Chris Hedges: "If we wanted this to stop, we could make it happen."

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 8:00am

Oh yes, Pandora's box, that it is:

In war, when you attack one force you implicitly aid another. And the forces we assist by striking the Assad regime are the forces we ironically are determined to eradicate—Nusra Front, al-Qaida and other Islamic radical groups. These are the same Islamic forces we, along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Kuwait, largely created, armed and funded at the inception of the civil war in Syria. They are the forces that have responded to the chaos caused by our misguided military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. They are the forces that execute Western captives, slaughter religious minorities, carry out terrorism in Europe and the United States and collect billions of dollars from smuggling refugees into Europe. They are our sometime enemies and our sometime allies.

Who rejoices after the US fired missiles at Syria's Shayrat airfield? - Ooops, the Islamic militants.

The Islamic militants in Syria, after Russia intervened against them in September 2015, were losing territory, financial revenue and support in the six-year war. And they were the ones who rejoiced this week when the United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria’s Shayrat airfield, reportedly the launching site for a chemical weapons attack that killed 86 people, including at least 30 children, on Tuesday in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. The Syrian government says six people died in the U.S. missile attack.

When people just see what they want to see, not what there is to see, or when we are so kind to give the Syrians many options to die:

The selective moral outrage of the United States, among both Democrats and Republicans, over the alleged chemical attack (It appeared Syrians used them in 2013 in the Damascus suburb Ghouta, leaving anywhere from 281 to 1,729 dead ... and then now again) ... ignores America’s primary responsibility for the wholesale carnage that has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions as refugees, including 4 million from Iraq and 5 million from Syria. It ignores the 12,197 bombs we dropped on Syria last year. It ignores our role in creating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and our role in arming and funding these jihadists in Syria. We have made sure that the Syrians—400,000 of whom have died and half of whom have been forced from their homes during the war—have many options when it comes to dying.

oh yeah, why ?

Why are we not enraged by the Trump administration’s flagrant violation of domestic law by carrying out an act of war without approval from Congress or the United Nation ?

May be we want to give the assurance to Islamic radicals that ...

...they can always count on the West to intervene and resurrect them ?

Who the heck can keep up with this mess?

By 2010 al-Qaida in Iraq was a spent force. Then came the civil war in Syria. The United States, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey pumped weapons, money and resources to various rebel factions in Syria to overthrow the Syrian regime. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who took over the leadership of Zarqawi’s organization, changed the name of the group to the Islamic State of Iraq. He soon decamped to Syria. ... He gradually took control of an area the size of Texas in Syria and Iraq. Al-Nusra, the al-Qaida-affiliated group in Syria, merged with the Islamic State of Iraq.

The new group became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. It attracted an estimated 20,000 foreign fighters—some 4,000 of whom held European passports. The group was estimated by The Wall Street Journal to earn $2 million a day in oil exports alone. As a trafficker of humans, it has made billions from the desperate refugees attempting to flee to Europe. It has executed religious minority members or forced them out of its territory. The newly formed self-described caliphate has also terrorized the Sunnis in the name of religious purity, as Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton point out in the AlterNet article “Is Trump Rescuing Al-Qaeda’s ‘Heartland’ in Syria?”

Can you stop this mess?

There is no clean or easy way to exit from the morass we created in the region. ... The wars we started are complicated. ... This slaughter has already lasted nearly 16 years. It will not cease until the United States is exhausted and withdraws its forces from the region. So save your tears. We are morally no different from the jihadists or the Syrians we fight. They reflect back to us our own repugnant visage. If we wanted this to stop, we could make it happen.

Yes.

As a little person in Germany when I became a student in Berlin in 1968, I knew nothing about men, wars and the United States. But I remember we marched against the Vietnam War. Somehow we didn't know why that war had to be continued. So, in our little ignorant and arrogant outburst of moral indignation, we dared to carry the signs: "Ami, go home".

Nowadays, as a little person in the US forty plus years later, I kinda start to know bit of something about men, wars and the United States. And sadly I end up wanting to carry the same sign again, but just can't bring myself over to say again: "Ami, go home". Because it hurts so many Americans, who are victims of the mess their political representatives allowed to develop militarily outside the United States.

