Monday, November 4, 2019

They could easily impeach Trump for illegally placing taxpayer funded US military in Syria, but political class loves this illegal action: Zero co-sponsors for 10/31/19 bill forcing Trump to remove US military from Syria

US Congress loves arming terrorists, refuses to pass the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.Trillions of taxpayer dollars flow to companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, IBM, cyber security companies and others who would likely go bankrupt if US stood for peace instead of permanent war.

“Secretary Esper confirmed that this [threat of overwhelming US military force] includes denying access to the oil from Russian and Syrian forces.”


10/31/19, “H.Con.Res.70–Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been authorized by Congress.” 

“Sponsor: Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2] (Introduced 10/31/2019)
Committees: House–Foreign Affairs
Latest Action: House10/31/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  (All Actions)”

“116th congress
H. CON. RES. 70  

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been authorized by Congress.  


Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been authorized by Congress. 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 


(a) Findings—Congress finds the following: 

(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

(2) Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided any specific statutory authorization for, United States military participation in any activity related to securing, guarding, possessing, profiting off of, or developing oil fields in northern Syria. All of these actions are unconstitutional. 

(3) President Donald Trump stated on October 27, 2019 regarding Syria that “we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. Now, we may have to fight for the oil. That’s OK. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight. And that “it can help us, because we should be able to take some also. And what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly. Right now it’s not big. It’s big oil underground but it’s not big oil up top.”. 

(4) The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, stated on October 28, 2019, regarding oil in Syria that US troops will remain positioned in this strategic area to deny ISIS access those vital resources. And we will respond with overwhelming military force against any group that threatens the safety of our forces there.”. Secretary Esper confirmed that this includes denying access to the oil from Russian and Syrian forces. 

(5) Oil, natural resources, and land in Syria belong to the Syrian people, not the United States. 

(6) Depriving the Syrian people from the economic benefit of their natural resources will inhibit them from rebuilding their country. It is not humane or in the national security interests of the United States for the Syrian Arab Republic to be an unstable or failed state. An unstable or failed Syrian state further proliferates the presence of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, and significantly deteriorates the humanitarian condition of the Syrian people. 

(7) Section 8(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(c)) defines the introduction of United States Armed Forces to include the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.”. 

(b) Removal Of Armed Forces.—Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations authorized under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–4050 U.S.C. 1541 note), not later than 30 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted into law.”

Added: If a “war on terror” exists, why isn’t it attacking the US since US is a massive terror sponsor? Not saying it should, just wondering why it isn’t. 

Jan. 11, 2014, Big money behind war: the military-industrial complex, Jonathan Turley, al jazeera 

“The new military-industrial complex is fuelled by a conveniently ambiguous and unseen enemy: the terrorist. Former President George W Bush and his aides insisted on calling counter-terrorism efforts a “war”. This concerted effort by leaders like former Vice President Dick Cheney (himself the former CEO of defence-contractor Halliburton) was not some empty rhetorical exercise. Not only would a war maximise the inherent powers of the president, but it would maximise the [diversion of US taxpayer dollars] budgets for military and homeland agencies. 

This new coalition of companies, agencies, and lobbyists dwarfs the system known by Eisenhower when he warned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…by the military-industrial complex”. Ironically, it has had some of its best days under President Barack Obama who has radically expanded drone attacks and claimed that he alone determines what a war is for the purposes of consulting Congress…. 

Across the country, the war-based economy can be seen in an industry which includes everything from Homeland Security educational degrees to counter-terrorism consultants to private-run preferred traveller programmes for airport security gates. 

Recently, the “black budget” of secret intelligence programmes alone was estimated at $52.6bn for 2013. That is only the secret programmes, not the much larger intelligence and counterintelligence budgets. We now have 16 spy agencies that employ 107,035 employees. This is separate from the over one million people employed by the military and [so-called] national security law enforcement agencies. 

The core of this expanding complex is an axis of influence of corporations, lobbyists, and agencies that have created a massive, self-sustaining terror-based industry. 

The contractors 

In the last eight years, trillions of dollars have flowed to military and homeland security companies. When the administration starts a war like Libya, it is a windfall for companies who are given generous contracts to produce everything from replacement missiles to ready-to-eat meals. 

In the first 10 days of the Libyan war alone, the administration spent roughly $550m. That figure includes about $340m for munitions – mostly cruise missiles that must be replaced. Not only did Democratic members of Congress offer post-hoc support for the Libyan attack, but they also proposed a permanent authorisation for presidents to attack targets deemed connected to terrorism – a perpetual war on terror. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers an even steadier profit margin.

According to Morgan Keegan, a wealth management and capital firm, investment in homeland security companies is expected to yield a 12 percent annual growth through 2013 – an astronomical return when compared to other parts of the tanking economy. 

The lobbyists 

There are thousands of lobbyists in Washington to guarantee the ever-expanding budgets for war and homeland security. One such example is former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff who pushed the purchase of the heavily criticised (and little tested) full-body scanners used in airports. When Chertoff was giving dozens of interviews to convince the public that the machines were needed to hold back the terror threat, many people were unaware that the manufacturer of the machine is a client of the Chertoff Group, his highly profitable security consulting agency. (Those hugely expensive machines were later scrapped after Rapiscan, the manufacturer, received the windfall.) 

Lobbyists maintain pressure on politicians by framing every budget in “tough on terror” versus “soft on terror” terms. They have the perfect products to pitch – products that are designed to destroy themselves and be replaced in an ever-lasting war on terror….  

Even with polls showing that the majority of Americans are opposed to continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new military-industrial complex continues to easily muster the necessary support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is a testament to the influence of this alliance that hundreds of billions are being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq while Congress is planning to cut billions from core social programmes, including a possible rollback on Medicare due to lack of money. None of that matters. It doesn’t even matter that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called the US the enemy and said he wishes that he had joined the Taliban. Even the documented billions [of US tax dollars] stolen by government officials in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated as a mere cost of doing business.”… 


No comments: