This journal has always taken the position against a military strike against Syria. There are humanitarian concerns such as dead civilians that will inevitably result. That has been our concern for the people of Syria. Our concern for the nation of Syria and the future of the nation state however has been our government’s assault on the sovereignty of another nation. It seems that every serious member of this national discussion that is in opposition of military strike proposes other options that further erode the national sovereignty of both sides, and I begin to wonder if that is their true aim.
This journal takes the position that the best course of action is to do nothing. We keep hearing that a strike on Syria would be in violation of “International Law”. Can anyone explain what this international law is? There are no international treaties signed by the United States that prohibit war on another country, and our people have never consented to be governed by any body, certainly not a foreign one, to govern them. We have consented to be governed by our Federal, State, County, and City governments, and those governments are only legitimate as long as they have our consent.
One of the main arguments against Assad’s government is that somehow his people have not consented to be governed by him. Those same people are proposing handing the crisis and right of governance and military action over to an international body to which neither the United States nor the Syrians have given consent.
To erode our sovereignty and hand power over to ANY body or leader outside this country and outside our constitution is an act of treason, and this journal is bold enough to call it out as such.
More to come shortly…..
The Right Honourable George Galloway gives a brilliant speech on war with Syria.
Our government asks us to remember the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 when we are screened and groped at the airport. They ask us to remember 9/11 when we follow procedure to get a bank account. They want us to remember 9/11 when they tell us they need to use warrantless searches and wiretaps and spy on our phone calls for “safety”. Today they ask us to forget 9/11 as they attempt to arm and support Al-Qaeda1 in Syria. This is not something we at Ary Global Foreign Policy Journal can do. We can not support dishonoring the sovereignty of another nation to aid a force singing praises of Osama bin Laden2 and slaughtering Christians3.
Remember this: While shuffling the names of men to blow up every morning on “Terror Tuesday”4 5 like a mad man, Barack Obama has a bust6 of Martin Luther King JR in his office watching what has been called the fruition of his dream and legacy.
We may only have days, or less before our country bombs Syria. Here at this journal, we have been concerned about this statement by General Wesley Clark for some time, and it is even more urgent now:
Contact your representatives in congress and demand they vote no on authorization for war.
1. Obama backed rebels name brigade Osama bin-Laden
2. Obama backed rebels celebrate 9/11
3. Obama funded rebels behead Christians
4. “Terror Tuesday” Drone Strikes
5. Out of Sight Out of Mind Interactive Drone Strike Map
6. Oval Office Bust of MLK
Obama funding rebels beheading Christians, using child soldiers
Obama backed rebels praise bin-Laden
FSA rebels name brigade Osama bin Laden
US-backed terrorists behead 40 Syrians including baby
It has come to the attention of this journal that several members of Congress believe that they should cede their authority to declare war to the Office of the President. They claim no philosophic high ground in taking this position, they merely make claims about the nature of the Executive Branch which have no legal substantiation. I charge that they do so willingly, and if not they should withdraw their remarks and explain themselves.
Peter Thomas King Representative for New York’s second congressional district has made the outrageous statement that President Obama is “abdicating his responsibility”1 on Syria and that he does not need congress to wage war. This outrageous statement is clearly incompatible with Article one2 of the US Constitution. Peter King should take a second look at the oath3 he is breaking if he continues attempting to abdicate legislative power which his constituents have given him on loan. Federalist number 694 among others makes this point even clearer:
“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
As we have said in this journal in the past, the legislature of this country, or any other branch of government for that matter, has neither the authority, nor any legitimate reason to cede power to any of the other co-equal branches of government. To attempt to do so would surrender the legitimacy of the government, violate the constitution and break their oath of office.
This journal will always be ready and willing to continue to explain basic American law and the meaning of the oath of office to those unwilling to honor their office.
1. Peter King on Syria
2. Article 1 of US Constitution
3. U.S.C. Title 5 Oath
4. Federalist No. 69