The President’s statement of rejection harkens back to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Cherokee Indian nation whereby President Andrew Jackson expressly disobeyed the court, displaced the native american indians and sent them to the concentration camps, also know as Indian reservations. This has been a national disgrace and cause for great national mourning until this day. President Obama can simply ignore the Federal Circuit Court and go forward and it would be up to the House of Representatives to introduce a bill of impeachment because of Obama’s actions. This bill of impeachment, which is an indictment or accusation, would be sent to the Senate for the trial of the President for usurpation of power and illegal action by abrogation of power not granted to him by the Constitution.
Tag: Gates
Is Gates Gone Because Like McChrystal he Disagreed With Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html?_r=2&hp
Gates seemed to part of the Obama Administration for the long-term. At first he was merely the silent carry over from the Bush administration. His continuation was a surprise because he was the CIA man during “waterboarding” and he was Secretary of Defense after Donald Rumsfeld. That made him a participant in what the Obama administration has blamed for the wrong war, (Iraq) and the wrong methods “waterboarding’. However, this writer was glad because Mr. Obama had denounced both and claimed that he would call all American troops home by 2009 and that he would prosecute CIA personnel as criminals and he would enter more fully into the “right” war which he defined as Afghanistan. However right Mr. Obama’s ideas may have seemed to the millions who elected him, they were worrisome to the Military, the Intelligence Community and to the other millions who did not vote for Barrack Hussein Obama. So when Gates decided to stay on as the Secretary of Defense and the Obama people allowed him, many felt relieved that sense and sanity would prevail over political ideology.
However, with the recent support of the Obama Administration for what they call the Arab Spring, the USA witnessed the reality and complexity of a duplicitous White House. Some review first:
Please remember that Obama went to Egypt and the whole Mid East as one of the very first things he did as President. During that 2009 trip the President called upon the Arab world to embrace a whole new concept of Freedom, and democracy. It was a call to revolution. It was a speech addressed to the Arab World and just recently a later installment of that call was made by Obama in his speech for a Israeli return to 1967 borders.
This blogger has no inside information concerning any USA aid to revolutionary groups within the mid eastern counties and I have no insider information concerning CIA and other clandestine support for rebel groups inside those counties.
However, response to a new US President and the ideas of the “Audacity of Hope” concepts put forth by the Obama government seem to be linked with organized and well equipped rebellions within the target nations. The central planned and unified command structures of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and Syria and Libya are all too obvious- namely, the same issues for the street campaigns, the same signage, the same titles for each of the escalating days of “reckoning” “justice” “”rage” etc themes which indicated central planning and unified organization and funding instead of spontaneous and locally inspired discontent. These factors indicate revolutionaries from outside the targeted countries who were provocateurs inciting street rebellions.
Then we get Tunisia which government easily collapses. Then Egypt which also easily falls. But Libya and Syria seem to linger. The weaker of the two and the one with the most oil is Libya so we see the charade of humanitarian assistance at the end of 218 cruise missiles and two thousand five hundred bombing raids. We see the farce of UN sanctioned mandates for civilian protection which is quickly used as a coverup for violent illegal aggression against the armed forces of the legal Libyan government in support of the rag-tag rebellion army.
Suddenly Secretary Gates appears before Congress with a sour faced Admiral Mullen next to him as Gates declares his opposition to the “war” in Libya. And just as suddenly we hear of Gates being replaced by an old politically trusted hack named Leon Paneta and the CIA job going to General Patraeus whose strategy in Afghanistan is failing. Could it be that Paneta’s new job is to bring the military into line politically with the Obama idea of the “New World Order” and to bring the CIA into that same orbit. (Interesting that Obama is also bringing McChrystal back as some kind of picture boy to be paraded around indicating additional military support for the Obama agenda?! Sad to see such a really great General reduced to a political puppet. But then again, when Obama shuts a person out, like he did McChrystal, the punishment is severely enforced until the person being punished begs for mercy.)
What About Sarkozy?
