the U.S.  Syria is not threatening to attack the U.S.  The government of President al-Assad has not attacked any nation in the region.  What are pro attack Senators talking about?  Are they just throwing out totally unfounded excuses with the hope that no one will notice?

The authorization references the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as thought it means much of anything.  That law failed to prevent two invasions of Iraq, the Afghanistan occupation, and numerous other military actions.  In fact, the War Powers Resolution has not stopped one single military action by the government since it passed forty years ago.

As we slip and slide toward another violation of international law, the only hope is that “the people’s House” will reflect the true will of the overwhelming public opposition to the attack on Syria.

END

Creative Commons

Submitters Website: http://agonist.org

_{ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael Collins is a DC area writer and researcher. He is also the Editor in Chief of the Agonist(.org). Collins has been a contributor to OpEdNews.com since the start and continues to publish here on a regular basis.}  

________________________________

DO SOMETHING
White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call

Phone numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Hint: If you get a busy signal on the Comments line, call the Switchboard number & tell them you want the Comments line.  They put you through. You may have to wait, but at least you don’t get the busy signal

Link for phone numbers for US Senate:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Link for phone numbers for US House of Representatives

http://www.house.gov/representatives/ 

Just about everyone with a modicum of understanding about contemporary events can see that the world is being speedily and recklessly pushed into an abyss of total war and planetary destruction by a hypocritical plutocratic mafia headquartered in Washington, D.C. 

Send the selection of articles in this edition of the Greanville Post Bulletin— many focusing on the imminent criminal war on Syria—to at least three of your friends or kin, preferably 5 or more.  Please do not fail to do this.

We are engaged in a battle of communications with the enemies of decent humankind, a battle really of propagandas, and as usual they are winning, but they are winning in large measure because so many people who see themselves as leftist or progressive normally do nothing in the way of disseminating valuable information. Nor do they care to support authentically left media of any kind.

So, as we say above, now that an even more threatening international war is being manufactured, do your part.

In anger  and frustration,
Patrice Greanville
Editor in Chief
The Greanville Post

Abrams

By Tom Carter, wsws.org

Floyd Abrams’ July 31 letter to the New York Times praising the Bradley Manning verdict underscores the degree to which what was once the liberal intelligentsia has abandoned any serious defense of democratic rights.

Abrams famously served as one of the lawyers for the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case (1971), establishing a certain reputation at the time as a defender of free speech and freedom of the press. In the intervening decades Abrams has shifted far to the right, together with an entire layer of once-liberal professionals, intellectuals, and academics. Abrams now writes in support of the conviction of Bradley Manning on espionage charges, which constitutes a monumental assault on those basic principles he once defended.

In his letter, published on the Times front page, Abrams begins by asserting that the young soldier is guilty: “Pfc. Bradley Manning’s conduct in providing WikiLeaks with more than 700,000 confidential government documents undoubtedly violated some provisions of federal law, as his pleas of guilty to some of the charges and Col. Denise R. Lind’s rulings as to others make plain,” Abrams wrote. The rest of Abrams’ letter is dedicated to a celebration of Manning’s acquittal on the “aiding the enemy” charge, which carried a possible death sentence.

“Colonel Lind’s brave decision — it is nothing less than that — rejecting the government’s misguided efforts to convict Private Manning of violating military law in ‘aiding the enemy’ is worthy of special commendation,” Abrams wrote. A conviction on the “aiding the enemy” charge, according to Abrams, “would have imperiled a good deal of invaluable journalism.”

As an initial matter, contrary to Abrams’ assertions, Manning’s guilty pleas—extracted through torture, a rigged trial, and the Obama administration’s pursuit of a charge carrying the death penalty—do not signify anything.

More importantly, absent from Abrams’ letter is any mention of the content of Manning’s disclosures, which included evidence of war crimes, systematic deceit and lying by successive American administrations, and globe-spanning conspiracies to violate domestic and international law. In the US, the political establishment—with the aid of the media and figures such as Abrams—has sought to prevent a discussion of the criminality revealed by Manning by focusing instead on whether Manning himself violated any laws.

Manning’s conviction represents the first time in American history that a government whistleblower has been convicted in a full trial on espionage charges. Under the Obama administration’s logic, Manning committed “espionage” against the United States because he leaked classified documents “having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy.”

There is no allegation that Manning turned over the documents to any foreign government or political entity in particular, or that he was paid anything or sought to benefit personally from the disclosures. His only motive was to serve the public interest by exposing crimes. Nevertheless, according to the Obama administration’s theory, if a document is designated as “classified” and its contents are leaked to the public—no matter what the content of the document is—then the leaker is guilty of “espionage” because the document can be accessed online by Al Qaeda. This new and reactionary theory constitutes a frontal assault on a long line of legal precedents, from the Nuremberg Trials to the Pentagon Papers case to the core historic First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of the press.

[pullquote] If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it. [/pullquote]

The Nuremberg Trials following the Second World War affirmed the basic principle that “following orders” is not an excuse for participating in crimes. If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it.

