U.S. enters Syrian civil war without Congressional approval

http://www.blacklistednews.com/U.S._enters_Syrian_civil_war_without_Congressional_approval/38143/0/38/38/Y/M.html

U.S. enters Syrian civil war without Congressional approval

September 23, 2014

Source: Police State USA

Launching of a U.S. ship-based missile. (Source: U.S. Navy / Patrick Grieco)
Last night, at the sole discretion of President Barack Obama, the United States officially entered the Syrian civil war and launched attacks in that sovereign nation. The president had neither obtained authorization from the U.S. Congress, nor permission from the Syrian state’s current government.
The offensive, launched in secret on , included a mix of fighter jets and bomber aircraft, accompanied by a barrage of ship-launched Tomahawk missiles, confirmed Pentagon press secretary John Kirby.
Military commanders intended to strike as many as 20 targets in the operation, primarily belonging to the Islamic State group, or “ISIS.” The U.S. began attacking that group on August 8th, 2014 — but in Iraq, not Syria.
While the U.S. Congress recently voted to provide armaments to Syrian rebels, it did not vote for direct military strikes. Nonetheless, President Obama acted without reservation and said he would not hesitate to commit more attacks in the future.
“It’s irresponsible and immoral that instead of debating and voting on war, congressional leaders chose to recess Congress for nearly two months,” said Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI), following the breaking news of the offensive. “ISIS is evil, but that fact alone doesn’t give the president authority to launch offensive strikes in Syria or Iraq. Under our Constitution, it is the responsibility of Congress to commence war.”
“Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid should immediately call Congress back into session,” Rep. Amash added.
The president’s actions represent a glaring case of hypocrisy when compared to his own stance taken while campaigning for the office of president. According to him, before being elected, it would be illegal to launch an attack without Congressional approval.
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” said Obama in 2007.
It appears that President Obama has either changed his mind, or perhaps has been coerced by some external influence. His actions put him squarely in line with a number of other U.S. presidents that have ignored the law and acted unilaterally.

The constitution is clear regarding the requirement of Congressional approval before the President can make war. Americans that tolerate this usurpation of power do so at their own peril, as the presidency becomes more imperious, particularly when it comes to ending thousands of lives using the military.

I thought McCain was drooling for this.  I'll tell you...the "O"  may not have 'official' approval, but everybody seems in on everything anyway these days.  Usually they'll overlook anything for a little
moola, or a lotta moola.

BUT, here's what I'm thinking.  What if this whole move against Syria (you remember Kerry and that classic line I can't remember anymore about the little bitty strike-wouldn't hardly kill too many at all, kind of deal?
WHAT IF..reorganization of Syria is part of Israel's prerequisite for signing the peace plan.
That's either incredibly right on, or so far out in left field it's headed for the moon.

After 6 years of access to NSA's data there isn't a politician to be found he can't either ruin or badly damage even if indirectly. And like Snowden said, he had HOPE for CHANGE but to his naive dismay the spooking BECAME MUCH WORSE, and the layers of staff with access diversified. If they're using the IRS, the EPA, the BLM, the trademark office (Redskins), the DOJ, and EVERY OTHER federal agency against their political enemies or to shake corporations down for money, only a fool would think their hand isn't in the ultimate cookie jar down at no such agency.

The aforementioned is why this is a Spiritual issue. There aren't enough morally upright people in government to mount an opposition to this tyrant.

Good one.  Blackmail.  Now, no opinion on the Peace Process angle?

Dove wrote:

Good one.  Blackmail.  Now, no opinion on the Peace Process angle?

Exhibit A:

"The Obamacare Supreme Court ruling seemed strange. Chief Justice John Roberts’ reasoning was incoherent. The conservative’s dissent read like it was originally meant to be a majority opinion."

“I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the court’s deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down…the individual mandate,” said Crawford on CBS’Face the Nation. “But Roberts, I’m told by my sources, changed his views, deciding to instead join with the liberals."

So he took the time to write a lengthy legal opinion regarding why they were voting down obombercare, changed his mind after writing the court's opinion for reasons unknown, and then only half arsed changed his legal brief for the world to see to make himself look like an incoherent idiot?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/

I think cutting Syria up sounds very plausible. If isis gets their paws on a dirty bomb or worse it also renders Damascus uninhabitable and makes redrawing the borders easier as well.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-attacks-syria-flouts-constitution-and-international-law.html

Obama Attacks Syria, Flouts Constitution and International Law

Daniel McAdams
Lew Rockwell Blog
September 24, 2014

The Obama Administration has initiated a bomb and land-based missile attack against Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, without a request for assistance from the Syrian government, and without a UN Security Council resolution.

This is an act of US aggression against a foreign nation and a violation of international law.

The attacks were also made with no declaration of war or authorization from the US Congress. This is an illegal act according to US law, a violation of the US Constitution.

The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force against perpetrators of 9/11 attacks could not be legally valid for Obama’s attacks on ISIS in Syria because ISIS is not part of al-Qaeda and in fact did not exist at the time of the 2001 attacks.

Ostensibly, today’s attacks on Syria are part of the US president’s plan to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), however the “international coalition” participating in today’s airstrikes in Syria – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan — have all to varying degrees supported ISIS and other radical groups seeking to overthrow Syrian president Bashir al-Assad. Additionally most are despotic states every bit as authoritarian and theocratic as ISIS itself.

Even France, which enthusiastically participated in the 2011 bombing attacks on Libya, has refused to participate in the US air war against Syria.

There is no legal justification for the US government to attack Syria. A request for US bombs on its own country by US-backed opposition seeking to overthrow the Syria government is not legally sufficient to legalize US actions on Syrian territory.

   A d v e r t i s e m e n t

On the pretext of destroying ISIS, the US is cooperating with the Gulf states which have backed ISIS, and is acting against the Syrian government which has fought ISIS for three years. US mainstream scare media will not touch this critical point, but that is the lie of US government propaganda.

This is an illegal war. Next step boots on the ground.

Related posts:

   Israel Attacks Syria — Again!
   Syria fighting rages, more chemical attacks reported
   Obama Believes Following Constitution Counterproductive to Syria Attack Plan
   Peace President Plots War on Syria
   Obama Ignores Congress Again to Launch Syria Attack With No Legal Basis

This article was posted: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 5:55 am