Jonathan Martin & Allison Kopicki, "Poll Shows Obama Approval Rating Matching Two-Year Low," The New York Times, September 26, 2013, p. A17.
The size of the text in this essay has been altered by New Jersey hackers as part of the censorship and harassment effort I struggle against.
September 10, 2013 at 11:09 A.M. The decision to refrain from attacks in Syria in exchange for a promise (without a time-line as of this writing) that Syria will turn over chemical weapons to the "international community" at some undefined future point is a win for diplomacy, for Russia and Mr. Putin, for the regime of international law, and a defeat for American unilateralism.
I find it difficult to trust any of the parties involved beyond the minimum necessary for peaceful interaction, including the so-called "rebels" in Syria, who certainly are less than boy scouts.
During an interview with Dianne (America's "Lady Di") Sawyer, Mr. Obama indicated that he was willing to accept this "way out." Did Mr. Obama paint himself into a corner in this crisis from which Mr. Kerry and Mr. Putin have managed to extricate him? You decide.
Michael Wines, "Proudly Patriotic but Skeptical On Syrian Attacks," The New York Times, September 6, 2013, p. A1. (Domestic opinion in the U.S. is against the strikes.)
Jodi Rudhoren, "Israel Backs Limited Strikes," The New York Times, September 6, 2013, p. A1. ("Let them kill each other," the Israeli Ambassador said in response to question about Syria.)
N. Pericotle, et als., "N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy On the Web," The New York Times, September 6, 2013, p. A1. (Encryption may no longer protect U.S. commercial transactions and communications. This will discourage foreign investment in the U.S. economy while further promoting the flow of capital to China and Asia in general.)
Peter Baker & Steven Lee Myers, "Obama Falls Short On Wider Backing for Syria Attacks," The New York Times, September 7, 2013, p. A1. (Low point for the Obama administration.)
Steven Erlanger, "A Weapon Seen as Too Horrible Even in War," The New York Times, September 7, 2013, p. A1. ("There is no nice way to kill people," Norman Schwartzkopf said. Drones?)
Simon Romero, "Obama Tries to Soothe Brazil and Mexico Over Spying Reports," The New York Times, September 7, 2013, p. A4. (International litigation will proceed.)
Declan Walsh & Ismail Khan, "U.S. Drone Strike Kills 6 in Pakistan, Feeding Anger," The New York Times, September 7, 2013, p. A10. (Continuing anger and protests in Pakistan over U.S. drone killings of CIVILIANS spreading to Yemen and Afghanistan.)
Charlie Savage, "President Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Crisis: Obama Parts With Past," The New York Times, September 9, 2013, p. A1. (U.S. "hegemony" tested in Syria.)
Anne Barnard, "On Both Sides, Syrians Make Pleas to U.S. -- Lobbying Via E-Mail and Social Media," The New York Times, September 9, 2013, p. A1. (Fear of "indiscriminate killings" by U.S. through the use of missiles and drones.)
Azam Ahmed & Sharifullah Sahak, "Drone and Taliban Attacks Hit CIVILIANS, Afghans Say," The New York Times, September 9, 2013, p. A7. (More civilians killed by U.S. drone weapons and, allegedly, Taliban bombings. "Crimes Against Humanity"?)
September 9, 2013 at 5:34 P.M. I experienced new obstructions at my home Internet connection when I struggled to sign-in to these blogs. Earlier the size of the lettering in this essay was altered by hackers from New Jersey. I will do my best to repair the harm done to my text. A number of continuing pop-ups and harassments make it uncertain whether I will be able to sign-in again in order to continue writing. I will struggle to write from some location in the city, every day.
September 9, 2013 at 1:06 P.M. I experienced difficulties accessing the blogger dashboard from NYPL computers, possibly as payback for my previous post on the part of Trenton officials at the OAE. Shame on you, Mr. McGill? Cyber-crime, theft, official lying and cover-ups may violate the rules of ethics for the legal profession -- even in New Jersey -- despite the fact that an attorney works for the Garden State's disgraced legal ethics establishment. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The events surrounding the use of chemical weapons in Syria have left many of us puzzled by President Obama's strategy. First, Mr. Obama declared that a "red line" had been crossed by Mr. Assad and his regime in using chemical weapons that are deemed "violations of all international norms."
We have been told that the use of such weapons constitutes a "crime against humanity" requiring a response, initially, from the United States of America, since it was Mr. Obama's so-called "red line" that had been breached, but also (eventually) from the entire global community.