I always remember that Americans were foregiving to Germans and tried to not condemn every single German as a Nazi supporter way back in the days after wwII. They tried. And we noticed. And we were grateful to those who tried to be foregiving. Mostly those Americans could overcome their disgust for the atrocities the Germans had been involved with during wwII, when they lived with Germans, saw and felt what they felt and understood the complexity of the pandora box that Germans had been left with after the German wwII capitulation.

While living in the US, I feel like I have understood the complexity of the pandora box Americans have manouevered themselves into and can't just engage in the "blame 'em" game in high pitched voice. I try to close my ears if the voices stirr up too many emotions that hurt. It's not my kind of thing.

But I admit I think when Chris Hedges says the US should withdraw from its overseas military engagements and bases, he has a point I support.

So I dare to say " Ami, go home" again. And I say it, because Ami-land is my home now too. And I don't want the US to be involved in the same shit the Germans were in some decades ago.

So much silent desperation crosses over in many comments and essays here in the last two to three days. My 'little person's' slogan: "There is an end to everything" always helps me to get through a depressive mood. I believe in that slogan. Just that the end sometimes comes excruciatingly slow and that you don't know how it's coming and what it ends with. But it's coming to an end and it will be over.

Have a good Sunday, all.

PS: Don't expect me to understand your frigging law arguments (no respect for them from my side):
Mark Pocan wrongly claims Donald Trump had no legal authority to launch missile attack on Syria - By Tom Kertscher on Friday, April 7th, 2017 at 5:01 p.m.

Our rating:
Pocan said: "There is no legal basis" for Trump's "missile strike against Syrian military assets."
For limited military activities like the missile strike, presidents can send in forces without approval from Congress.
We rate Pocan’s statement False.

Great. So, then, dear experts of America, send some more tomahawks. As you seem always have reasons to do exactly that what you want. Frigging weaseling law arguments. You have to read this mess on your own.

Tags:

US military withdrawal

anti-war movement

Syria

Chemical Weapon attack

Vote

Comments

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 8:49am

Yes but, we wear the white hats and our enemies wear black

[or not that long ago in the movies and media feathered headdresses]and if the don't, they are cheating.

Just think of it as an Empire where rules only apply to other people.

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 8:58am

I thought Chris nailed it

Hey mimi,

As a war correspondent he understand the horrors. Nice interview with him this week too...
Chris Hedges, host of “On Contact,” joins RT America’s Anya Parampil to discuss the US media’s selective use of facts to further their agenda. (6 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4kIO-GGg28

I also thought Jeffrey Sachs article was good.
http://www.alternet.org/world/us-military-should-get-out-middle-east

Hope all is well on your side of the pond.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 10:06am

thx, Lookout, I will read them in a while,

@Lookout
It's tough reading time.

Right now I am looking at a wonderful garden my mother designed fifty years ago, lots of huge trees now, sun shining and the first green little leaves show up. Beautiful. I dreamt to become a gardener for sustaining myself with the harvest of fruit and nut trees, berry bushes and vegetables etc.
So, I asked my relatives what is more important to have: 1. a beautiful view from the hill on the landscape or 2. a piece of land to grow food with no special view. I was amazed that more of my relatives thought the beautiful view was more important. My argument is you can't eat a view. But helas, little people, little brains, lots of silly love for nothing too.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 10:30am

Wow!

@mimi

A 50 year old garden. How delightful. We homesteaded here 30 years ago. It is amazing how much the trees have grown in that time. I bet your 50 year old window on the landscape presents even greater change.

My neighbor (departed for a couple of decades now) described the clear cutting of the mountain twice, once in his childhood and again in his later years. The world changes quickly really. Here cotton was once king. People "in town" worked in the mill. Now the mills have mostly gone and the old cotton fields are pastures, pine trees, and chicken houses. Of course go back 200 years and Sequoya was writing his alphabet/syllabary nearby in yet another very different world.

Round we go. Enjoy your garden.

The kiss of the sun for pardon,
The song of the birds for mirth,
One is nearer God's Heart in a garden
Than anywhere else on Earth.

"God's Garden" lines 13–16, Poems, by Dorothy Frances Gurney (London: Country Life, 1913).

