http://www.counterpunch.org/brecher10202005.html


What Gives Them the (Constitutional) Right?
Attack Syria? Invade Iran?
By JEREMY BRECHER
and BRENDAN SMITH

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, Condoleezza Rice was asked whether the Bush administration was planning military action against Syria. She answered, "I don't think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force."

Last time we read the U.S. Constitution, the grave decision to use military force against another country was a matter for Congress to decide -- not an "option" for a President.

And last time we read the UN Charter, it provided that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

We've been here before. President Bush used trumped-up fears (like mushroom clouds over American cities) and frauds (like imaginary "yellowcake" uranium) to fool the American people into attacking Iraq. Now we and the Iraqi people are paying the price.

With the American military bogged down in what Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and with a majority of the American people saying the US made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq, it may be hard to believe that the Bush administration is really contemplating further adventures.

But regimes facing military embarrassment are notorious for expanding the theater of war--witness Nixon's expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia. And the same delusions that got us into Iraq--from imaginary threats of illicit weapons to dreams of welcome from cheering crowds--are being repeated about Iran and Syria.

War with Syria is already dangerously close. A series of clashes between US and Syrian troops have killed Syrians and, according to current and former US officials, raise the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war. According to press accounts, US forces have crossed the border into Syria, sometimes by accident, sometimes deliberately. An October 1 meeting of top Bush officials in the White House considered "options," including "special operations" against Syria. Bush administration officials are already laying the groundwork for attacks with the kinds of justifications they used to ensnare the U.S. in Iraq.

The Bush administration seems to believe that the President has the power to make war on anybody it chooses without even having to consult with Congress. Senator Chafee observed to Secretary Rice, "Under the Iraq war resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq." Then he asked, "So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?" Rice's reply? "Senator, I don't want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq."

The provisions of the Constitution that limit the power of the President to make war are wisely designed to protect the people of our country from just the kind of dubious war that the Bush administration conducted against Iraq--and that the great majority of Americans now believe was a mistake. Similarly the restrictions on aggressive war in the UN Charter protect not only countries that might be attacked, but also the people of countries whose leaders may be tempted to conduct such attacks. Nothing could do more for American's national security today than a reinvigoration of these constraints on military adventurism.

While we are debating how to extricate ourselves from our quagmire in Iraq, the Congress and the American people need to make one thing perfectly clear: Attack on Iran, Syria, or any other country without the explicit endorsement of the U.S. Congress and the UN is not an "option" for the President.

As the old saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!" Congress and the American people allowed President Bush to fool us into war with Iraq. Shame on us if we allow him to do it again in Syria, Iran, or anywhere else!

Brendan Smith is a legal scholarand historian and Jeremy Brecher are the editors, with Jill Cutler, of IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY: AMERICAN WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ AND BEYOND (Metropolitan/Holt, 2005). They can be reached at: blsmith28@gmail.com.

[Sources: Anne Gearan, "Rice: U.S. May Still Be in Iraq in 10 Years," Associated Press, October 19, 2005./ Evan Lehman, "Retired general: Iraq invasion was 'strategic disaster'," Lowell Sun, September 30, 2005/ Princeton Survey Research Associates /Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, interviews conducted October 6-10, 2005./ James Risen and David E. Sanger, "G.I's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border," New York Times, October 15, 2005./ CQ Transcriptions, October 19, 2005.]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/20/rice-s...-against-syria/


Rice Suggests Iraq War Resolution Could Allow For War Against Syria
Yesterday, in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee wanted to clarify a simple issue – did the Iraq war resolution passed by Congress restrict military action only to Iraq? Chafee asked, “So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?” Rice responded:

RICE: Senator, I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you’ll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq. …

CHAFEE: So that’s a no.

RICE: Senator, I am not going to be in the position of circumscribing the president’s powers.

The first line of the Iraq war resolution signed by the President on October 16, 2002 clearly states its purpose: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

So how could the administration possibly justify any military action against Syria without getting another congressional resolution? Tie it to Iraq, of course. Rice, in a response to a question about Syria from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), said yesterday:

Senator, our policy toward Syria is on the table. And that is, we want a change in Syrian behavior. We want a change in Syrian behavior on the Iraqi border…

But before Rice gets too far down the track of equating the conflict in Iraq with Syria, perhaps she should recall this previous statement in June 2005:

[E]very situation is different. Syria is not Iraq, and Iraq is not Syria. And I need to emphasize that Iraq was, in many ways, a very special circumstance given all of the problems with Iraq… So Iraq is not Syria, and Syria is not Iraq.

Why is Rice so intent on keeping her options open on Syria? Perhaps because a “shadow struggle” is already under way.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html

US readies to challenge Syria
Correspondents in Washington
October 20, 2005
THE US and France are preparing new UN Security Council resolutions critical of Syria ahead of a UN report that is expected to show Syrian complicity in a political assassination in Lebanon.

The timing of the new resolutions - which officials described on condition of anonymity because negotiations are not final - is also intended to highlight recent claims that Syria is funnelling weapons and stirring up trouble in Palestinian camps in Lebanon.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed Syria and Lebanon during a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday.

"It was a good opportunity for her to raise the issues surrounding the calendar," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon blame Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, a charge Damascus denies.









UN investigator Detlev Mehlis is to release his report by October 24.

Also on the way is a report on Syrian compliance with a joint US-French Security Council resolution last year that demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, among other requirements.

Both reports are expected to be taken up by the Security Council next week.

Dr Rice shuttled between Paris, Moscow and London last week for discussions that included the Syria-Lebanon question six months after Damascus withdrew forces from its smaller neighbour.

Syria was the dominant military and political force in Lebanon for nearly three decades, and the Bush administration claims Syrian intelligence agents remain there.

Two measures are on the way, one of which recommends what to do with material compiled by Mr Mehlis about the February 14 assassination of Hariri in downtown Beirut.

The second concerns US allegations that Syria is supporting anti-Israeli militants in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

Both UN measures would probably be sponsored by France, a former colonial power in Lebanon.

The US recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest over Hariri's killing. While Syria denies any role, UN investigators have named four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals as suspects and questioned seven Syrian officials, one of whom - interior minister Ghazi Kenaan - committed suicide last week.

The US is also at loggerheads with Syria over its alleged support for Iraqi insurgents, accusing Damascus of failing to do enough to stop fighters from crossing into Iraq.

Separately, a Lebanese judge has charged a former Syrian intelligence officer accused of lying to UN investigators in the Hariri case.

Hariri supporters have begun lobbying foreign embassies representing UN Security Council members to back their call to set up an international tribunal to try those accused of being responsible for his murder.

Egypt is trying to defuse tension between the US and Syria, Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said.

"The last thing Egypt wants is to see another point of tension in the region," he said before leaving for Moscow for talks with the Russian government, which has long been allied with Syria.

AP