Torture is also a "crime against humanity" under international law. Yet U.S. lawyers have argued that U.S. tortures at Guantanamo are legally permissible. ("America's Torture Lawyers" and "American Doctors and Torture.")
The Russians immediately demurred and declined our invitation to join in a "limited strike" (defined as a missile attack from a safe distance that allows us to kill many Syrians without having our people killed) on the grounds that this "move" was a ploy to enhance American influence in the region and serve Israeli interests, but also because it could not be established whether Mr. Assad (or the so-called rebels) were truly responsible for this atrocity.
It is a popular theory among some intelligence agencies in the world that the rebels, wishing to draw in the international community (meaning us), used these chemical weapons with the cooperation of some of their people who have "penetrated" the regime's ranks.
It cannot be denied that the case against Mr. Assad did not exactly benefit from "unfortunate" incidents occurring immediately after the initial chemical mass murder: 1) an incendiary bomb was dropped on a crowded schoolyard within the rebel-held territory by our "gallant allies"; and 2) a number of prisoners, who had clearly been tortured, were "summarily" executed when bullets were fired into their skulls by the "noble opposition" in Syria.
These incidents occurred, again, as Mr. Obama was arguing for a rescue effort to destroy Mr. Assad's military superiority and allow the rebels " a level playing field." Civil war is not football, Mr. Obama, no "playing field" is at issue here.
Second, Mr. Obama -- after having the navy get all dressed-up with nowhere to go -- decided to retreat from his initial position and "consult" not only Congress (where Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives and do not agree with the president on the day of the week), but also the international community at the G-20 meeting hosted by, you guessed it, Mr. Putin, who is now sure that Mr. Obama has taken leave of his senses. ("Obama Says Torture is a Secret.")
President Obama received a token and pro-forma statement at the G-20 session, without ANY action accompanying the declaration, to the effect that the nations of the world "deplore" the use of chemical weapons, whoever may have used them, and calling on all nations to REFRAIN from using military force except in accordance with international law as per the UN Charter: 1) only in response to a direct attack against a nation; and/or 2) pursuant to a military violation of territorial integrity or under the terms of a military alliance; NATO qualifies as such an alliance because Turkey was attacked by Mr. Assad, briefly; and 3) also pursuant to a determination by the UN Security Council that military action is necessary.
Since the UN Inspectors' Report has not yet been issued, there is no official determination of blame in the matter of use of chemical weapons. Hence, any US action at this time would be illegal.
Bob Menendez had long since declared that he was "for" a limited strike without waiting for the UN Inspectors' Report and without expecting that he would be the Chairman of the Senate Committee that would be consulted on the issue of whether a strike would be appropriate. This is a matter decided by Senator Menendez BEFORE hearing any evidence or testimony on the record in a dispute where his vote must be based on such a record. ("Is Senator Menendez 'For' Human Rights?")
A "limited" strike would not produce "limited" deaths. Real people would really die and remain dead. Unhappily, this time the deaths would be "caused by" U.S. missiles. Images of this new atrocity would be all over the Internet. Global protests would certainly follow. ("America's Drone Murders" and "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System.")
Mr. Obama's red line has been crossed. Mr. Assad has become something of a "hero" in the Middle East for resisting American hegemony. Even the British will not join in our military efforts (also at this time) because they are a tad miffed about being lied to about Iraq and Afghanistan. The French have been made to look idiotic because they showed up for our shared fight and nothing happened. As a result, Mr. Holland is being criticized as an "American lackey."
Mr. Obama may wish to give Mr. Assad a "bloody nose," as our British cousins say, and only then invite the world's opinions. Generally, global populations tend to support a use of force -- once it has taken place -- especially if we were lucky enough to actually nail Mr. Assad with one of our friendly missiles.
The credibility of the American presidency has been tarnished by Mr. Obama's "Hamlet-like" hesitation. N.J.'s courts lost their credibility some time ago. All is not lost, however, much can still be done to save the day.
Mr. Obama looks bewildered and ineffective. I say this as someone who voted for Mr. Obama and who wishes him to succeed in his efforts. The federal government will run out of money in five weeks unless something is done; the recovery has stagnated; military resources need to be replenished. Please think carefully about your next step, Mr. President. (Officially, according to the Congressional Budget Office, October 17, 2013 is the day the federal government runs out of money.)
Finally, over one hundred persons died in this Syrian chemical attack. More than 3,000 innocent persons have been killed by American drone bombs, including 6 "collateral victims" only days ago, but this is not a matter that generates humanitarian concern in the White House. Hypocrisy?