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 10:59am

thank you, I love this place for comments like this

@Lookout
I miss all the literature I haven't read during my life. And look so much forward to sit down in my imaginary garden and sink into a book. I used to do that when I was young. Now I want my youth back...

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 9:10am

One thing that author Kertscher is missing

and what they're all missing, on purpose no doubt.

Pocan said: "There is no legal basis" for Trump's "missile strike against Syrian military assets."

For limited military activities like the missile strike, presidents can send in forces without approval from Congress."

Perhaps he'd be correct if the whole thing wasn't based on lies. But the President does not have the authority or legal basis to lie to the American people about why a military attack is necessary or actually participate in the production and coverup of the false flag to enable it. If he lies in order to conduct a military attack, then it's obviously not legal.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 1:44pm

@Big Al

@Big Al @Big Al

Always handy when you have the world's largest military to be enabled in ignoring international law and moral imperatives to commit horrible crimes in other people's countries, recycling the same false claims and slanders long since worn to transparency and backing them with bald-faced lies intended to drown out reality with repetition in order to 'normalize' rampant cruelty and criminality in what are supposed to be responsible positions of public trust.

This 'brute force and massive ignorance' approach is already destroying the very power-base they draw from, along with the irreplaceable natural life-support system which sustains them; crashing the economy until it founders completely and their own treasured and compulsively accumulated data-dots become worthless in the wreckage is disastrously stupid and bad enough in the effects which they also bring upon themselves, but the unimaginably stupid and evil crime of crashing the self-sustaining ecology ends everything.

As previously elucidated by a Bush Admin spokesman, The Parasites That Be evidently pride themselves on 'creating their own reality' and imagining that they can 'make fake become real' because it's only appearances - 'optics' - which matter to them. The reality-dependent can just watch and take notes as civilization and everything required for life's survival is destroyed. What does this mindset define except lunacy?

Edit: I don't need no stinkin' punctuation in the right place!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 9:17am

"We"?

Chris appears to be using "We" in the context of the U.S. government and it's controllers. They, not we, could stop it fast by ending their war, stop funding and arming terrorists and mercenaries, and put the main criminals (Obama, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, etc.) in prison. But that's not going to happen.

"We" the people could also stop it if enough of us wanted to.

Thanks for the essay mimi.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 9:54am

thanks, BigAl,

@Big Al
I was busy writing my comment below, so talk me down. What has the time it takes to drop a bomb from a missile to do with the legality of that kind of war activity? Either it's a war activity or it's not. So they start fiddling around with the definitions of what is a war activity and what is not. So, what is that missile attack? A monkey breast thumping threat making noise and scare people? Like in the zoo? That's it?

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 2:13pm

@Big Al

@Big Al

I think - now in many countries, and spreading - we have to start thinking of certain currently predominating political parties more as a Mafia take-over rather than as legitimate governmental options.

We can no longer deny that various parties in multiple governments have been not only influenced but infiltrated by destructive self-interests, and it's those destructive self-interests - who will pass illegal 'law' to 'legalize' their crimes as they go along, warping law intended to protect the public into a PsyOps weapon against them, in direct contravention of democratic law and principle - who must be removed from politics and policy to be rendered politically powerless as agents of purchased/bullied/propagandized social/political change.

Since we're fortunate enough to have Alex Ocana posting here, (if not often enough,) we do have an excellent source of sane, practical advice from one personally involved with a successful pacific revolution as an essential resource. It would be silly to miss our last opportunity for enhancing the hope of global survival because we failed to utilize such resources as we have - which includes Bernie Sanders, like it or not, as an invaluable resource, even if unable to single-handedly overcome the global monster which almost nobody else in politics even dared to tackle on any level. Waste not, want not.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 9:44am

Good Morning C99ers

so, I guess I have now understood what I was confused about on Friday responding to Ellen North diary
here and here and here.

I think Alligator Ed suggested that a vote against the AUMF, denying the authorization to go to war without Congress specifically allowing it through a vote for the AUMF, would never happen. So, therefore one shouldn't have a vote on it, therefore the petition by VoteVets to have an AUMF vote was bad, because the outcome is predictable and not the one we want to have. That reminds me of the attitude to never vote for a Third Party, because they can never win and will never have legislative influence through a vote for them. Yeah, why would you want to have a vote in that kind of democracy when you always know in advance that your vote doesn't mean shit.

