US President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement has been widely criticized on military or strategic grounds. For the most part, these pertinent critiques have been well-deserved.
In brief, as any informed observer must readily conclude, there is little doubt that the pact would sustain or perhaps even accelerate already-ongoing Iranian nuclearization.
The agreement also has major jurisprudential liabilities, substantial legal flaws that have yet to be fully recognized. In this connection, the most significant risks have to do with permitting Iran to enrich uranium after any designated period of years. All such permissions necessarily contradict the 1968 Non Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, especially those treaty provisions that obligate Iran, as well as other non-nuclear member states, to remain non-nuclear in perpetuity.
The US, we are often reminded, is a nation of laws. International law, moreover, is part of the law of the United States. Incontestably, this means, according to Article 6 of the US Constitution, that any US acceptance of the new Iran agreement must ipso facto violate American law.
Another overlooked legal violation concerns the Obama administration’s expressed unwillingness to abide by the 1948 Genocide Convention. More particularly, the American president refused to base his country’s negotiations with Iran upon an appropriately contingent expectation that Tehran’s leadership abrogate genocidal statements.
These conspicuous Iranian declarations regarding Israel are plainly impermissible. They constitute an egregious violation of international and US national law.
The Genocide Convention criminalizes not only genocide per se, but also “conspiracy to commit genocide” and “direct and public incitement to commit genocide.”
Does the United States have any discernible “contractual” obligation to enforce such major treaty prohibitions in its nuclear diplomacy with Iran? Although the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement, all treaties are premised upon the “peremptory” doctrine of pacta sunt servanda (Latin for “agreements must be honored”). Further, a US obligation is clearly deducible from Article V of the Convention, which calls for international cooperation in providing “effective penalties” for those who have engaged in “incitement to commit genocide,” and also from Article VIII, which requires “any contracting party” to bring all unlawful behavior before “competent organs of the United Nations.”
Once again, there exists a binding intersection of US constitutional law and international law.
Because of the Supremacy Clause, and assorted Supreme Court decisions, especially the Paquete Habana (1900), this country’s open failure to enforce anti-genocide norms in its nuclear dealings with Iran constitutes an unassailably serious violation of US law. On purely moral grounds, moreover, this indisputable failure is similarly insidious.
A third problem with the new Iran agreement is less a matter of evident jurisprudential contradictions than of “naive legalism,” that is, of automatically assuming that realistic compliance is built into the codifying language. Here, long-standing legal philosophy has recognizable pride of place, and it is appropriate to recall the cautionary words of Thomas Hobbes, a seminal thinker whose Leviathan was already well known to Thomas Jefferson, was thereby important to drafting America’s Declaration of Independence. “And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words,” cautioned the 17th-century English thinker, “and of no strength to secure a man at all.”
TO BE sure, the new “covenant” with Iran is “but words.” It cannot be expected to override Tehran’s irremediable preference for creating military nuclear options. Plausibly, over time, Iran’s cadre of international lawyers will embark, more-or-less openly, on a calculated strategy of unilateral “treaty” termination. Pursuant to the governing “treaty on treaties,” the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, these Iranian advocates will then settle upon a suitable number of “permissible exceptions” to pacta sunt servanda.
At that time, these allegedly lawful exceptions will likely include the international law doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (“so long as conditions remain the same”), an exculpatory principle now stating that core obligations of the nuclear agreement can be terminated whenever a fundamental change occurs in certain circumstances that existed when the agreement was first executed.
Will such a qualified change in circumstances actually have taken place? Probably not. But that reality will not constrain the Iranian lawyers.
Looking ahead, there are other strategies of unilateral termination that Iran could and most likely would invoke. One of these conveniently malleable grounds, identified at Article 48 of the Vienna Convention, affirms that “A State may invoke an error ... as invalidating its consent....”
Another, codified at Article 52, indicates that any formal international agreement is void “if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force....” Still another predictable ground for future Iranian legal manipulation can be found at Article 53, the so-called “Jus Cogens” or peremptory norm section of the Vienna Convention.
This all-too relevant article states that “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.” In this case, Iran could claim, several years hence, that the agreement had improperly impaired its sovereignty – incontestably a peremptory norm of general international law – and is, therefore, not legally binding.
On its face, perhaps, any such expressed Iranian rationale would appear to contradict elementary logic. After all, Iran would already have acknowledged this corrosive effect at the time of its initial agreement. Nonetheless, a usable case could conceivably be fashioned by Iran that would combine this particular rationale for abrogation with an argument of rebus sic stantibus – that is, that the foreseeable circumstances that had existed originally no longer obtain.