A while back I read in the Daily Beast about the French guy Sarkozy. It seems like he wanted to have a sweet heart deal with Gaddalfi but he was rejected by the Libyan leader. As I remember the article the writer claimed that Sarkozy was set to do several things with the proposed deal. He was going to set up very good business deals for the French companies and at the same time get their money and support for him to stay on as President of France. But when Gaddafi nixed the deal, that was a shambles. So Sarkozy supposedly decided to get even and use the naiveté of Barrack Obama and the newness of Cameron to get revenge on Gaddafi. However, the Russians, who were big business partners with Gaddafi for oil and weapons, were thought likely to intervene. Sarkozy then convinced Obama to use Hilary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates to convince Menvedev to back down. They succeeded and the Russians did not veto the criminal oil war. Old war hound Putin realized at once the double cross when the Brits and the French attempted to obliterate the Libyan government under the pretext of protecting civilians. (Obama is still falling for that line according to his joint British press conference with Cameron. Or Obama is so enmeshed in the political deceit of the Libyan aggression that he will not confess he was wrong. Does Obama ever think he was wrong? Probably he does but he never admits it to anyone preferring to slaughter innocent Libyans under the guise of humanitarian aid delivered by cruise missiles.) However, Menvedev is running for political survival in Russia and used his Presidential authority and powerful Russian backers to stopper Putin. At this point I wonder as to the rest of the behind the scenes story? Do any of my readers have further information they can share about the politically vicious Zarkozy, or maybe even contrary evidence to exonerate the French war monger? Please post and share your information and insights into this oil war against the Libyan people.
USA Not “AT WAR” with Libya!
This is a key issue, no doubt, but an even more serious issue is that President Obama and the Obama administration are carrying out an illegal war in Libya. I deal with this issue on my Word Press blog, “progressive politics” where I have expansive coverage. In essence, the Obama administration did not come to congress when they volunteered to breech the sovereignty of a Sovereign Nation. Libya is recognized around the world as a legal State in the community of nations. It does not matter to the international community that Libyan leader Gaddafi is the “head of the revolution”, which is his self styled moniker. Rather, as recently as last week, the international community recognized the right of the government in Tripoli to appoint ambassadors. The case I am speaking of occurred in Stockholm. The Swedish ambassador from Libya sided with the ragtag rebels against the central government of Libya. The Libyan government under Gaddafi sent a replacement. The Swedish government recognized the replacement and disenfranchised the rebel ambassador. Why does this mean anything? Because it recognizes the present government of Libya as the legal government of Libya. So, now on to the USA, France and Britain. Under the guise of resolution 1973 from the United Nations, the Obama administration has declared “Regime Change” as its’ official policy when President Obama stated that “Gaddafi must go”. Then under the cover of the U. N. resolution 1973 to “…use all means to protect civilians in Libya”, the USA, France and Britain decided that the rebels were civilians and needed to be protected, while the uniformed legal army, navy and air force of Libya were “agents of the dictator” and therefore were to be attacked and destroyed using NATO military power. Then using brutal military force the NATO partners invaded the air space of Libya, bombed its cities, attacked it army, civil governent and killed it’s civilians. All of this under the guise of delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Libya. Since when is humanitarian aid delivered on the tip of 212 cruise missiles? Since it’s inception, this invasion has been a war without a declaration of war. Many bloggers claim that the United Nations resolution 1973 allowing nations to use “…all necessary force” against Gaddafi is legal for USA forces. Not so, the Congress must approve such expenditure of USA military power on foreign adventures against a sovereign nation that has neither attacked us, nor our embassy, nor held our people hostage. Other bloggers have stated that Gaddafi is a legal target since he is the head of state of a nation with which we are at war. However, the USA is not at war with Libya since only the Congress of the USA has the constitutional power to declare war. Yet others, have said that under the understanding of war crimes coming out of WW II and the Nuremberg Trials, plus the Geneva Conventions, and the USA Rule of Land Warfare manuals, USA forces are allowed to attack, destroy and render inoperative the military, civil and legal forces of a nation with which we are at war. However, we are NOT at legal war with Libya. Therefore, I submit that the whole operation of the USA against the internationally recognized government of Libya, (a member nation of the United Nations) is inherently illegal according to USA law,( no Congressional Declaration of War); according to UN law, (which declares that the military forces of members states will not be used to overthrow the governments of other member states), according to the Nuremberg Trials that declared that the military and civil leaders of Germany were criminal aggressors because they invaded another nation (Poland) under the pretense of attack (Russia too?) and according to the USA Rule of Land Warfare that recognizes that a Nation State that is not in a declared war with another Nation State and nonetheless unilaterally and with itself NOT being attacked, attacks, is a criminal aggressor!
