Syria Doesn't Want America's Bombing

Syrian Rebels Don't Want America's “Neutral” Bombings (updated 9/4/13)

Obama says that his attacks will be in opposition to the Syrian government's use of gas weapons, but will not be pro-Assad or pro-rebels. Here is what the Koran has to say about actions such as that:

“I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot!
So, because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.” -- Qur'an 41.51.

Syrians don't trust our government in general, and they don't trust Obama in particular. They feel that he has sided with Israel over Arab nations in the past, including Syria, and continues to do so. During his campaign in 2008, Obama made promises that brought Syrians hope. He called for new policies in dealing with the Middle East. However, he readily backed down from his earlier demands for an end to increased Israeli settlements on Palestinian land Instead of bringing the two sides together, he drove an even bigger wedge between them, and made himself a person whose word cannot be trusted. They now see him as someone who says what appeals to people, but actually acts based upon what his advisors tell him to do.

Syrians probably scoffed when Obama said in a recent speech that America has a "moral responsibility" to punish the Syrian government or military for gas weapons against civilians, which has caused somewhere between 1,000 and 1,800 deaths, depending upon the source. Where was our “moral responsibility” when Assad forces killed more than 100,000 people, leaving more than six million Syrians homeless, and more than two million refugees fleeing for their lives? In essence, they see America's message to the Syrian regime as, “It is okay to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians by ground attack, air attack, and Scud missiles, just as long as you don't use gas on the population. What kind of stand is that?

Obama also accused Assad as being in violation of “international norms” as a basis for his bombing. What kind of contorted justification is this? Norms are nothing more than expected modes of behavior based upon prior actions or agreements. They have no legal status. And, even it they did, who gave us the right to police international norms, and take action whenever a country deviates from them, as perceived by us?

And, what if we don't bomb Syria after the Obama-defined red line has been crossed? Our government seems to be afraid that we will be viewed as being weak in the eyes of the rest of the world, solely on the basis of not following up on the threats of its ill-advised leader. Who cares about appearances, when it comes to saving lives? The rest of the world certainly knows that we still have the biggest and most powerful armaments in the entire world which is a lot more than people's opinions. Besides, if our government were truly interested in our image, we would never have invade Iraq – probably the greatest military blunder in this country's history. If we came clean with an admission that the red line was a mistake, I think the world would view us in a much better light than following through with a violent reaction.

So, what should we do? Very simply, we should openly support the rebels in any way possible, short of any direct military involvement. If our government is so concerned about our global image,

that would probably greatly improve our image in the eyes of the rebels and other nations throughout the world (except Russia). This could, and probably should, be our response to the Assad' regime's use of gas (if they really did), rather than promising more bloodshed and tears for the Syrian people. If we do intervene with bombs, then Russia might feel it's “moral responsibility” is to defend Syria by attacking our country in return, and then where would we be – the beginning of the Third World War?

An Alternative Action. If our country's leaders believe that a show of force is truly necessary, why sacrifice human lives to prove that point? Why not pick some isolated targets away from any cities or otherwise populated areas and annihilate them? That could be interpreted as a warning shot across the bow of a ship. It should be adequate warning to Assad and his supporters that we mean business. If they are blind to these implications and continuing to conduct business as usual, then we could supply the rebels with the means not just to counter the Assad regime, but to overthrow it.

Focus on Our Government -- Not on Snowden

What to Look for from Our Government and the News

Watch Out for Diversionary Tactics. Why is so much attention being directed at Edward Snowden? Is he really a traitor – an enemy of the State? Why is he being castigated by massive numbers of Republicans and Democrats in Congress and members of the present administration for his recent actions? The answer is simple. It is to divert attention away from the very thing Snowden has protested – our government's malfeasance and disregard for the Constitutional rights of our citizens. As long as they can keep Snowden in the headlines, and as long as they can keep the conversation fixed on him, they can keep themselves and their own misdeeds out of sight.

Don't Believe Everything You Hear. Most of what we have heard from government officials and spokespeople has been very carefully worded to make things revealed by Snowden are more devastating that the really are. They say that the safety and security of our people has been compromised by the release of secret information. Here are just a few examples:

Rep. Mike Rogers Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee warned “It’s dangerous to our national security and it violates the oath that person took.”

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, claimed, “The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk.”

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, complained that recent leaks could "render great damage to our intelligence capabilities." In addition, when asked whether or not the NSA collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” He responded, “No, sir. Not wittingly.” He has since admitted that his testimony was “the least untrue” statement he could make, whatever that means. But, regardless, it means that he was lying to Congress and the American people under oath and should be charged with perjury.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, recently stated, “Leaks of classified information that cause harm to our national security interests are a problem, a serious problem …”

But, where's the damage? This litany of fault-finding and blame permeates much of our federal government. However, nobody has yet described in a meaningful way just what damage has been done other than to embarrass our government and its elected representatives.

Jay Carney Went a Step Further. He added “... and they’re classified for a reason…” He is absolutely right in this statement. They are classified for a reason – and that reason is to hide the government's actions in a cloud of secrecy from the American people, not our enemies. Our enemies most likely already know about our spying on their citizens because they are most likely doing the same to us. So, when our government wants to do something that is illegal or not in the best interests of our country and its people, all they have to do is just classify it as top secret, to prevent the public from knowing what they are really doing.