The world-spanning corruption, deceit, and thuggery exposed by Manning have been the subject of dozens if not hundreds of articles on the World Socialist Web Site —including the murder of journalists and civilians by helicopter in Iraq; backroom deals with MasterCard and Visa in Russia; violations of international treaties by US spies posing as diplomats; and conspiracies to install Shell Oil men in the Nigerian government. Cables leaked by Manning contributed to anger that fueled protests that brought down US-allied strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt and rocked the entire region. Human civilization as a whole owes this brave young soldier a debt of gratitude.

Not a hair has been touched on the heads of any of the criminals exposed by Manning within the US political establishment, military, and intelligence apparatus, as well as their corporate and financial co-conspirators. These individuals continue to sit comfortably in their luxurious offices enjoying lavish incomes and lifestyles. On the subject of the “guilt” of such individuals, figures such as Abrams are silent. Instead of prosecuting the criminals exposed by Manning, the Obama administration has done its utmost to make an example of Manning, including through the use of torture.

Abrams’ emphasis on the judge’s acquittal of Manning under the “aiding the enemy” theory is a red herring. Colonel Lind did not refuse to allow the Obama administration to proceed under this theory as a matter of law. She only ruled that Manning was not guilty under the facts of this specific case, holding the door open to similar charges in future prosecutions.

The factual circumstances of Manning’s disclosures and their publication are in all pertinent respects identical to the leak and publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg himself, who handed copies of the Pentagon Papers to a New York Times reporter in March 1971, has publicly defended Manning and has rejected any false distinction between the “good” Pentagon Papers and the “bad” WikiLeaks.

Abrams himself emerged in 2010 to pen a long New York Times column falsifying the history of the Pentagon Papers as part of an attempt to discredit Julian Assange and Wilikeaks. (At the time, the World Socialist Web Site published a detailed response setting straight the historical record.)

The falsification of the history of the Pentagon Papers case serves definite political ends. In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Can anyone imagine such statements being made today in the judiciary, in Congress, or in the media?

There is no legal or moral substance to any of the charges against Manning, who had every right to do what he did. Democratic rights cannot be entrusted to figures such as Abrams. The defense and expansion of basic democratic rights—and the struggle to safeguard heroic individuals such as Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange from retaliation by the state—requires nothing short of the independent mobilization of the working class on a socialist program.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Carter writes for the wsws.org, information arm of the Social Equality Party.

By Thomas Gaist and Joseph Kishore, wsws.org

The UK government is aggressively defending its decision to detain David Miranda (above, left), the partner of Glenn Greenwald, for nearly nine hours at Heathrow Airport, seizing his laptop, camera, cell phone and other personal items. Miranda was detained under a UK terrorism law while traveling from Berlin to his home in Rio de Janeiro.

The detention of Miranda was a blatant act of political intimidation directed at all those who seek to reveal crimes and conspiracies against democratic rights carried out by the British and US governments, including former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Snowden, who has worked closely with Greenwald, is currently exiled in Russia. He has been the subject of an international campaign of vilification, led by the Obama administration.

According to a report by the Reuters news agency, “One US security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government’s detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden’s materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.”

In other words, the detention had nothing to do with “terrorism” or “national security,” but was, rather, a political decision. This decision clearly involved the highest levels of the US and British governments. On Monday, a White House spokesman acknowledged that the Obama administration had been given a “heads up” about the planned detention.

British Prime Minister David Cameron also had advance notice of the plans to detain Miranda, Downing Street confirmed yesterday. The Guardian quoted a source within the government as saying, “We were kept abreast in the usual way. We do not direct police investigations.”

The suggestion from the UK government that somehow the final decision was made by local police agencies is a fraud. The approval of Miranda’s detention clearly came from No 10 and the White House.

A UK government spokesperson issued a statement yesterday defending the action, saying that, “the government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that.”

The statement went on to threaten: “Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.”

UK Home Secretary Theresa May also acknowledged that she was briefed on the plans to detain Miranda. “If the police believe somebody has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information then it is right that the police act,” she said. These documents could help terrorists and “lead to a loss of lives.”

That is, the exposure of massive and illegal spying programs run by the US, UK and other governments is equated with aiding terrorists. With such arguments, the government is preparing the ground for even more direct action targeting those who have revealed these criminal programs.

London’s Metropolitan Police also defended the detention of Miranda, calling it “legally and procedurally sound.” Scotland Yard issued a statement declaring, “The examination of a 28-year-old man under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow Airport on Sunday 18 August was subject to a detailed decision making process.”

There was nothing “legal” about the seizure of Miranda. A private citizen was held, threatened and had his belongings seized entirely because of his association with a journalist who has worked to reveal government secrets. These are the methods of a police state.

Miranda said of his nine-hour detention, “They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn’t co-operate. They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the UK.” Miranda was refused any explanation for his detention during the nine-hour period, was not allowed an interpreter (his primary language is Portuguese), and was not even allowed a pen.

Miranda is arguing that the seizure of his equipment and data by the police was illegal. A letter from Miranda’s legal counsel asserts that Miranda’s detention was an illegal “deprivation of liberty,” violating article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.