Next American Boots on the Ground in Libya
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110420/wl_nm/us_libya_gaddafi_2 So when we read this article we realize the following:
1. We should never have attacked the independent Nation of Libya.
2. The State department is in favor of American boots on the ground in Libya.
3. There is administration plan to get the UN and not the USA Congress to approve our use of American soldiers as “boots on the ground in Libya”
4. Obama CIA advisor says in this article that the USA must be part of a boots on the ground effort to oust Gaddafi from power in Libya and that this CIA advisor thinks it will easy and then we can merely and simply hand off the occupation of Libya to Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia.
5. Key to all of this will war hawk Senator McCain warmongering among the House and Senate Hawks to get into a ground war in Libya.
Please write your congress person and Senator opposing Boots on the ground in Libya.
Peace in Libya Possible
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110413/ap_on_go_ot/uc_us_libya
It will take courage for the Obama Administration to admit error. This writer does not think that the President has it in him. But there is always hope.
The war in Libya can be stopped. How? Obama just needs to order it to be stopped. It really is that simple. Since the US Congress has been diverted onto the Budget issues, Obama has been given a pass on the illegality of the continued war, and he has been given a free hand in continuing the war. That is really bad, and a shame. But there is a war and we need to face it. Secondly, a lot of innocent civilians ARE being killed by NATO and USA aggression. Thirdly, a lot of loyal Libyan government troops are being slaughtered by A-10 American anti personnel Gattling guns. Fourthly, enormous destruction of the buildings, infrastructure and operational government of Libya has been caused by “sightless” bombing of NATO and USA. Come on folks! We all know that humanitarian aid is not delivered by Cruise missiles.
The French and The British tried to fool the USA into thinking that Libya was in a state of civil war against Gaddafi. They further tried to topple the Libyan government by using the ruse of humanitarian support for beleaguered civilians. The early days of UN sanctioned support have given way to lesser USA support and a worldwide rejection of the British and French lies. The Libyan people were not in general uprising against their government. The rebel army was a motley crew of ragtag insurrectionists, disgruntled former army officers, and Al Qaida operatives. The Libya government was not crumbling under the leadership of a maniacal dictator and the army of Libya remained loyal to the government. Therefore, the Brits and the French want to INCREASE ground attacks against Libyan Army personnel and equipment in order thereby to topple the government, cripple Libyan domestic organization, create general hardship and disruption of security and to install an unknown, untried, and disorganized array of anti Gaddafi leaders, all of whom had previously fled the nation and were living comfortably in France and Britain while the good people of Libya tried to cooperate with the government and through processes of consistent and loyal opposition to the regime gain concessions and internal improvements to the lives of the ordinary Libyan citizen. These efforts were recognized by both the Bush (43) and Obama administrations who sent high level diplomats to Tripoli and by a process of identifying past wrongs, (Lockerbie) the payment and the acceptance of the money payments as restitution for Lockerbie, and pledges of greater cooperation with the West and promises of increased democratic freedoms in Libya, they achieved significant progress toward promises of measured democratic freedom in Libya. Now, by a process of criminal aggression, the Western European Nations, backed by a naive and inexperienced President, have destroyed not only all improvement, but because of their own diabolical attempt at a new capitalist colonial imperialism in Libya, have ignited fears throughout the region that they will attack other nations and destroy them as well. President Obama is right to stay in a support role and should be bolder. He should withdraw support for attacks against Libyan government forces because it is obvious that the general population is not in rebellion against the government. Secondly, President Obama should respond through formal diplomatic channels to the Libyan government. He should assure them of public and formal and not back channel diplomatic engagement. Thirdly, the President should repudiate the “Gaddafi must go” statement and give assurances that the USA is not a party to regime change imposed by aggressive former colonial and imperialist nations. The USA should show sincerity by the withdrawal of all special forces personnel, trainers of the rebels, secret CIA agents, and clandestine USA fighters from Libya. Fourthly, embassy should be made to the Tripoli government with promises that build on the three points above, to include money payments by US oil interests for the rebuilding of the destroyed security and infrastructure of Libya in return for free and fair access to Libyan oil deposits. In return, the Libyan government will agree to a gradual, guaranteed, long term process of democratization of Libya in cooperation with USA ambassadorial presence. The future efforts will be overseen by joint commissions of Libyan government and American diplomatic personnel. This bold and courageous action by the Obama administration is imperative, if we are to stop being international terrorists ourselves.