Privacy Compromised Without Consent. Our government's secret acts of espionage were conducted without the knowledge and consent of the people whose privacy was invaded. We, the people, had no say in the matter. Our government took it upon themselves to determine for us which rights are important to us and what are not. We were not consulted. They made those decisions on their own in privacy and cloaked them in secrecy to keep them from learning about them under penalty of imprisonment. The American people have a right to know when and why their privacy is being invaded. Our freedoms are being eroded, our Constitutional rights are being trampled, and our government is destroying our democracy. America is becoming a surveillance state and, in certain circumstances, takes on the demeanor of a police state. The lack of oversight and protection against the potential misuse of data collected is a severe indictment of both previous and present administrations, as well as Congress itself.

Bush's Bad Behavior. In 2005, George Bush admitted publicly that he had ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally-required court-approved warrants – an impeachable offense -- but Congress chose not to pursue that route, which lets us know just how important our freedom and rights are to them. At least, the United States Supreme Court did step in. They ruled that the President does not have that kind of power within the Constitution. Bush had the power to protect the nation, but his surveillance actions went beyond that.

How Things Have Changed. Our present government is doing some of the same things on an even broader scale, but with the tacit approval of the feckless Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a body set up specifically to provide oversight for foreign intelligence surveillance, to approve or disallow the issuance of warrants, and whose rulings and opinions are kept top secret.

About the FISC. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court consists of eleven judges. Three of them are in Washington, D.C., and the other eight are spread out in eight different states across the county. Appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with no apparent review, oversight, or approval process for these appointments. Oddly enough, the four most populous states (California, Texas, New York and Florida), which have 1/3 of the country's population, do not have any representation on this court. California alone has a greater population that the bottom 21 states added together, but that's beside the point.

The Express Lane for Surveillance Warrants. Whenever the administration wants a warrant, it contacts one of the eleven judges – frequently, if not usually, by phone – and presents its case to them. It is entirely a one-sided presentation representing the administration's best interests, with no legal counsel to represent the other side. And the administration cannot always be relied upon to make an accurate presentation of facts. At one point, the Court charged that the FBI and Justice Department officials had submitted “erroneous” information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps.

Rubber Stamped Warrants. In most cases, the one judge makes the determination, not the entire “court.” And here's the shocker: Out of 33,949 requests for warrants in the Court's history, only 11 have been declined. That has given credence to the claim by Russell Tice, a former NSA analyst, who said "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp." To indicate that this body maintains credible oversight over the issuing of surveillance warrants is somewhats laughable. My personal perception is that the FISC is a court in name only, and that it functions more to streamline the process of securing warrants than evaluating their purpose and value relative to the rights of the people.

The FISC Has Lower Standards. Keep in mind that the FISC operates at a lower standard of scrutiny than a “real” court.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, a warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. However, the FISC does not abide by this Constitutional stipulation, Instead, it makes its rulings based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, regardless of whether or not the target is suspected of actually engaging in any criminal activity.

However, if the target is a "U.S. person,” the FISC judge has to find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met:

(1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which may or may not involve a criminal law violation;

(2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power under the direction of an intelligence network and his (or her) activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations;

(3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or

(4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in at least one of the above ways. (Source:Electronic Privacy Information Center)

Please note that a recurrent keyword in each of these conditions is “knowingly.” How many of the hundreds of millions of people caught up in the tide of communications surveillance in the U.S. are likely to fit any of these descriptions? And yet, these hundreds of millions are being forced to give up totally private or sensitive information about themselves without their knowledge or informed consent. This could include privileged communication between lawyers and their clients, or doctors and their patients, as well as various other types of very personal information.

The Final Question. Now that I have stated my case, I present this final question to the reader: Which is more reprehensible:

– a huge government apparatus that breaks (or stretches) the law, tramples on the
    rights of millions, and covers it up with a blanket of secrecy, or
 – one private citizen who broke his oath of silence and risked his entire future to 
    expose clandestine actions that could be harmful to the public?

Or, to put it another way:


Which is worse?

A secret surveillance program,
     with secret submissions
          to a secret court,  
               for secret data searches 
                    of secret targets,
                         with secret (rubber-stamp) rulings,  
                              secret justification for the rulings, and  
                                   subsequent secret actions  
                                        that violate our Constitutional rights?

Or . . .

Breaking an oath of secrecy
     by revealing those secret practices
          that violate our Constitutional rights?

We are now living in a high-level surveillance state.
          What's next -- a police state?

Restoring the American Dream - Part I

           CITIZENS IN ACTION CAN DEFEAT GOVERNMENT INACTION

“I remain just one thing, and one thing only – and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician.” – Charlie Chaplin

The “Occupy” Movement. This movement has been active since September 17, 2011 . It was formed to bring attention to the fact that there are strong financial ties and mutual support between Wall Street and Congress that have contributed to some gross inequality, inequity, and iniquity. They drew attention to their cause by establishing encampments in cities across the country. Support comes not just from New York, but from all over the country and all over the globe. These are the cries of the weak, the needy, the down-trodden, the unfortunate, the disenfranchised, and of people of principle who unite with them in their struggle, not just for equality, but for survival.