Then I got confused if the US missile strike on the Syrian air force base was a violating international and US war laws. So, now I read the following in the link from from Politifact that
1.

Goldsmith said the president’s authority to use force without congressional approval had been extended to protect American persons and property abroad, but that rationale would not have applied to the attacks Obama contemplated (but never carried out).
The Trump administration, meanwhile, also invokes the Constitution (Article 2) in asserting that the president has the power to defend the U.S. national interest.

In this case, that interest is described as "promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens" -- which the Trump administration likened to the Obama administration’s justification for using force in Libya in 2011.

Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.
But "having said that," Janda continued, the Constitution gives the president authority as commander in chief to use force to protect our national interests and War Powers Resolution gives the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies."

Georgetown University professor Anthony Arend, whose specialties include international relations and constitutional law of U.S. foreign relations, also cited Article 2 of the Constitution and the president’s power as commander-in-chief. He told us:
"While the precise scope of this power is unclear, a strong argument can be made that the president can use force in short military operations -- especially where there is minimal risk to American lives -- without congressional authorization. Indeed, over the years, Congress has generally acquiesced in such presidential uses of force.

"Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president's action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution.

4.

Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that point.

oh boy, I had no clue. So, talk me down:
1. If an American goes abroad and his life seems to be "at risk" it's the US air force who can shoot down a missile on the country that American has gone in to, it's not the person's own responsibility to go to countries that seem to be "a little risky" to go as a tourist? Wow. Speechless.

2. So, can you help me define what is a war? It seems, if you drop a bomb from a missile remotely and no American gets killed, it's ok to drop that bomb. And because the missile is precise and bombs not the heck out of the target location, it's ok too. The President has the "leeway" to do so. Congress can just watch and roll their eyes? It's not a war activity. Wow. Speechless.

3. So, can you help me to define what is an American interest? Apparently interests can be many and they excuse anything, helping stability in foreign countries seems to be a special US interest. So, sovereign countries are not responsible for their own inner stability? The US has to invervene, including dropping bombs on a foreign country by a US President's order without getting approval to do so from Congress, even if there is no emergency situation and no attack on the US territory. Oh and also, because the attack does only last a minute. Wow. Speechless. How long does it take to drop a nuclear bomb remotely? More than a minute?

Ok, I had no clue. I just wonder, if in the sixties the Russians had fired one missile from East Berlin into West Berlin and precisely would have targetted a US military base in Berlin, if those experts today would have argued, that of course the Russians could do that, no Russian would have lost his life, the attack lasted only a minute and almost didn't kill any German civilian. I bet you everybody would have argued like that, right?

Or the other way around, the US military would have dropped a missile into East Germany, because of that evil man Honecker, that despotic dictator. And no US soldier would have lost his life, the bomb drop would not last longer than a minute and other than a couple of Russian soldiers probably wouldn't have been killed. So, it's acceptable. The US President could do that, right, he had his "leeway", of course. Nothing bad happened. Just a minor number of casualties. Collateral damage.

Well, I can't help it. My brain is too small to understand those arguments and quite frankly, right now, they make me furious.

Just saying. I had to vent that out. I know which words I will never like again: "interests", "leeway" and "minuteman bombs". I think they drop down their load for sure under a minute. It even says so in the name.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 10:42am

once they allow "national interest" as a motivaiton,

@mimi
they've effectively given carte blanche. your puzzlement over what is and is not war reflects the danger of having a society governed by pedantic fools lacking a serious grounding in philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of language, a la Wittgenstein. The arguments we find in these various apologies for the attack on Syria would appear to permit the President to order the nuking of Damascus -- an attack that would put no American soldiers at risk and would last mere seconds.

so, I guess I have now understood what I was confused about on Friday responding to Ellen North diary
here and here and here.