NATO Aggression Against Libya A Crime.
The NATO forces are brutal aggressors against the Government of Libya. The blatant attacks against the tanks and army of the central government of Libya are criminal aggression as defined by the international Geneva Convention. The Geneva Conventions were agreed to after WWII and clearly state that the armed forces of one nation which attack the armed forces of another nation without a Declaration of War are Criminal Aggressors. The Nuremberg Trials that convicted the Nazi and the Fascists after WWII clearly state that Criminal aggression is a War Crime. No NATO nation was attacked by Libyan government forces. No embassy of a NATO country was attacked. So the attacks on Libyan government tanks, personnel carriers, and ground forces are an unprovoked attack of a terrorist nature. Additionally the Law of War which is the legal manual used by USA forces concerning the legality of offensive actions, states that it is legally wrong to violate the legal borders of a sovereign State without provocation. The Arab nations and the world have good reason to decry and denounce the French, English and Belgium forces that are carrying out these attacks. Remember that all three countries have a dark history of colonial imperialism and especially France and Belgium have a history of rapine murder and slaughter of civilians in Africa. By their own statements and policy the NATO forces are siding with a rebellion against the Libyan central government. This makes the NATO forces provocateurs, partisans, and terrorists. Write your congress person to demand a stop to this war of criminal aggression in Libya. No one can claim that humanitarian aid is being delivered by bombs, Gatling guns, missiles and the like. These things are only deliver death and destruction.
Why are the Russians Silent?
In the days before the UN resolution authorizing the no fly zone in Libya, the Russian Foreign minister stated that if the USA pursued the no fly zone concept as regards Libya, the Russians would veto it in the Security Council. Instead, the Russians merely abstained. However, soon after the NATO aggression against Libya began, Putin stated that the attacks against Libya were barbaric and reminiscent of the Crusades. However, the President of Russia disagreed and Putin shut up. It is noteworthy that Secretary Gates visited Russia before the UN resolution. It is frightening to think that the world may need to depend upon Russia and a veto in the UN Security Council for protection of the rights of sovereign States. After all, it was the Russians who after WW II were the criminal aggressors against Poland, Czech, etc. All during those terrible Cold War years the USA constantly invoked the concept of the Sovereign Nation State in order to counter the criminal occupation of the Eastern Block nations. However, now the USA under Obama’s New World Order ideas, is the aggressor and maybe occupier of another sovereign nation! Russia has murmured on the side lines since Putin was forced to shut up. However, the future of the free world may depend upon a former communist dictatorship and not in the USA. It seems like the Pres. and the Admin. are willing to bomb and destroy the armed forces of another country all the while declaring that the bombs and cruise missiles and other brutal military weapons are the agents of peace and harmony protecting the so called civilians from bad bad Gaddafi.
Will Libyan Rebels Kill Civilian Gaddafi Supporters?
As the USA continues it massive bombing, strafing and missile attacks against Gaddafi, the question rises, “Will the rebels just leave the thousands of Gaddafi supporters alone, or will they attack and kill them? This is a real problem because we already know that fighting has happened between the rebels and civilians supporters of Gaddafi. So, when the genocide begins and the rebels start rounding up the tribe of Gaddafi, (please remember that this is a tribal society) imprisoning them and or just slaughtering them, what will the USA do? This issue was raised in the TV news reports today March 31st, and the response of the administration was that then we would attack the rebels! Really! How do we excuse that? Add to this the ridiculous statement made on March 31st by Sec. Gates that any future Sec. Defense that advised in favor of a land war in Africa or Asia should have his head examined. Really! I seem to remember that Gates was 100 % in favor of the invasion (air) and war against (missiles) in Libya. Is this his honesty showing up, a day late and a dollar short?
Progressive Politics 