 Peace with Justice |
|||||||
|
Rep. Rothfus: Military Action not Appropriate
Rothfus: U.S. shouldn’t rush into Syrian fight
Keith Rothfus
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 7:05 pm | Updated: 8:08 pm, Sat Aug 31, 2013.
By BRUCE SIWY Daily American Sunday Editor bruces@dailyamerican.com | 1 comment
Posted on August 31, 2013
Keith Rothfus said he believes the response to war crimes in Syria shouldn’t necessarily include cruise missiles.
The U.S. congressman, R-Sewickley, was in Somerset on Friday, where he discussed conflict in the Middle East and a variety of other topics.
Like millions of others in America and across the world, Rothfus said he’s simply waiting for more information and details from President Barack Obama.
“U.S. military action I don’t think is appropriate at this time,” the first-term representative said. “You need to ask, What is the objective of military action, and you need to ask, What is the likely outcome of military action?
“We’re waiting to hear what further thoughts (Obama is) giving to the situation over there.”
Syria is in the midst of a civil war that has endured for more than 30 months and, according to United Nations estimates, has claimed the lives of more than 100,000. Obama and U.S. Defense Secretary John Kerry said Friday that they have evidence that the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad is responsible for using chemical weapons on civilians in spite of international warnings.
Continue reading Rep. Rothfus: Military Action not Appropriate
‘Evidence’ of Syrian Gas Attack Fraudulent
How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
Tuesday, 03 September 2013 09:05 By Gareth Porter, Truthout |
In a White House handout photo, President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 31, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House via The New York Times)
Secretary of State John Kerry assured the public that the Obama administration’s summary of the intelligence on which it is basing the case for military action to punish the Assad regime for an alleged use of chemical weapons was put together with an acute awareness of the fiasco of the 2002 Iraq WMD intelligence estimate.
Nevertheless, the unclassified summary of the intelligence assessment made public August 30, 2013, utilizes misleading language evocative of the infamous Iraq estimate’s deceptive phrasing. The summary cites signals, geospatial and human source intelligence that purportedly show that the Syrian government prepared, carried out and “confirmed” a chemical weapons attack on August 21. And it claims visual evidence “consistent with” a nerve gas attack.
But a careful examination of those claims reveals a series of convolutedly worded characterizations of the intelligence that don’t really mean what they appear to say at first glance.
The document displays multiple indications that the integrity of the assessment process was seriously compromised by using language that distorted the intelligence in ways that would justify an attack on Syria.
Spinning the Secret Intelligence
That pattern was particularly clear in the case of the intelligence gathered by covert means. The summary claims, “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”
That seems to indicate that U.S. intelligence intercepted such communiations. But former British Ambassador Craig Murray has pointed out on his blog August 31 that the Mount Troodos listening post in Cyprus is used by British and U.S. intelligence to monitor “all radio, satellite and microwave traffic across the Middle East … ” and that “almost all landline telephone communications in this region is routed through microwave links at some stage [and] picked up on Troodos.”
All intelligence picked by the Troodos listening post is shared between the U.S. and British intelligence, Murray wrote, but no commmunictions such as the ones described in the U.S. intelligence summary were shared with the British Joint Intelligence Organisation. Murray said a personal contact in U.S. intelligence had told him the reason was that the purported intercept came from the Israelis. The Israeli origin of the intelligence was reported in the U.S. press as well, because an Israeli source apparently leaked it to a German magazine.
The clumsy attempt to pass off intelligence claimed dubiously by the Israelis as a U.S. intercept raises a major question about the integrity of the entire document. The Israelis have an interest in promoting a U.S. attack on Syria, and the authenticity of the alleged intercept cannot be assumed. Murray believes that it is fraudulent.
Catholic Bishops to Congress: Vote No on Bombing
USCCB asks Catholics to urge Congress vote against military intervention in Syria
Thomas Reese | Sep. 3, 2013 NCR Today
The United States Conference of Catholics Bishops has asked Catholics to urge Congress “to vote against a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria. Instead, ask them to support U.S. leadership, in collaboration with the international community, for an immediate ceasefire in Syria and serious, inclusive negotiations for peace.”
In an “Action Alert,” the conference asks Catholics to tell their representatives and senators:
As Congress debates a resolution authorizing military force in Syria, I urge the Senator/Representative instead to support U.S. leadership for peace.
Both the Holy See and Conference of Bishops have condemned the chemical attack, but remain convinced that only dialogue can save lives and bring about peace in Syria.
Preview our Ministries special section, which is only available if you subscribe to our print newspaper or Kindle edition.