I think Alligator Ed suggested that a vote against the AUMF, denying the authorization to go to war without Congress specifically allowing it through a vote for the AUMF, would never happen. So, therefore one shouldn't have a vote on it, therefore the petition by VoteVets to have an AUMF vote was bad, because the outcome is predictable and not the one we want to have. That reminds me of the attitude to never vote for a Third Party, because they can never win and will never have legislative influence through a vote for them. Yeah, why would you want to have a vote in that kind of democracy when you always know in advance that your vote doesn't mean shit.

Then I got confused if the US missile strike on the Syrian air force base was a violating international and US war laws. So, now I read the following in the link from from Politifact that
1.

Goldsmith said the president’s authority to use force without congressional approval had been extended to protect American persons and property abroad, but that rationale would not have applied to the attacks Obama contemplated (but never carried out).

The Trump administration, meanwhile, also invokes the Constitution (Article 2) in asserting that the president has the power to defend the U.S. national interest.

In this case, that interest is described as "promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens" -- which the Trump administration likened to the Obama administration’s justification for using force in Libya in 2011.

2.

Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.

But "having said that," Janda continued, the Constitution gives the president authority as commander in chief to use force to protect our national interests and War Powers Resolution gives the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies."

3.

Georgetown University professor Anthony Arend, whose specialties include international relations and constitutional law of U.S. foreign relations, also cited Article 2 of the Constitution and the president’s power as commander-in-chief. He told us:

"While the precise scope of this power is unclear, a strong argument can be made that the president can use force in short military operations -- especially where there is minimal risk to American lives -- without congressional authorization. Indeed, over the years, Congress has generally acquiesced in such presidential uses of force.

"Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president's action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution.

4.

Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.

Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that point.

oh boy, I had no clue. So, talk me down:
1. If an American goes abroad and his life seems to be "at risk" it's the US air force who can shoot down a missile on the country that American has gone in to, it's not the person's own responsibility to go to countries that seem to be "a little risky" to go as a tourist? Wow. Speechless.

2. So, can you help me define what is a war? It seems, if you drop a bomb from a missile remotely and no American gets killed, it's ok to drop that bomb. And because the missile is precise and bombs not the heck out of the target location, it's ok too. The President has the "leeway" to do so. Congress can just watch and roll their eyes? It's not a war activity. Wow. Speechless.

3. So, can you help me to define what is an American interest? Apparently interests can be many and they excuse anything, helping stability in foreign countries seems to be a special US interest. So, sovereign countries are not responsible for their own inner stability? The US has to invervene, including dropping bombs on a foreign country by a US President's order without getting approval to do so from Congress, even if there is no emergency situation and no attack on the US territory. Oh and also, because the attack does only last a minute. Wow. Speechless. How long does it take to drop a nuclear bomb remotely? More than a minute?

Ok, I had no clue. I just wonder, if in the sixties the Russians had fired one missile from East Berlin into West Berlin and precisely would have targetted a US military base in Berlin, if those experts today would have argued, that of course the Russians could do that, no Russian would have lost his life, the attack lasted only a minute and almost didn't kill any German civilian. I bet you everybody would have argued like that, right?

Or the other way around, the US military would have dropped a missile into East Germany, because of that evil man Honecker, that despotic dictator. And no US soldier would have lost his life, the bomb drop would not last longer than a minute and other than a couple of Russian soldiers probably wouldn't have been killed. So, it's acceptable. The US President could do that, right, he had his "leeway", of course. Nothing bad happened. Just a minor number of casualties. Collateral damage.

Well, I can't help it. My brain is too small to understand those arguments and quite frankly, right now, they make me furious.

Just saying. I had to vent that out. I know which words I will never like again: "interests", "leeway" and "minuteman bombs". I think they drop down their load for sure under a minute. It even says so in the name.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 4:44pm

agreed and followed your sig - more than a sigh I don't have /n

@UntimelyRippd

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 2:45pm

Again, not if it's all based on lies.

@mimi That throws all the legality bullshit and constitutionality arguments out the window. Period.
That's what people need to focus on. It's the same as with the war OF terror. All those arguments miss the crucial element, it's a lie.

so, I guess I have now understood what I was confused about on Friday responding to Ellen North diary
here and here and here.

