Obama treachery: War crimes, Syrian atrocities and WWIII
by Jim Fetzer
“The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse.”“–Paul Craig Roberts
The latest developments regarding Syria are not remotely encouraging. A thoughtful editorial by the President of Russia in The New York Times (11 September 2013) has been belittled and ridiculed by political leaders in Washington, D.C.
Syrian President Bashar Assad has declared that Syria will not relinquish its chemical weapons unless Israel relinquishes its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, which Israel has not acknowledged in violation of international law.
The leader of the Al-Nusra Front, which the UN properly classifies as a “terrorist organization”, who is also the leader of al Qaeda in Syria has rejected the plan for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons and called for a US strike.
Even in the face of more and more proof that the gas attacks were made by the rebels and that Kerry and Obama have been lying to the American people, US soldiers stationed at Ft. Hood have just received orders to deploy to Syria.
And leaked documents have provided additional proof that it was the rebels who used sarin gas and not the Syrian government, where the evidence that John Kerry and Barack Obama have been lying to us has become simply overwhelming:
Putin’s Thoughtful Editorial
Russia’s President published one of the most thoughtful commentaries on the evolving situation in the Middle East to have appeared anywhere in the world–and it was in The New York Times (12 September 2013). He makes observations about international law and the UN Charter that Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama seem somehow to have overlooked, even though Obama, in particular, has a background in the law at Harvard Law School and is supposed to have taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, which leave him no excuse to be ignorant of these matters:
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
Putin’s points about international law, of course, are impeccable. The only American politician who has dared to raise the issue is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who, with his father, Ron Paul, are among the few who care about the Constitution and international law. But the case is iron-clad. The US is bound to the UN by a treaty. Under its Article 6, treaties have the same standing under the law as the Constitution itself. The UN Charter specifies only two conditions under which one nation may attack another, namely: (1) when it confronts an imminent attack; or, (2) when it has the approval of the UN Security Council. Neither obtains in this case, which means that–with or without Congressional approval, were Obama to attack Syria, he would be violating international law, the US Constitution and his own oath of office. Putin continues:
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
Cruise missiles and potato chips
Indeed, this point deserves emphasis. Cruise missiles are like potato chips: you can’t stop at one! The use of cruise missiles, even in a “tailored, surgical strike”, will inevitably kill vastly more innocent civilians than even the exaggerated figure of 1,400+, including 400 children, that the Obama administration has bandied about. Doctors without Borders has offered the figure of 355, including women and children. I am reminded of the stories from Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village to save it!” Putin further observes,
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
From the point of view of Syria, Russia and China, moreover, the claim to be launching a “limited, surgical strike” would be the perfect cover for a massive, ongoing assault. When the US has large numbers of cruise missiles, who could possible take for granted that the first few would not be followed by a few more and then a few more–in an unending cascade of death and destruction? Which is why the first cruise missile launched will be met with a massive retaliation that is going to be the start of WWIII. Have no doubt about it. No other reaction would be rational.
The infantile Washington Response
And what could be more reasonable and rational under the circumstances than to confront the evidence that the rebels were those who deployed sarin gas, that the use of cruise missiles in this case would be a violation of international law, the US Constitution, and Obama’s oath of office? A recent AP story in The Wisconsin State Journal (9 September 2013), implicitly acknowledged that Kerry had overstated his case, “White House: Proof is elusive–But “common sense shows Assad, attack are linked, aide says”. But this claim is absurd, as I have explained on The Huffington Post (11 September 2013):
But none of this matters to the “brain trust” that passes for political leadership in Washington. The
responses to Putin’s masterful statement were predictable for their juvenile character and their utter absence of rational thought. Here is a summary of some of their reactions, exhibiting “their fury” over his remarks:
“I was at dinner,” New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez said on CNN after he read the piece. “And I almost wanted to vomit.”
Other lawmakers were equally blunt.
“I was insulted,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters on Thursday morning. “I’ve probably already said more than I should have said, but you’ve got the truth.”
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain called Putin’s piece an “insult to the intelligence of every American.”
The op-ed was published amid a passionate debate in Washington over whether the United States should launch a strike against Syria, where President Bashar Assad’s government has been embroiled in civil war for more than two years and stands accused of using chemical weapons.
Earlier this month, Obama called on lawmakers to pass a resolution authorizing a “limited” military strike. This week, however, he requested that a vote on the resolution — which appeared destined to fail anyway — be delayed while the U.S. seeks a diplomatic solution in cooperation with Russia.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill seemed willing to give the White House time, but they remain hesitant to believe that Russia and Syria will work with the United States in good faith.
Boehner, who said on Wednesday that he was “skeptical” about Russia’s motivations, suggested on Thursday that Putin’s op-ed might confirm his suspicions.
“It’s probably why I have suggested I have doubts about the motives of the Russians and Assad,” he said.
Given my recent emphasis upon Wayne Madsen’s report that Prince Bandar al Saud had bribed many of the nation’s political leaders, I went back to review the list he has identified and was struck by the stunning line up of those who have reacted in such petulant and thoughtless fashion with those on his list, which includes Senators Harry Reid, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Barbara Boxer, and Robert Menendez, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, New York’s Peter King and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. This cannot be a coincidence, where we can expect more of the same from others on this list.
The latest developments
And the latest developments are far from encouraging. The leader of the Al-Nusra Front, which the UN properly classifies as a “terrorist organization”, who is also the leader of al Qaeda in Syria has rejected the plan for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons and called for a US strike. Even in the face of more and more proof that Kerry and Obama have been lying to the American people about these gas attacks, US soldiers stationed at Ft. Hood have just received orders to deploy to Syria.
Moreover, taking a principled stand, Bashar Assad has told Obama to stop arming rebels or there will be no deal. Observing that Israel’s possession of a vast stock of undeclared nuclear weapons is also a violation of international law, the Syrian president has challenged the American president to come clean and be even-handed in the face of his hypocrisy about international law:
President Obama must promise not to arm rebel forces or Syrian dictator Bashar Assad will not hand over his chemical weapons, the embattled leader told a Russian state media outlet today while demanding that Israel also surrender its nuclear arsenal:
“When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria,” Assad told RIA News.
Assad observed, quite correctly, that there can be no enduring peace in the Middle East until Israel also surrenders its weapons of mass destruction:
“If we really want stability in the Middle East, all the countries [in the region] must honor the agreements. And the first country to do so is Israel because it possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons – all types of weapons of mass destruction”.
And, indeed, it is well-known that the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons has been tolerated as a counterbalance to the estimated 200-600 nuclear weapons in Israel’s possession, which it has never declared, in violation of international law. Israel has never signed the NPT and will not allow inspectors. US hypocrisy is so blatant that, were we conforming to our own laws regarding foreign aid, we could not send Israel billions each year because of its possession of undeclared WMDs.
Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany
Paul Craig Roberts has raised the question, “Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth?”
Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”? The obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36117.htm
When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies. The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.
How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted. Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.
As he also observes, Congress must now vote down the war and make it unmistakably clear to Obama that if he violates the Constitution, he will be impeached. If Congress is too corrupt or too incompetent to do its duty, then the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. They must eventually be brought to justice. The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this war by a ratio of at least 9 to 1. This is the litmus test of the integrity of the United States and of its commitment to the rule of law. So far, it is failing.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=269037
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Sep 13 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Editor, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.