Political Writing - Must the U.S. Congress Approve International Attacks?

According to CNN and Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to allow U.N. teams to access chemical weapons sites. The civilian attack near Damascus on August 21 prompted the urgency for the investigation, and since then, tensions have increased across the U.S. concerning our prospective role in the conflict. President Obama has sought authorization from Congress to initiate international military action in the name of foreign policy.

As I follow media reports regarding the Syrian conflict and U.S. intervention, I continuously read posts from commenters asking: “Does the President need to gain Congress approval to launch an international attack?” In response, the public is divided. Some American citizens believe that President Obama must have Congress approval, while other disagree but feel that Congress approval will be helpful.

The media has perpetuated the idea that President Obama does not have the authority, nor the backing by government officials, to involve U.S. troops in conflicts abroad. For example, headliners across reporting agencies include CBC News: Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns; MSNBC: UN suggests American attack on Syria would be illegal; and Aljazeera: Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and dangerous contradict other headliners such as RT: Obama asserts right to strike Syria without congressional approval; New American: Ex-Defense Chiefs Say Obama Can Strike Syria Without OK from Congress; and Fox News: Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval.

Such reporting platforms have misled the public by demonstrating varying understandings of U.S. regulations pertaining to international threat and potential war. The purpose of this week's blog is to clarify facts from misconceptions of foreign affairs and the President's authority to call for U.S. intervention in Syria. Although the President needs Congress approval to declare war, history has also shown that the government can misuse the term “war” to fulfill an agenda.

Below is a video excerpt of Former President Bill Clinton's retort on the matter.

Facts:

Clinton, himself, initiated a strike December 1998 along with Great Britain, against Saddam Hussein in response to chemical weapons stockpiles. He did not go to Congress for authorization or approval to commence Operation Desert Fox. Clinton further elaborates in the video that there has been an international pact (Geneva Protocol) against chemical weapons dating back from World War I, nearly a hundred years ago. Therefore, President Obama is not required to gain Congress approval, although their authorization for intervention would serve as support for the President.

Geneva Protocol Brief Overview:

• Prohibits the use of chemical weapons in warfare
• Prohibits the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons
• Provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under universally applied international control
• Ensures a credible, transparent regime to verify the destruction of chemical weapons; to prevent their re-emergence in any member State; to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons; to encourage international cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry
• Calls for cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and is regulated by the relationship agreement between both organizations adopted by the General Assembly in September 2001

Related Readings

CNN

CBS News

Fox News Insider

Articles of Interest

CNN – The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.

Political Writing - U.S. Questions Red Line for Syria

In August 2012, President Obama made a nationally observed speech regarding the U.S. tolerance for, or lack thereof, chemical weapons use in Syria. CNN, Fox News, and other news mediums broadcasted that the President had set a red line for Syria if chemical weapons begin to move or be utilized in Syria. Both mediums explained that to Congress, U.S. Officials, and Americans this meant the U.S. military would intervene once authorized by the Senate.

Earlier this week, the President was interviewed again about his intentions on enforcing that red line. His response left some Americans to question his stance and his credibility.  But did the President actually set a red line? If so, is he turning a blind eye to the Syrian conflict and there use of chemical warfare by retracting what was “speculated” by the public after his 2012 speech?

Facts:

Obama, August 20, 2012: I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

… We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

Obama, September 4: First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act — that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of the chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.

***

Although the President did not specifically say We or I Have Set a Red Line..., his 2012 speech indicated that U.S. military action would ensue if there was threat of chemical weapons use in Syria. The President's carefully dictated words lead to assumptions made by officials and the American people. Moreover, those words and lack of action have caused citizens and international enemies to devalue his credibility and the United States' authority as a superpower. 

In previous posts, I wrote about the media portraying biases in reporting practices, misrepresenting information, and inappropriately persuading the public with one-sided facts in accordance to their own agendas. However, the situation here is a prime example of what occurs when the informational source, in turn, distract the media and the public through word play and demeanor. It seems that we, the public, must continuously question every facet of reporting, including statements that come straight from the horse’s mouth.

Political Writing - Americans’ Perspectives of ObamaCare (interview)

As year-end approaches, more opinions surface regarding America’s health care system reformation under the ObamaCare plan, formerly “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective in 2014. According to the United States Census Bureau, more than 46 million U.S. citizens are without health insurance and the ObamaCare plan will work to ensure affordable coverage for middle to low-income individuals and families.