I think Alligator Ed suggested that a vote against the AUMF, denying the authorization to go to war without Congress specifically allowing it through a vote for the AUMF, would never happen. So, therefore one shouldn't have a vote on it, therefore the petition by VoteVets to have an AUMF vote was bad, because the outcome is predictable and not the one we want to have. That reminds me of the attitude to never vote for a Third Party, because they can never win and will never have legislative influence through a vote for them. Yeah, why would you want to have a vote in that kind of democracy when you always know in advance that your vote doesn't mean shit.

Then I got confused if the US missile strike on the Syrian air force base was a violating international and US war laws. So, now I read the following in the link from from Politifact that
1.

Goldsmith said the president’s authority to use force without congressional approval had been extended to protect American persons and property abroad, but that rationale would not have applied to the attacks Obama contemplated (but never carried out).

The Trump administration, meanwhile, also invokes the Constitution (Article 2) in asserting that the president has the power to defend the U.S. national interest.

In this case, that interest is described as "promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens" -- which the Trump administration likened to the Obama administration’s justification for using force in Libya in 2011.

2.

Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.

But "having said that," Janda continued, the Constitution gives the president authority as commander in chief to use force to protect our national interests and War Powers Resolution gives the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies."

3.

Georgetown University professor Anthony Arend, whose specialties include international relations and constitutional law of U.S. foreign relations, also cited Article 2 of the Constitution and the president’s power as commander-in-chief. He told us:

"While the precise scope of this power is unclear, a strong argument can be made that the president can use force in short military operations -- especially where there is minimal risk to American lives -- without congressional authorization. Indeed, over the years, Congress has generally acquiesced in such presidential uses of force.

"Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president's action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution.

4.

Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.

Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that point.

oh boy, I had no clue. So, talk me down:
1. If an American goes abroad and his life seems to be "at risk" it's the US air force who can shoot down a missile on the country that American has gone in to, it's not the person's own responsibility to go to countries that seem to be "a little risky" to go as a tourist? Wow. Speechless.

2. So, can you help me define what is a war? It seems, if you drop a bomb from a missile remotely and no American gets killed, it's ok to drop that bomb. And because the missile is precise and bombs not the heck out of the target location, it's ok too. The President has the "leeway" to do so. Congress can just watch and roll their eyes? It's not a war activity. Wow. Speechless.

3. So, can you help me to define what is an American interest? Apparently interests can be many and they excuse anything, helping stability in foreign countries seems to be a special US interest. So, sovereign countries are not responsible for their own inner stability? The US has to invervene, including dropping bombs on a foreign country by a US President's order without getting approval to do so from Congress, even if there is no emergency situation and no attack on the US territory. Oh and also, because the attack does only last a minute. Wow. Speechless. How long does it take to drop a nuclear bomb remotely? More than a minute?

Ok, I had no clue. I just wonder, if in the sixties the Russians had fired one missile from East Berlin into West Berlin and precisely would have targetted a US military base in Berlin, if those experts today would have argued, that of course the Russians could do that, no Russian would have lost his life, the attack lasted only a minute and almost didn't kill any German civilian. I bet you everybody would have argued like that, right?

Or the other way around, the US military would have dropped a missile into East Germany, because of that evil man Honecker, that despotic dictator. And no US soldier would have lost his life, the bomb drop would not last longer than a minute and other than a couple of Russian soldiers probably wouldn't have been killed. So, it's acceptable. The US President could do that, right, he had his "leeway", of course. Nothing bad happened. Just a minor number of casualties. Collateral damage.

Well, I can't help it. My brain is too small to understand those arguments and quite frankly, right now, they make me furious.

Just saying. I had to vent that out. I know which words I will never like again: "interests", "leeway" and "minuteman bombs". I think they drop down their load for sure under a minute. It even says so in the name.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 4:16pm

@Big Al

@Big Al

Exactly! It's all Psy-Ops, conning the law-abiding into 'obeying the law' which The Psychopaths/Parasites That Be consider themselves to be above, since they have been allowed to, so far. They can only get away with their incremental take-over and other abuses when the public allows them to, which is why PR - 'optics' - is all that matters to them.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by aliasalias on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 9:49pm

Glenn Greenwald tweeted THIS

@mimi
Things that sound insane in most countries: "We just shot dozens of Tomahawk missiles on them from our warships. It's not really 'war'"

so, I guess I have now understood what I was confused about on Friday responding to Ellen North diary
here and here and here.

I think Alligator Ed suggested that a vote against the AUMF, denying the authorization to go to war without Congress specifically allowing it through a vote for the AUMF, would never happen. So, therefore one shouldn't have a vote on it, therefore the petition by VoteVets to have an AUMF vote was bad, because the outcome is predictable and not the one we want to have. That reminds me of the attitude to never vote for a Third Party, because they can never win and will never have legislative influence through a vote for them. Yeah, why would you want to have a vote in that kind of democracy when you always know in advance that your vote doesn't mean shit.

Then I got confused if the US missile strike on the Syrian air force base was a violating international and US war laws. So, now I read the following in the link from from Politifact that
1.

Goldsmith said the president’s authority to use force without congressional approval had been extended to protect American persons and property abroad, but that rationale would not have applied to the attacks Obama contemplated (but never carried out).

The Trump administration, meanwhile, also invokes the Constitution (Article 2) in asserting that the president has the power to defend the U.S. national interest.

In this case, that interest is described as "promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens" -- which the Trump administration likened to the Obama administration’s justification for using force in Libya in 2011.

2.

Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.

But "having said that," Janda continued, the Constitution gives the president authority as commander in chief to use force to protect our national interests and War Powers Resolution gives the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies."

3.

Georgetown University professor Anthony Arend, whose specialties include international relations and constitutional law of U.S. foreign relations, also cited Article 2 of the Constitution and the president’s power as commander-in-chief. He told us:

"While the precise scope of this power is unclear, a strong argument can be made that the president can use force in short military operations -- especially where there is minimal risk to American lives -- without congressional authorization. Indeed, over the years, Congress has generally acquiesced in such presidential uses of force.

"Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president's action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution.

4.

Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.

Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that point.

oh boy, I had no clue. So, talk me down:
1. If an American goes abroad and his life seems to be "at risk" it's the US air force who can shoot down a missile on the country that American has gone in to, it's not the person's own responsibility to go to countries that seem to be "a little risky" to go as a tourist? Wow. Speechless.

2. So, can you help me define what is a war? It seems, if you drop a bomb from a missile remotely and no American gets killed, it's ok to drop that bomb. And because the missile is precise and bombs not the heck out of the target location, it's ok too. The President has the "leeway" to do so. Congress can just watch and roll their eyes? It's not a war activity. Wow. Speechless.

3. So, can you help me to define what is an American interest? Apparently interests can be many and they excuse anything, helping stability in foreign countries seems to be a special US interest. So, sovereign countries are not responsible for their own inner stability? The US has to invervene, including dropping bombs on a foreign country by a US President's order without getting approval to do so from Congress, even if there is no emergency situation and no attack on the US territory. Oh and also, because the attack does only last a minute. Wow. Speechless. How long does it take to drop a nuclear bomb remotely? More than a minute?

Ok, I had no clue. I just wonder, if in the sixties the Russians had fired one missile from East Berlin into West Berlin and precisely would have targetted a US military base in Berlin, if those experts today would have argued, that of course the Russians could do that, no Russian would have lost his life, the attack lasted only a minute and almost didn't kill any German civilian. I bet you everybody would have argued like that, right?

Or the other way around, the US military would have dropped a missile into East Germany, because of that evil man Honecker, that despotic dictator. And no US soldier would have lost his life, the bomb drop would not last longer than a minute and other than a couple of Russian soldiers probably wouldn't have been killed. So, it's acceptable. The US President could do that, right, he had his "leeway", of course. Nothing bad happened. Just a minor number of casualties. Collateral damage.

Well, I can't help it. My brain is too small to understand those arguments and quite frankly, right now, they make me furious.

Just saying. I had to vent that out. I know which words I will never like again: "interests", "leeway" and "minuteman bombs". I think they drop down their load for sure under a minute. It even says so in the name.

Submitted by mimi on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 1:21am

funny, no?

@aliasalias
their ships are called "war ships", but the things they do from those ships, shooting missiles on other sovereign nations, is not a "war activity".

