Troubling news

It would seem as though the annointed one has yet another dissapointment up his sleeve...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/obama-sanctions-syrian-president-other-officials/1

A state of national emergency in the U.S. because of the events taking place in Syria? Really? Now just what does that give the government the right to do?

18 comments:

Liberal Elite said...

I don't understand the objection. It seems to me that Obama is taking the right steps to help push Assad off the world stage. He has the right to do so by law.

Are you objecting to the action (i.e. do you support Assad instead?)

Are you objecting to his not seeking consent from Congress (which he didn't need)?

Are you concerned that Obama is going to do more in the US than to simple sanctions (freeze assets and trade)?

What?

All Right Now said...

Here it is. THIS is what is objectional.

"In a letter to congressional leaders announcing the sanctions, Obama wrote that he has "found that the actions of the government of Syria constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat."

A national emergency. Really? Just what does that mean?

Ok...Wiki defines it as..."...A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend some normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviours, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution."

The free dictionary defines national emergency as "A condition declared by the President or the Congress by virtue of powers previously vested in them that authorize certain emergency actions to be undertaken in the national interest. Action to be taken may include partial, full, or total mobilization of national resources."

Oxford dictionary of the U.S. Military states than a national emergency is
"A state of emergency declared either by the Congress or the President under which a partial, full, or total mobilization of the U.S. armed forces may be called for."

Duhaime.org - National Emergency definition: A situation beyond the ordinary which threatens the health or safety of citizens and which cannot be properly addressed by the use of other law.

Can someone please tell me how events taking place in Syria fits the definition of a national emergency for the U.S. and why exactly it justifies extending the power of the government over the U.S. citizens? THAT'S what I find objectionable. A state of National Emergency is somethign that shouldn't be taken lightly considering the sweeping powers it extends to the federal government. Obama can now literally suspend the constitution if he desires Now there is no evidence he would do that, but the possibility exists. That is cause for concern due to the fact that is was in response to matters occurring half a world away and don't directly affect the health and safety of our citizens.

Anonymous said...

Hey if we sieze Syrian assets we can use their money to pay our bills. Don't we call that stealing?

Liberal Elite said...

@ARN "Can someone please tell me how events taking place in Syria fits the definition of a national emergency for the U.S. and why exactly it justifies extending the power of the government over the U.S. citizens? THAT'S what I find objectionable."

Because without such a declaration, we have no authority to quickly freeze his assets. I see it as a vehicle.

Liberal Elite said...

Oh... And real abuse by Obama could be shut down by the courts in minutes.

You worry too much.

Anonymous said...

Tin foil hat time.

afterthegoldrush said...

LE@10:39AM::)

All Right Now said...

Oh...I'm not worried. That wasn't my point. My point was that our president finds it necessary to declare an national emergency for things that dont concern this country. who care about Syria when we have enough problems right here ay home. Look at the problems we already have because e can't mind our own business. If Bush had done this most of you would be bitching and moaning. We can't keep involving ourselves in everyone elses affairs.

Liberal Elite said...

@ARN "If Bush had done this most of you would be bitching and moaning. "

Well, at least he didn't bomb them.

Bush was always more than willing to send $$$ into the hands of military contractors.

All Right Now said...

You mean like in Libya? Umm...Obama just did exactly that in Libya. And just wait and see what happens in Syria before you make such a comment.

Liberal Elite said...

Nah. He mostly let the Europeans flex there muscle in Libya. There was rather little from the US.

And if Syria keeps it up, maybe a few well placed bombs might be the best thing to do. Assad == Ass

Anonymous said...

"Nah. He mostly let the Europeans flex there muscle in Libya. There was rather little from the US."

Really? Really? The action in Libya was initiated by American military personnel and weaponry. Let's see. We fired 114 Tomohawk cruise missiles when the "action" started and the UK fired 2. Those two were token missiles so that Obama could claim that it was a coalition effort.