In a recent letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Bishop Richard E. Pates, Chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote: “‘[T]he path of dialogue and negotiation between all components of Syrian society, with the support of the international community, is the only option to put an end to the conflict….’ We ask the United States to work with other governments to obtain a ceasefire, initiate serious negotiations, provide impartial and neutral humanitarian assistance, and encourage building an inclusive society in Syria that protects the rights of all its citizens, including Christians and other minorities.”
The bishops note that:
During the week of September 9, Congress is expected to take up a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria in response to heinous chemical weapons attacks on innocent civilians.
Providentially, Pope Francis has declared September 7 a Day of Fasting and Prayer for Peace in Syria, the Middle East, and throughout the World. In solidarity with our Holy Father, USCCB will engage in prayer, fasting and advocacy for peace in Syria.
USCCB POSITION & CHURCH TEACHING
USCCB Policy Letters on Syria:
Pope Francis’ Declaration of a Day of Prayer and Fasting for Syria
Position of the Holy See on Syria:
[Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese is a senior analyst for NCR. His email address is treesesj@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @ThomasReeseSJ.]
PDA to Rothfus: Vote No on Bombing
September 4, 2013
The Honorable Keith Rothfus
250 Insurance Street, Suite 203
Beaver, PA 15009
Dear Representative Keith Rothfus,
The use of chemical weapons on August 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community.
The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. At Syria’s invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report.
A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence.
Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons.
It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility. The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.
The Syria Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) President Obama sent to Congress doesn’t prohibit the use of U.S. ground troops. It isn’t limited in duration. It isn’t even geographically limited to Syria. If this AUMF passes, it is likely to remain. The Syria AUMF isn’t a mandate for limited strikes. It’s a blank check for war.
Therefore we oppose any Congressional military authorization and favor instead a forceful diplomacy based on path to a cease-fire and power-sharing arrangements under international supervision.
In peace,
Tina B. Shannon
PA 12th Congressional District Chapter
Lend a Hand in Solidarity! Bus to Rally in Pittsburgh leaves IBEW 712 Hall in Vanport at 9:30 am Saturday Sept. 7th.
Download this flyer HERE.
Will Congress Represent the Antiwar Majority and Block an Attack on Syria?
PDA urging Congressional Progressive Caucus to oppose US military attack on Syria, after Barbara Lee wins on debating the war policy.
Beaver County Blue via In These Times
August 29, 2013 – Advocates of using U.S. military force against forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have long made their case without success. But following a chemical weapons attack on civilians allegedly committed by Assad’s forces last week, the United States inched closer to military intervention.
On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack that left hundreds dead a “moral obscenity” and gave the strongest indication to date that the United States could be intervening militarily. As United Nations inspectors continue their investigations into last week’s attacks, President Obama says the United States has already “concluded” that the Assad regime is responsible.
Reports indicated that a U.S. attack on specific targets in Syria could take as place as soon as Thursday. But on Wednesday night, hours after delivering a speech to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, President Obama said in an interview that he had not yet come to a decision.
As the Obama administration mulls its course of action, opposition is slowly emerging in Congress, which is scheduled to be on summer recess until September 9. So far, nearly all of that opposition has focused not on the intervention itself, but on the executive branch’s lack of consultation with Congress.
Continue reading Will Congress Represent the Antiwar Majority and Block an Attack on Syria?
PDA at Big Knob Grange Fair August 2013
Congressional Letter to Obama on Syria
This letter is being circulated in Congress by Reps. Lee and Amash.
Ask your Representative to sign.
Dear Mr. President,
We join you and the international community in expressing unequivocal condemnation over the news that chemical weapons were reportedly used by the government of Syria.
While we understand that as Commander in Chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the Constitutional obligation and power to approve military force if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) has not been attacked or threatened with an attack. As such, we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis.
While the ongoing human rights violations and continued loss of life is horrific, they should not draw us into an unwise war — especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirements. We strongly support the work within the United Nations Security Council to build international consensus condemning the alleged use of chemical weapons and preparing an appropriate response; we should also allow the U.N. inspectors the space and time necessary to do their jobs, which are so crucial to ensuring accountability.
As elected officials, we have a duty to represent the will and priorities of our constituents, consistently with the Constitution we all swore to uphold and defend. Before weighing the use of military force, Congress must fully debate and consider the facts and every alternative, as well as determine how best to end the violence and protect civilians. We stand ready to work with you.
Sincerely,
[List in Formation]
Beaver County Blue: Voice of the 17th CD of Progressive Democrats of America 