NO War on Syria: Violence Begets Violence!!!

Dear Friends,

The Great Plague of violence keeps our nation on its (spiritual) death spiral as President, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Obama continues the push toward war against Syria.  And we should be clear that this would be WAR!  Call it by any other name, and it still emits the awful stench of war.

While in Oslo, Sweden on September 4th the President (aka Decider II) was asked by a Swedish reporter if he could "describe the dilemma to being a Nobel Peace Prize winner and preparing to make war on Syria?”

The President gave the expected answer - first invoking his Nobel acceptance speech, saying that "what I also described [in that speech is the challenge all of us face, when we believe in peace but we confront a world that is full of violence.” Among other things the President said that he has "made every effort to... strengthen our commitment to multilateral action, to promote diplomacy as a solution to problems."

Where are these commitments to multilateral action and diplomacy???  Where is the commitment to working with the United Nations (as is required by international law and the Constitution) in this case? Where is the diplomacy with Syria?  Above all, where is a commitment to serious nonviolent conflict resolution?

Speaking of international law, Howard Friel wrote in Common Dreams on September 5th that:

The same law—international and constitutional—that applied to the U.S. war in Vietnam and the U.S. invasion of Iraq would apply to any congressional authorization of force in Syria by the United States. 

Like Vietnam and Iraq, Syria has not engaged in an “armed attack” against the United States, and has no military capability to do so. 

As in Vietnam and Iraq, the UN Security Council has not authorized the United States to engage in any use of force in Syria. 

Thus, a congressional authorization of military force in Syria would violate the UN Charter, and thus, as above, the U.S. Constitution.  

This would be the case even if the Obama administration’s claims about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government were accurate, although, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Iraqi WMD, there is no detailed or confirmed evidence to date about which entity in Syria used chemical weapons.

We The People of the United States of America must continue to say (and a vast majority of the people have said no to war on Syria) - NOT IN OUR NAME!!!  We must continue to pressure Congress (and the President) not to make war on Syria!  Let us continue to call, email, fax, get out in the streets and the offices of or members of Congress!  

Let us not rest until this madness is stopped. Let us stop the onslaught of the violence of war that will only unleash even more violence, much of which cannot be predicted (and much of it that can). Let us invoke NONVIOLENCE - the active nonviolent conflict resolution that has not even been discussed, let alone attempted, in the heat of the moment and its accusations and "red lines."

Violence will only beget more violence, and the blood of innocents will be on OUR hands.  This must not stand!  Towards peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution.

Leonard 

Some Relevant Reading on the Syrian crisis:

• Another War Is Not the Answer (Op-Ed by David Krieger, in truth-out.org)
• Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria (by Dennis Kucinich, in Common Dreams)
• Syria: Six Alternatives to Military Strikes (by Sarah van Gelder in YES! Magazine)
• How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria (truth-out.org)
• A war the Pentagon doesn’t want (Op-Ed by Robert Scales in the Washington Post)
• US military intervention in Syria would create 'unintended consequences' (in The Guardian)
• Are Chemical Weapons Reason Enough to Go to War? (A good primer on chemical weapons in Mother Jones)
• For Syria's sake, end Iran's isolation: Iranian support to help the west bring an end to the civil war in Syria would be beyond price (The Guardian)
• Chemical Weapons in Syria (Federation of American Scientists):  
• Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress, September 3, 2013 (Congressional Research Service)
• Syria's Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress, August 30, 2013 (Congressional Research Service)
• Syria: Overview of the Humanitarian Response, September 4, 2013

Attack Iran... Violate International Law... NO Kidding!!!

Well, it's about time!!!  AND, it didn't happen in the U.S.  NO, it's a safe bet that the U.S. Attorney General won't be finding that an attack on Iran (or any other country for that matter) just might violate international law.  But that's just what the British Attorney General has done. God Save the Queen!!!  Of course the news has been ringing in the hollowed halls of The White House, yet likely falling on deaf (and morally bankrupt) ears.  At least the UK government has, at last, stood up to the US.  And let us hope this will be just the beginning.

 Here is what Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament General Secretary, had to say about the news: 

 

"It is good news that the UK Government has both sought legal advice on the status of a pre-emptive military intervention in Iran, and is actually following it through. The Government has recognised that international law prohibits not only direct participation in such a strike, but also support or assistance to any state engaging in such unlawful actions. This is an important and laudable step. Indeed, the Government appears to have learned from the disaster of Iraq.

"The current tensions in the Middle East require diplomatic solutions. This is where the energy of our government must be focused. It must continue to reject developments that make a military conflict more likely, and work to ensure that the diplomatic process can operate and succeed." 

Click here to send an email thanking the United Kingdom's Attorney General for correctly interpreting international law and taking a stand for justice.
 

Here is the full story from The Guardian.

 

Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran, By Nick Hopkins, The Guardian, October 25, 2012

 

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law.

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers have so far reacted coolly. They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general's office which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent "a clear and present threat". Providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law, it states.

"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans."

Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request to the British government, and that they did not believe an acceleration towards conflict was imminent or more likely. The discussions so far had been to scope out the British position, they said.

"But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise."

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.

The navy has up to 10 ships in the region, including a nuclear-powered submarine. Its counter-mine vessels are on permanent rotation to help ensure that the strategically important shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

The Guardian has been told that a British military delegation with a strong navy contingent flew to US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, earlier this summer to run through a range of contingency plans with US planners.

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military action.

"It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand," said the source. "In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way."

British and US diplomats insisted that the two countries regarded a diplomatic solution as the priority. But this depends on the White House being able to restrain Israel, which is nervous that Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant will soon make its nuclear programme immune to any outside attempts to stop it.

Israel has a less developed strike capability and its window for action against Iran will close much more quickly than that of the US, explained another official. "The key to holding back Israel is Israeli confidence that the US will deal with Iran when the moment is right."

With diplomatic efforts stalled by the US presidential election campaign, a new push to resolve the crisis will begin in late November or December.

Six global powers will spearhead a drive which is likely to involve an offer to lift some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy in return for Tehran limiting its stockpile of enriched uranium.

The countries involved are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran will be represented by its chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "As we continue to make clear, the government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear issue. We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which military action would be legal. That would depend on the circumstances at the time."

The Foreign Office said it would not disclose whether the attorney general's advice has been sought on any specific issue.

A US state department official said: "The US and the UK co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types of conversations."
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that Iran's nuclear programme would reach Israel's "red line" by "next spring, at most by next summer", implying that Israel might then take military action in an attempt to destroy nuclear sites and set back the programme.

That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making uranium enriched to 20%, which would be much easier than uranium enriched to 5% to turn into weapons-grade material, should Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to abandon Iran's observance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention.

In August, the most senior US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, distanced himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran. He said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".

He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."

###

Postscript

Take Action; Tell President Obama and Congress - Don't Iraq Iran!!!

Mr. President: Law or Lawlessness???

Dedicated peace activist Brad Lyttle wrote the following letter to President Obama after hearing the most recent news of his unseemly, active pursuit of targeted killings.  Beyond the direct questions asked here, Brad asks an even deeper and fundamental question of not only Obama, but also of each and every one of us - If we do not stand against this reprehensible practice, what is to become of our collective spirit???  Is this not just one more step toward the abyss?  At what point is there no return?

*******************

June 1, 2012

President Barack Obama
The White Hosue
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

The recent article in the New York Times maintaining that you study and approve lists of people that the CIA and other “intelligence” services recommend for assassination, is deeply disturbing. The report reminds me of Lavrenti Beria’s practice of submitting “liquidation” lists to Stalin for his approval and signature. I hope that you are not approving the assassination of anyone. I do not see how such killings, completely outside of, “the rule of law,”can make the world a safer place.

Consider the situation in Chicago. Chicago has had a high violence level this spring. Just last weekend about 20 people were shot. Several died. Suppose that Chicago judges tried to reduce this violence level by studying lists of suspects submitted by the police, and then ordered that certain people be summarily executed. If judges did that, I do not think that what is left of civil society in Chicago would last long. To maintain civil society, it is always necessary to proceed against suspected criminals by means of due process. Everyone accused of a crime should have his or her day in court, the right to counsel, and a public and fair trial. That method of resolving conflicts is one characteristic of a democratic, workable, society.

I believe that you should do everything that you can to create and strengthen international processes for resolving conflicts that at least suggest the rule of law rather than the rule of arbitrary violence. Two days ago, the Special Court of Sierra Leone sentenced Charles Taylor to 50 yeas in prison for crimes against the people of Liberia. That is a step in the right direction. Shouldn’t we try to bring those we regard as terrorists to trial in U.N. sponsored international courts, rather than assassinating or summarily imprisoning them? If the United Nations had just put Taylor in prison for 50 years without giving him his “day in court,” would we be closer to peace and more secure?

The condition of war tends to obliterate all processes of justice. World War II may have begun with national leaders proclaiming limits to their use of violence. Almost all stated their opposition to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. However, before the war ended, there do not seem to have been any restraints in regard to the use of violence on the part of anyone. Nazi Germany was operating extermination centers like Treblinka and Auschwitz. The U.S. fire bombed Dresden, Tokyo, and other Axis cities, and annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs. The bombings were justified on the grounds that they hastened the end of war, but had dreadful implications for everyone. Thousands of hydrogen bombs are now aimed at cities. No national leader maintains that civilians are illegitimate targets. This is not progress in security and civilization.

The “War on Terror” contains the danger of a similar “progression.” It may have begun with the assumption that we would not torture and assassinate people, but we now find ourselves doing these things. We may kill many of our enemies, but we can’t kill all of them, and what kind of world society results from such activity? It is a society where there is no “law,” only the power to kill that can be used arbitrarily by anyone who has the means. The President of the United States should take the lead in trying to create a world society based on law and justice, not arbitrary violence.

Sincerely,

Bradford Lyttle
Chicago, IL