“If you ask the government for permission to protest it, you deserve to be told no." – Jim Lesczynski, Manhattan Libertarian Party Chair

The Grievances. There are massive numbers of problems that beset our country and it people today, The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators outlined 21 major grievances, and even then noted that the list was not all-inclusive. With a little more thought, that list could easily have numbered 100 or more.

"Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past, while we silence the rebels of the present." – Henry Steele Commager

"During the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy … “My G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy. " – David Stockman, (former Director of Ronald Reagan's Office of Management and Budget)

The Over-Riding Point. The most important sentence in this Occupy Wall Street document sums up all the frustration and suffering that the people of our country have been forced to endure. It states,

“No true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic interests. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” – Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

Four key words in this statement are “corporations ... run our governments.” This is especially true at the federal and state levels. The bottom line is: All of the other issues spring from this one root problem.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Big Money Drives Politics. Politicians need huge amounts of money to campaign for public office. Corporations (and the financial elite) need strong support in our legislative branches to ensure that their wealth will be protected and will continue to grow. The money brokers thereby become power brokers, helping to finance the campaigns of candidates who will protect the power elite's interests in return.

"A relatively small number of deep-pocketed donors exerted an outsize influence on Tuesday's [election] results," – Michael Luo/Griff Palmer, New York Times (11/3/10). "The big corporations are going to try to get what they paid for. – Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President, New York Times (11/3/10).

Money can't buy you love . . . but it can frequently buy you an elective office. Typically, in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time. Most of this money comes from wealthy donors who expect something in return. And, whenever politicians accept huge monetary donations from deep-pocket sources, they are likely to feel indebted to do something for them in return, to ensure that those same sources will contribute again in future elections. Because money plays an undue role in how politicians are elected, it also plays an undue role in how they act. Even Glenn Beck agrees.

“Wall Street owns our government. Our government and these gigantic corporations have merged.” – Glenn Beck, New York Times (9/19/09)

How Many Millionaires Does It Take to Take Control of the Politics of a Whole State? In the October 10, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported how one conservative millionaire did exactly that. In North Carolina, a swing state that is expected to be important in the 2012 elections, one millionaire bankrolled the campaigns of 22 conservative candidates for the state legislature. Eighteen of them were successful, giving majority status to the Republicans in both houses of the state legislature for the first time since 1870.

“For an individual to have so much power is frightening. The government of North Carolina is for sale.” – Chris Heagarty, Democratic candidate for the North Carolina legislature in the New York Times (10/10/11)

Money talks, and politicians listen . . . and they respond in kind to the benefit of corporations and the wealthy.. Was it just a coincidence that three of the five top corporate donors to the candidacy of Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Citigroup Inc.) were all among the top ten financial firms to be bailed out, to the tune of $80 billion? That amount of money could have provided from $25,000 to $50,000 for 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners to escape foreclosure and potential family ruin. The big three donors were seen as being “too big to fail,” but 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners, individually or collectively, were apparently not “too big to fail.” Let's face it. Big money owns Big Business, and Big Business owns the government (at both the federal and state levels).

If you are a major contributor and go to Washington, you might have a chance to have lunch with a senator or representative; or if you are a really big contributor, you might even end up at the White House. The closest chance you or I have at having lunch at the White House is buying a hot dog from the vendor on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the building. – Marc A Triebwasser, How Corporations Influence the Government (1998 )

Congress Members' Loyalties Once elected, members of Congress frequently ignore the people whom they are elected to represent. Their first priority is to get reelected. Their second allegiance is to their political parties. Third comes their financial backers. Then come their supporters – the people who voted for them, followed as a distant fifth the people in their district who did not vote for them,. And, dead last, come the needs and welfare of our country and all of its people.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation. — James Freeman Clarke (1810–1888), Unitarian clergyman, writer

So, when Congress members say that they are going to consult with their constituencies, it isn't necessarily the people in their representational district to whom they are referring. They are just as likely to be conferring with their financial backers and lobbyists. When they do meet with their true constituency, it is just as likely that they will be trying to convince them on his or her stand of an issue rather than soliciting their input on the subject. A Congress member's constituency should be all of the people in the country. Next, it is supposed to be the voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer. However, it doesn't always turn out that way. Here is a more realistic way of how many Congress members view their constituencies

Wall Street's Views of the OWS Protest. With regard to the Occupy Wall Street movement, one Wall Street money manager recently expressed disappointment that their New York Congress members had not “come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns.” He stated, “They need to understand who their constituency is.” He is saying, in effect, “To hell with the people; we are the ones they really represent.” Unfortunately, there is a great deal of truth to that premise.

"We've got government to the highest bidder. We've got auction block democracy. It's not true that each voter counts for one and only one; that's the way it's supposed to be in a democracy. Money determines who gets to run for office, how people run for office, it determines what people do while in office and the fact of the matter is the vast majority of people are cut out of the loop." – Senator Paul Wellstone (1992)

Continue to Part II