Those 114 cruise missiles were approx. $1.41 million EACH! Almost $161 million in cruise missiles alone! Now we're flying drone missions routinely. Sounds like sending $$$ into the hands of military contractors to me. Doesn't sound like "very little" to me. Go tell someone suffereing from the results of no job and depleted unemployment that $161 million is "very little" for a war that has nothing to do with the US.

Your comment "well at least he didn't bomb them" is amazing. Libya did the same thing to their people that Syria is doing to theirs. Yet you only use the fact that Syria hasn't been bombed yet as a talking point to contrast Obama against Bush....even though Obama bombed the shit out of Libya.

And even more telling about your mindset is the Obama "LET" the Europeans flex their muscles. Who in the hell is Obama to "LET" the europeans do anything? No, Libya is and was an unnecessary military action against a soveriegn nation using American military might paid for using money borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank and paid back using American taxpayers dollars with interest. As for Syria? This game is in it's infancy. Odds are better than average that Obama will initiate military strikes, covert or otherwise, under the authority of the newly declared state of national emergency, soon enough.

Anonymous said...

Go tell someone suffereing from the results of no job and depleted unemployment that $161 million is "very little" for a war that has nothing to do with the US.

You almost had me agreeing with you until you said this! Syria is well known as a State that supports terrorists--both financially and politically--as opposed to say, pre 2011 Irag.

Joe H
Stevensville

Liberal Elite said...

LOL. Bush spends $2 trillion to get Osama Bin Laden (and fails), and you're fussing about a paltry $161 million. I will spend close to that in my career, and that's just for me (and my subordinates).

Learn the meaning of large numbers.

Oh. And Joe H is right. Both Assad and Gaddafi need to go.

All Right Now said...

A paltry $161 million? There is the problem. You see 2 trillion didn't just drop out of the sky. It is the culmination of smaller amounts. These smaller amounts add up quickly. We keep ignoring the "paltry" amounts and in the end we have spent trillions. But is that what we're really talking about? I thought we were talking about the president declaring a state of emergency for domestic issues occurring within the boundaries of a soveriegn nation. We can always count on LE to divert attention away from the intention of the post when his position is exposed for it's hypocrisy and lack of substance. The fact is that Obama declared a state of national emergency for no good reason granting himself the authority usually reserved for matters of significant national security. This will be another Libya. Lets get back on track here.

Liberal Elite said...

@ARN "We can always count on LE to divert attention away from the intention of the post when his position is exposed for it's hypocrisy and lack of substance. "

Whatcha talking about?? Go back and reread posts 4 and 5 until you understand them. No lack of substance, and no hypocrisy, and it gets to the very core of your concerns.

@ARN "...Obama declared a state of national emergency for no good reason"

Uhhh. He did have a reason. And it was a good one too. Have you been following the news from Syria? Many lives are at stake.

Would you prefer we simply look the other way when there are blatant crimes against humanity? ...talk about lack of substance...

Anonymous said...

"Uhhh. He did have a reason. And it was a good one too. Have you been following the news from Syria? Many lives are at stake."

Many lives are at stake in Darfur as well but we are not deploying our military might there. Maybe it's because we don't find Darfur a strategically valuable area or that the natural resources there (if any) aren't particularly valuable. Either way there is an ulterior motive that our government chooses to justify in the name of a humanitarian effort. Amd you fall for it. You call that substance?

Well it just goes to show that what can be considered substance by some is easily recognized as bullshit by others. But then we all can't live in a fantasy land LE. You stay there and we will live in the land of reality.

Liberal Elite said...

@9:44 "Either way there is an ulterior motive that our government chooses to justify in the name of a humanitarian effort. "

Of course there is an ulterior motive. We have a lot invested in that part of the world. It is in our strategic interest to see Assad exit the world stage. And our ally, Israel, is nearby. They'd love to see him go too.

"Amd you fall for it."

Huh??? How have I "fallen" for anything?

"You call that substance?"

Yep... Humanitarian cause plus strategic interest == substance.

"...we all can't live in a fantasy land..."

Yep.. But you can put your head into a hole and pretend the world doesn't matter. If that comforts you, do it.