ObamaCare Highlights

Prohibits:

Disapproval for pre-existing conditions

Coverage termination for illnesses

Out-of-pocket overcharges

Offers:

The Exchange

Tax credits/low-cost coverage

Public health insurance option

The Washington Post conducted a poll indicating that after the law passed in 2010, 74% of moderate and conservative Democrats backed the reformation. However, a recent survey suggests only 46% continue to support the plan, an 11-point decline since mid-2012. Liberal Democrats stand at high levels of support at 78%.

Kimberly Strassel with the Wall Street Journal explains:

Democrats for three years have comforted themselves with the thought that 2014 would be the year they broke free of the ObamaCare night sweats…Once the law was up and running, Americans would wake up to its benefits. Or so they believed. Instead, it is Democrats who are waking up – to a horror film. Every morning brings fresh news of terror: missing deadlines, programs running out of money, premiums set to soar, flailing technical implementation.”

Americans, too, have decreasing support of ObamaCare. The Washington Post cites, 42% support and 49% oppose, retreating from 47% apiece last July. Americans across Dallas/FT. Worth explain their positions.

Jeannine Batiste, 43 of Pleasant Grove, Tx, stated: “My daddy was diagnosed with cancer about five years ago. He didn’t have insurance. He couldn’t afford it. He did get on state aide, which didn’t help much though. But maybe with ObamaCare, he’d still be alive today. She supports the plan and hopes no other Americans would have to live her story.

Alicia Gomez, 19, awaited her next class at the University of Texas at Arlington and agreed to share reasons she supports ObamaCare. “My parents have a traditional marriage – mom raises four children and dad works as a mechanic. They tried to apply for Medicaid, but our household income is above the qualifying amount. Insurance is too expensive for all of us, so we just do without and pray to St. Anthony that we all stay healthy.”

Patrick Duncan, 27, intervened, “Why should the government dictate my expenses? If I decide not to pay for coverage, that should be my choice, not the President’s. Americans shouldn’t be forced to enroll in insurance if we don’t want to.”

Adult student Cedric Odom, 35, worried about long-term effects of low premiums, co-pays, and tax credits. Odom considered issues argued by Republicans and Democrats. “Where will financial resources for this plan come from over the next few years? Will this put America in debt or considerably increase our taxes?” Odom asked. He, as many Americans, is apprehensive and undecided about the effectiveness and logic of ObamaCare.

Katrina Espinosa, 31, sat in an over-crowded waiting area at Bluitt Flowers Clinic to receive the Depo-Provera contraceptive. Espinosa informed, “I have a family already, great husband and two beautiful kids. But after my second pregnancy, I started having female issues. These shots help a lot, but I pay almost $100 monthly. If ObamaCare helps with that cost, then I am for it.” Espinosa continues wading through ObamaCare information and potential impact on her family’s lives.

Clifford Heglar, 69, sat patiently in a wheelchair for nurses to call his name. Heglar had lost both legs due to diabetes. Yet, he took a nonchalant approach to ObamaCare, saying that he does not know much. His needs are met through Medicare and Disability programs, and ObamaCare seems irrelevant to his situation.

Of six persons surveyed, three supported ObamaCare, one opposed, one was undecided, and one did not formally vote. However, more perspectives are expected to emerge during upcoming months.

Political Writing - Is the U.S. supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?

President Obama has received support and opposition from all sides - Republicans, Democrats, Americans, and international officials and citizens - since announcing his stance on the United States' potential role in the Syrian conflict. Many question his objective for interference as well as the impact on American lives. The media, particularly Fox News and CNN, permitted representatives to speak either for or against the President's position, as depicted in the videos below.

Fox News

Senator Rand Paul (R), believes that if the U.S. goes into Syria on the side of rebels, we, in fact would be supporting Al-Qaeda. He had even been cited to consider delay voting on the matter by implementing a filibuster. 

Senator Paul states that he believe the President has attempted to prove he can go beyond the law and take matters into his own hands, outside the realms of what the Constitution allows. This video depicts the President, his position on U.S. interference in Syria, and international authority as hazardous to Americans. 

Chris Wallace of Fox News seems to be in agreement, asking few questions to deter from Senator Paul's summation. They both allude to all rebels being members of Al-Qaeda.

CNN

Secretary of State John Kerry (D) and Former National Security Adviser Stephan Hadley believes that not all rebels are part of Al-Qaeda and supports U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict on some levels. There are many core groups that are Democrat-linked and the U.S. can and should be working with them during the conflict, according to Hadley. 

Again, John Berman of ABC News did not press Hadley on his perspective, similarly to the Fox News interview conducted by Chris Wallace. Berman and Hadley illustrated the President's decision as being a sound one; however, they did possess an underlying tone of not agreeing with sending troops in Syria and U.S. involvement should be more diplomatic. 

***

The agenda on behalf of Fox News and CNN is to only rely particular information to the public in support of their own initiatives. Fox News portray the President as incompetent overall, as well as his position on the level of U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict as a push to exhibit powering beyond his intended scope. Yet, CNN backs the President's political measures rather than his methods, per se, and upholds his level of authority. Amid their differences, both reporting mediums agree the fact remains that President Obama and Congress will execute military or diplomatic action. They also concur that some rebel groups are part of Al-Qaeda.

Either way in my opinion, both agendas must be scrutinized by the public. We must conduct a comparative analysis to weed through facts and assumptions to make more informed verdicts on international affairs affecting American politics and our communities. 

Please comment on this post and respond to the related poll below (the poll closes 10/27/2013 and will be deleted once votes are tallied).

Political Writing - Congress Divided: Syrian Plan in Question

After more than two years of fighting, Syrians have turned their conflict toward one another during the quest for territory and power. Civil war has erupted, and citizens are experiencing high unemployment rates, significantly declining currency values, decreasing human rights, detriment to the health care infrastructure, and impending vehement backlash from its government, which has led to over 100,000 deaths.

Foreign forces stand on high-alert, for the Syrian violence is spilling into neighboring lands. International administrations have been carefully monitoring Syria and even cautioned their populace on the dangers of traveling there. Western nations, among others, are considering intervening in the crisis due to its impact on innocent Syrians and potential effects on international affairs. Syrian officials responded to this notion with threats of chemical weapons attack.   

The U.S. notes that the Syrian government has already initiated a chemical assault in the Damascus suburbs, killing more than 1,429 people, including 426 children August 21. Additionally, Doctors Without Borders treated 3,600 patients with “neurotoxic symptoms” shortly after the attack. This strike further demonstrates the Syrian regime’s merciless intentions.

The Pakistani Taliban (TTP) plans to establish a command and control center in Syria, and August 31, President Obama announced that he will seek Congress approval to send in U.S. military forces as a preemptive measure for war. Thus far, plan supporters of the President’s plan believes it will send a message to Syria that chemical attacks will not be tolerated. Opponents feel more diplomatic methods should be set in motion to avoid further oversees conflict. Either way, trouble lies ahead.

Informational Map and related articles

***

Fox News versus CNN Politics (political ticker) and Fourwinds10

Fox News states, “The president and his aides are sending out conflicting messages.” On the one hand, CNN Politics (political ticker) reports that President Obama indicates that he would not strike until Congress approves. However, Fourwinds10 writes about multiple signs indicating President Obama has already taken a stance on the matter.

Four U.S. warships with ballistic missiles are already moving into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in order to bring Tomahawk cruise missiles down inside Syria, if necessary. F-16 fighter jets were also placed in but not removed out of Jordan, per request of Jordanian government officials, earlier this year, with claims that this action was due largely to facilitate military exercises. (See Fourwinds10's 5 Signs That Obama has Already Made the Decision to go to War with Syria.) 

It appears U.S. citizens are receiving conflicting information from our government regarding the military's level of involvement, as well as overall intent. American citizens, such as myself, would likely rather be informed on the government's truthful status in the Syrian civil war, along with corresponding information from the news segments, to remain aware of potential effects on the enlisted, our economic affairs, resources and so forth. In this instance, TRUST is of high importance concerning the United State's position and media reporting to ensure citizens are educated appropriately on matters impacting our communities and our nation.

Please comment on this post and include insight on how U.S. interference may affect our nation as well as our communities. Also, please view the video on Obama's seeks military action in Syria and respond to the related poll below (the poll closes 09/12/2013 and will be deleted once votes are tallied).

 

Poll results are in:

 

Should the U.S. interfere with the Syrian conflict?

Yes = 33%

No = 33%

Undecided = 33%