May be they should call those ships now "peace ships". Or may be they could call their missiles "care packages" for the sake of "feeding the people" and prevent "starvation".

Well, I need to leave that mode of letting myself sink into sarcasm.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by dervish on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 2:42am

Well, they bomb people

@mimi for humanitarian reasons, so they claim.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 5:39am

Your wording and meme should be adopted by Deep State

@mimi openly and proudly for Peace, Justice and the American Way (and, by the way, the Oil).

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 10:33am

(No subject)

Sorry, as my students would say, "I mashed the wrong button"

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by dervish on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 2:43am

Kentucky? n/t

@Lookout

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Lookout on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 8:37am

no, it is worse

@dervish

Alabama

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 12:44pm

Hi Mimi

Good job of the Hedges post you brought up. 9 out of 10 planetarians would agree that the Americans are the most awful growth on the planet.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 2:28pm

Thanks for the timely and

Thanks for the timely and beautifully expressed essay and viewpoint.

We, the people of the world, have to understand that we are all in this together, against a relative few who've been spreading vastly destructive corruption and propaganda-vectored ideology using the very power and resources they've often stolen from us, the people of the world.

I hope that you will continue to bring this essential fact forward, because nobody will or can change this in time except for us. The people of the world.

Edited once my vision cleared enough to see that I had (surprise! lol) a typo. The petrochemical-requiring reno will be going on here for months and they keep suggesting more be done...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by shaharazade on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 9:35pm

Thank you mimi

my friend. I'm wandering around in despair these days. All this carnage and death seems to have sprung from 9/11 and the legislation that set this endless war in motion the AUFM. Then they cemented it with the Patriot Act. I love your essay you are a real humanist with an open mind that from your former profession quires in all the current corners the internet serves up.

I do not know what to say these days online. I'm not confused but astounded and overwhelmed by the story lines we are all presented with. Fake news or not I cannot fathom what is real and what is not. I do know that ordinary people in the Mid East are being subjected to death and destruction for some mad game that the powers that be have decided are necessary to.... do what? My mind cannot wrap itself around anything that excuses such crimes against humanity and the planet.

Why oh why is this going on? Money and viscious Power/Dominion. Why are humans globally accepting this insanity? Please do not worry or apologize ever for being German or your ancestors behavior and ability to stay alive. Your a real mensch. There seems to be no answer via politics here in the USA!USA!USA!. Still I think and hope that ordinary people like you and me can somehow stop this shit. Reading online is like the Tower of Babble wherein we get so many voices proclaiming to be the truth and yet...

I sure liked this essay and appreciate whatever you have to say. So I took your advise and have taken to hacking the bush in my yard. No killing, no deadly chemicals, just aiding nature the way we humans should. I do not care or fear these terrorists we use as an excuse to kill civilians. I do fear and care about what lengths the USA and it's transnational corporate sponsors are willing to go. It's way worse and scarier to me the any nation state or so called terrorists run amok. If only we humans could see beyond fear and loathing and get a grip on who and what are pulling these inhumane strings of death and destruction.

Submitted by mimi on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 1:40am

dear Shaharazade, your friendship radiates a warmth

@shaharazade @shaharazade @shaharazade
like a good 'ol German "Kachelofen" and reading it makes me want to have an "Apfelstrudel" and a good strong cup of black "Darjeeling Orange Pekoe Tea".

Isn't it amazing how much our verbal expressions online can heal and hurt so strongly? "Words have menaing" they say, but then words have not the meaning the people who use them claim so often. What a hassle...

Life is so complicated and my brain is tired. Yesterday I bought four fruit trees, an Italian prune tree, a Bartlett pear tree, a black sweet cherry tree and a yellow sweet "Eierpflaumen" tree. My silly hope is that one day my son will visit his grandmother's original garden, like I came to visit my mother's garden and just marvel about it and harvest some sweet fruits. Somewhere may be we have the urge to recreate paradise. So, I am working on that now. And you too, dear real "Mensch" friend. Thank You dear.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Mon, 04/10/2017 - 4:59pm

Exactly on that last paragraph

@shaharazade the truly scary ones are the war pigs, not supposed "terrorists" in Murka.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur