Brand Obama recently sent up a trial balloon regarding bombing inside Syria... to see the reaction of the U.S. public. This type of thing is done often by sitting politicians. Even in dictatorships, but especially in a soft Fascist State such as the USA (where we still have considerable freedoms), public opinion does matter. The DC Cronies, mostly via the Corporate Media, put forth an idea that is illegal and unconstitutional to see if the "meddlesome outsiders", the "bewildered herd", the "ignorant masses" (that's you and me) will raise any sort of objection or protest.
There appears to be little or no doubt that ISIS members are vicious, brutal fanatics. But that's not the issue regarding attacking inside Syria. The issue is this:
what are the permitted and Constitutional uses of the U.S. military? So-called Conservatives (which now means NeoCons) and so-called "Liberals" (which now means Moderate Republicans) in our Fed Gov't apparently believe that the phrase "Commander-in-Chief" means that the President can do whatever he pleases with our Armed Forces. They also appear to believe that the War Powers Act
trumps the Constitution. None of that is true.
What is being proposed relative to Syria is somewhat similar to Nixon's illegal and secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam Conflict. [It was first called a "Conflict" by the DC Cronies because they knew that the Constitution required a Declaration of War...which they hadn't bothered with, just as with the Korean "Conflict".] The primary difference with Obama's Syrian proposal (trial balloon) is that it's not SECRET. Oligarchs don't much feel the need for a lot of secrecy anymore [there are many exceptions to that] because they figure that the "bewildered herd" (that's us) is so thoroughly propagandized and distracted that secrecy mostly is no longer needed...in some subject areas.
Let's be clear:
bombing, attacking, shooting missiles into another country without a Declaration of War by the Congress is illegal and unconstitutional. Anyone who can read and has an IQ of at least 100 knows that... unless they are so propagandized by the Oligarchy that they no longer can think critically. It doesn't matter how vicious the enemy is, it doesn't matter that the President is Commander-in-Chief. What matters is: what are the requirements and limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution? They are stated CLEARLY in the document. Parts of it are long-winded, but it's written with clarity.
It appears that both Liberals AND NeoCons have adopted the belief that the Constitution must be adapted to modern times...
without the use of Amendments. We'll just read into it what we must in order to conform to modern-day life. That belief is not only tragic, but downright comical as well. There is no such provision in the Constitution. To change it, it must be formally amended or completely re-written. No other ways are permitted. It also appears that both Liberals AND NeoCons do not understand that our Gov't is one of Enumerated Powers (Google it).
I, of course, am convinced that all the DC Cronies (the Gang of 535) know better. They understand the limitations imposed by the Supreme Law of the Land on the Fed Gov't perfectly well. They simply ignore those limitations...
and get away with it. Because of that, the U.S. Fed Gov't (at the highest levels)
has become the largest terrorist operation in the world. You don't think so? Perhaps you should ask Pakistan, a country which is not at war with the USA but one where Hellfire missiles are fired from U.S. drones at SUSPECTS. Or perhaps you should ask the Gazans, civilians who were bombed by U.S. equipment (stamped "Israel" on the side, or something similar). Your tax dollars helped kill about 500 children just recently. Perhaps you should ask Sunni civilians in Iraq? Perhaps you should ask the democratically elected governments around the world that were overthrown by covert U.S. help. [Just prior to Allende being overthrown on 9-11-73, Kissinger told Nixon (two crazy people in a conference) that Chile---because it had elected Allende---was "a virus that could spread throughout Latin America". The coup was then engineered.] Perhaps you should ask the countries that were placed under "sanction" by the U.S. Gov't, in some cases resulting in the deaths of children. Madeline Albright once essentially stated that "it [punishing Iraq with sanctions] was worth the price" [the death of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq]. Killing children, either directly or indirectly, is terrorism in my book.
ISIS was founded as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the years-long occupation by the U.S., and the so-called "collateral damage" inflicted upon Iraqis. Whenever
we do such things, it's not terrorism...but when they do it, it is terrorism. Hypocrisy. According to all our Presidents, other countries must abide by International Law; but our Gov't has exempted itself time and again from any prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Finally, ISIS is a threat primarily to other Muslims, especially Shiites; the only reason it threatened the USA is because we attacked them FIRST (with the start of America's Third Iraq War a short while ago).
It would be great if Americans would deflate Obama's Syrian trial balloon.
Be Well