Alternatively, at least in the closing years of this agreement, Iran could decide that it would be better to remain in the pact, at least in principle, but to simultaneously quit the NPT. The rationale of any such contrary strategy would be that the newer pact will allow full nuclearization after the 15-year duration, while the NPT could never make such an allowance. Per Article X of the NPT, Iran’s withdrawal could rest on the acceptable argument that any continued agreement membership would jeopardize its “supreme interests.”
It could do this very easily, of course, merely by giving “three months’ notice.”
Security failings of the Iran nuclear agreement should be granted pride-of-place in any systematic identification of prospective risks. Still, this pact’s mocking indifference to both international and US law should not pass unnoticed. The new agreement would have devastating security consequences for the United States and Israel, but even this overriding flaw should not stand in the way of simultaneously recognizing the pact’s near consummate illegality.
The author was educated at Princeton (PhD, 1971), and is emeritus professor of international law at Purdue.
His tenth book, Israel’s Nuclear Strategy: Surviving amid Chaos (Rowman and Littlefield), will be published later this year. He was born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II. He is a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
The Times of Israel
Russia to allow Israeli strikes on Syrian arms transfers, PM says
After Kremlin meet, Netanyahu says ‘mechanism’ reached with Russian leader to prevent misunderstandings in Syrian fighting
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, September21, 2015 (courtesy Israeli embassy in Russia)
Israel and Russia agreed on a mechanism to avoid military confrontations between the two countries in Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Mondayafter a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
“My goal was to prevent misunderstandings between IDF forces and Russian forces. We have established a mechanism to prevent such misunderstandings. This is very important for Israel’s security,” Netanyahu told Israeli reporters during a telephone briefing from the Russian capital.
“Our conversation was dedicated to the complex security situation on the northern border,” the prime minister said. “I explained our policies in different ways to try to thwart the deadly weapons transfers from the Syrian army to Hezbollah — action actually undertaken under the supervision of Iran.”
Netanyahu said that he told Putin in “no uncertain terms” that Israel will not tolerate Tehran’s efforts to arm Israel’s enemies in the region, and that Jerusalem has taken and will continue to take action against any such attempts. “This is our right and also our duty. There were no objections to our rights and to what I said. On the contrary: there was readiness to make sure that whatever Russia’s intentions for Syria, Russia will not be a partner in extreme actions by Iran against us.”
Ahead of their meeting, as they made statements to the press, Netanyahu told Putin that Iran and Syria have been arming Hezbollah with advanced weapons, thousands of which are directed at Israeli cities. “At the same time, Iran, under the auspices of the Syrian army, is attempting to build a second terrorist front against us from the Golan Heights.”
The prime minister told his Russian host that Israel’s policy is to prevent these weapons transfers “and to prevent the creation of a terrorist front and attacks on us from the Golan Heights.” Netanyahu came to the Kremlin to “clarify our policies, and to make sure that there is no misunderstanding between our forces,” he said.
Putin replied by saying that the Syrian army was too bogged down in its own civil war to deal with fighting against Israel.
“All of Russia’s actions in the region will always be very responsible,” Putin said. “We are aware of the shelling against Israel and we condemn all such shelling. I know that these shellings are carried out by internal elements. In regard to Syria, we know that the Syrian army is in a situation such that it is incapable of opening a new front. Our main goal is to defend the Syrian state. However, I understand your concern.”
He also said he remains mindful that many émigrés from the former Soviet Union live in Israel, which “has a special effect on our bilateral relations.”
2a)
'Israel, Russia to coordinate in air, sea, and electromagnetic arena'
The IDF and Russian military will set up a joint working group to coordinate their Syria-related activities in the aerial, naval, and electromagnetic arenas, a senior defense source said Monday. The source spoke soon after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot returned from a one-day visit to Moscow, following intensive meetings on Russia’s newly expanded military role in Syria.
According to foreign reports, the Israel Air Force has launched multiple air strikes in recent years to intercept Iranian and Syrian weapons that were on the way to Hezbollah storage facilities in Lebanon.
Israel has shared concerns with Russia that it’s interceptions could be compromised if military coordination is not put into place soon.
In Russia, Eisenkot met with his Russian counterpart, General Valery Vasilevich Gerasimov – the first time chiefs of staff from Russia and Israel held a direct meeting. Eisenkot also participated in part of the meeting held between Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Afterward, the two sides agreed to set up a joint working group led by the deputy chiefs of staff from each country. The first meeting will occur in two weeks, and the location will be decided in the coming days.
“It will coordinate air, naval, and the electromagnetic arenas,” the source said. The full composition of the working group has not yet been determined, he added.
“Everything will be raised there. The meetings in Russia were held in a good atmosphere,” the senior source said.
On September 10, a senior defense source said that an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp force, comprised of hundreds of soldiers, recently entered Syria to assist the embattled Assad regime. In a coordinated Iranian-Russian maneuver, Russian logistics military forces began to arrive to Syria’s coastal region to set up a base for Russian fighter jets and combat helicopters.
Tehran dispatched its force “in light of Assad’s” ongoing distress, the source stated, adding that the deployment is part of a wider Russian-Iranian coordinated effort to prevent what remains of the Assad regime from collapsing.
According to Israeli assessments, the Assad regime currently controls 25 to 30 percent of Syria, consisting of Damascus and the Syrian coastline, where the regime’s minority Alawite support base is centered.
Throughout September, Russian military forces have been entering Syria to set up air strike capabilities aimed at protecting the Assad regime.
“I can’t see the Russian presence as changing the balance of power. It will apparently prolong the fighting. ISIS will never negotiate,” the source said. “Combat will continue in the coming year, along with the human tragedy in Syria.”
“The Russian interest is to save the regime, and its goal is to take part in combat against ISIS,” he said.
Islamic State is making gains in Palmyra, northeast of Damascus, and is now better positioned to mount an assault on Damascus, according to the source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Crime In Savannah – September 22
Savannah District Attorney Meg Heap gave a
rapid fire review of her tenure at the head of the DA Office since her term
began in 2013.
Her overview revealed that the office is the
largest law firm in Savannah, with 125 full time staff in six different
departments, from .............................to Child Support to an 11 person
Investigation Unit.
In just over two years, the accomplishments
include:
Installing a rigorous Tracking System for
the over 10,000 cases active at one time.
Expanding a Public Integrity Unit,
which includes arresting and prosecuting police officers who fail a high
standard.
An imaginative Gang Prosecution Program,
as almost 70% of Savannah’s murders are committed by a group that is less than
half a percent of the population.
Vigorous investigation and prosecution of a
previously under-scrutinized elder abuse problem in Savannah.
A new tactic on the Homeless problem.
Instead of just sending them to jail for 30 days each on a vexing but recurring
problem, find out how to solve some of their problems.
Correcting a spousal abuse problem,
by requiring a delayed release of the abuser. This allows the victim to be
placed in a Safe Shelter before the perpetrator can return home to do even more
vengeful harm to the spouse or live-in girlfriend.
A new approach to investigating convict
re-entry into Savannah after serving their terms, by challenging a problem
with a very lax Correction Division, abusing pardons and paroles. For example,
the DAs office found out by chance that over 90% of sex offenders were given
pardons, thwarting the requirements for community registration. The law was
recently changed in Georgia to prevent that. Victims are now being given the
right to find out about such pardons and to be heard on the issue of such
exoneration.
Controversies Confronted in Savannah
Many nay remember the case recently in
Savannah where a young man was killed by a policeman and questions were raised
as to whether excessive force was used.
This was about the same time as the Ferguson Missouri riots. There were
even outsiders dispatched to Savannah to stir up trouble.
Because of the rising controversy in America
about such incidents, the DA’s response was to go to a grand jury, even though
the facts on the ground supported no charges should have been filed against the
officer.
The investigation unit also found that false
statements had been made to the press by alleged eye-witnesses, which were not
made in sworn statements in the regular investigation. The Grand Jury was made
aware of this.
Also many ministers of churches on the West
Side of Savannah were kept informed of the releasable facts of the case. The
real witnesses affirmed that the victim had aimed a hidden gun at the arresting officers while he was in custody
in the back seat of the police car.
The Grand Jury found the police officer
response to fire back was appropriate. Justice was done at the same time as a
crisis was prevented in the court of public opinion in Savannah.
Illustrating Risks the Police Face
The audience was next shown an actual
dramatic film of a police unit investigating a kidnapping and stabbing in a
mobile home in Savannah. The young
investigating police officer came upon an already stabbed woman and her
daughter captive in the bathroom of the trailer, with the perpetrator
threatening to kill both of them as well as the police. The meth crazed man was
shot and killed by quick and accurate police fire in the confrontation, with no further injury to the woman and child captives.
The young officer who himself had a recent
child should really have been given a medal. the whole incident was shown to
illustrate the danger that police face all to frequently in keeping the
community safe.
Redirecting Resources
Early on it was clear that the Major Crimes
Unit needed more resources to shorten the two to three year time it was taking
to get to trial, especially in Capital Murder cases. That much delay was
compromising the ability to get good witnesses to testify. Now that time to
trial is now down to six months in many cases.
Future Initiatives
Just launched is Operation Cease Fire,
patterned after experiments in Richmond and New Orleans that had dramatic
results in reducing murders by 30% to 60% in cases. It involves calling in culprit
gang members who have past arrests and conveying that they are being targeted
by top police units. As motivation, gang members’ families have a nine fold
higher likelihood of being victims due to revenge crimes. 12% of such
confrontations produce a total turn away from a life of crime. The remainder
have produced a dramatic reduction of gang murders.
Q&A Session
A number of questions dealt with the root
cause of crime in poverty areas - the breakdown of the traditional family and a
struggling public education system. These problems are acknowledged as not
readily solvable by DA units.
On the perceived declining respect for police
in poor areas, this is a national problem. But Savannah’s DA office is up on
the tactics used by troublemakers. Yet it was acknowledged that cases where only
one police person’s word is against one other witness, juries are tending to
require more corroboration for conviction.
Problems with correctional institutions were
mentioned, as drugs and even guns are being smuggled in. The enabling culprits are likely prison
guards that are being bribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Title 18. Section 2071,
This will likely never be an issue.
What difference does it make?
A former United States Attorney General just reviewed federal law pertaining to Hillary's case.
His ruling?
Hillary Clinton may not be legally allowed to hold office if she is charged in connection with her use of a private email server to handle classified information.
Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office.
Such as, say, President of the United States.
"If you do this or that bad thing, you've essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world," said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.
Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Shouldn't voters know that?
The media won't tell them.
So it's up to us.
Can you help hold Hillary accountable?
Or do you care?
4a) FBI Said to Recover Personal E-Mails From Hillary Clinton Server
The FBI has recovered personal and work- related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.
The FBI is investigating how and why classified information ended up on Clinton’s server. The probe probably will take at least several more months, according to the person, who described the matter on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing and deals with sensitive information.
A review by Clinton and her aides determined that about half of the 60,000 e-mails she exchanged during her four-year tenure as secretary of state were of a personal nature, the presidential candidate has said.
Those e-mails, she said, mostly dealt with planning for Chelsea’s wedding, yoga routines and condolence messages.
Clinton said the personal e-mails were deleted from the server and her staff turned over paper copies of the remaining work-related e-mails in December to the State Department for processing and archiving. The FBI obtained Clinton’s server from the Colorado-based company managing it.
Recover E-Mails
Outside computer specialists have said the FBI has the technical capability to recover deleted e-mails. The exact number of personal e-mails recovered by the FBI could not be learned.
Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work- related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said.Since the existence of the e-mail system became public in March, Clinton has seen her standing in polls slide, particularly in regards to questions about her trustworthiness. She also has been heavily criticized by congressional Republicans who have raised questions over whether the private server jeopardized the security of sensitive data.
Internal government watchdogs have determined that classified information ended up on the system. Their findings sparked the FBI inquiry.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, did not respond to phone calls or e-mails seeking comment. Nick Merrill, a spokesman, said, “We’ve cooperated to date and will continue to do so, including answering any questions about this that anyone including the public may have.”
The bureau’s probe is expected to last at least several more months, according to the person. That timeline would push any final determination closer to the Democratic presidential primary calendar, which kicks off Feb. 1 with the Iowa caucuses.
A bureau spokeswoman, Carol Cratty, declined to discuss any aspect of the investigation. Emily Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.
Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing. She has said she is confident that material in her e-mails wasn’t marked as classified when it was sent and received through her server. For anyone who mishandled such information, prosecutors must prove that they knowingly did so to charge them with a crime.
The former secretary of state has said she decided to use a private e-mail address -- hrod17@clintonemail.com -- to conduct all of her electronic correspondence as a matter of convenience, to avoid the need to carry two devices, one personal and one professional. She served from 2009 through 2013 as the nation’s top diplomat.
E-Mails Posted
As the result of public information lawsuits, the State Department has posted almost 8,000 of those work-related e-mails on its website. The State Department has determined that dozens of the e-mails contained classified information.
Many of the work-related e-mails contain schedules, press clippings, staffing updates, speech notes, and requests to aides for tech support. Some e-mails are simply requests to speak with people over secure phone lines.
In 2013, the Clintons turned the private server over to a Colorado-based technology company to manage. The firm, Platte River Networks, installed the device in a New Jersey data center and managed and maintained it.
Andy Boian, a spokesman for the Platte River, said the FBI last month asked the company to hand over the server. Platte River asked the Clintons what it should do, and within 24 hours a representative for the Clintons told the company to provide the device to agents, Boian said.
There has been some question as to whether Clinton deleted her messages or took the more thorough and technical step of “wiping” the server. Boian said Tuesday that Platte River had “no knowledge of it being wiped.”
Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system is being examined by congressional committees that have the power to subpoena the FBI to obtain the messages. The e-mails also may be sought under public-information laws.
The FBI isn’t likely to hand over any such messages until its investigation has been completed. Even then, public records laws provide exceptions protecting personal information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) The Poisonous Obama Years
By Noah Rothman
For millions of Americans, Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency absolved the United States of myriad sins. His rise to the presidency was a redemption tale for an America that had lost its way in the immediate post-9/11 years.
Obama’s promise was to be a transformative figure, his supporters averred. He would reverse a suspiciously colonialist Bush-era foreign policy, deliver the country into a post-racial period, and restore America’s faith in the power of collectivism and the righteous efficacy of government. As the winter of the Obama presidency approaches, it seems beyond dispute that this presidency has robbed Americans of what remaining faith they had in the value of collective action. The power of massive governmental programs to effect positive change is, at best, dubious. The tragedy of it all is that cynicism has replaced shock when the latest scandalous revelations hit the newsstands. That’s dangerous. The expectation of corruption is a condition that saps a nation’s faith in the virtue of self-governance. It is this kind of contempt for public institutions that leads republics to ruin.
Barack Obama’s administration is scandal-plagued. In its twilight years, this White House has subordinated accountability and the preservation of faith in public sector competence to exculpation from the political press.
The in-party spent the better part of the three years that followed the deadly assault on diplomatic and CIA compounds in Benghazi by framing the investigation into it as a manifestation of Republicans’ pathological hatred for the president. That is an impression which remains cemented in the minds of many average voters who have not closely followed a congressional investigation into that affair – an investigation that exposed the scandalous details regarding how Hillary Clinton and her cadre of privileged aides comported themselves at the State Department. Those Americans who do not see the investigation as a partisan witch-hunt are apt to view it as an indictment of the political culture in Washington that afforded Clinton the leeway to flout the law and jeopardize American national security in order to preserve her sense of “convenience.”
The Obama-era has made it difficult to recall that it was once the left that prided itself for serving as sentinels standing guard against abuses by powerful government agencies. “Artful” Nixonian abuses of the IRS in order to intimidate and tarnish the reputations of political opponents were once a Republican phenomenon. Today, yet another simmering scandal involving the misuse of the IRS has ensnared Democrats. As such, it is dismissed as a non-issue by the left and partisans in the press.
Americans recently learned that, like Clinton, Lerner conducted official business via a private email account where she went by the name “Toby Miles.” The emails sent via that account are among the hundreds that have been shielded from congressional investigators, but those that have been recovered reflect a searing disdain for conservatives against whom Lerner has been accused of conspiring to limit their ability to participate in civic affairs. “Citizens United is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to this country,” Lerner, who has been accused of targeting conservative political action committees with undue scrutiny, wrote. “We are witnessing the end of ‘America.’”
Motive and opportunity having been established, we are told that there is nothing to see here. You’re just being paranoid.
It is, however, the nonplused reaction from the public and the watchdog press to the revelations involving the manipulation of intelligence related to the campaign against the Islamic State that is the most disturbing. On August 25, a bombshell report in the New York Timesindicated that the Pentagon inspector general’s office was investigating credible claims that CENTCOM officials altered intelligence reports related to ISIS. Those reports had been reviewed by ranking war planners, including the president, and were designed to paint a rosier picture of the state of the campaign than was warranted. Over a month later, dozens intelligence operatives have come forward to confirm the IG’s findings. Reports regarding terror activity in Iraq were “grossly thrown to the side,” alleges former U.S. Army official WilliamKotel. “They’ve spent more money and time trying to push down this intelligence … than they have actually spending time and effort on real security,” he alleged of his bosses.
The scale of this scandal, as exposed in a recent piece published in The Daily Beast, is chilling. “Some analysts have also complained that they felt ‘bullied’ into reaching conclusions favored by their bosses, two separate sources familiar with analysts’ complaints said,” the report read. “In some cases, analysts were also urged to state that killing particular ISIS leaders and key officials would diminish the group and lead to its collapse. Many analysts, however, didn’t believe that simply taking out top ISIS leaders would have an enduring effect on overall operations.” How high up the chain does this culture of corruption that prevailed at CENTCOM lead? Who knows? No one is asking.
It is simply too coincidental that this White House, which wanted nothing more than to avoid becoming embroiled in a new conflict in the Middle East, was being fed intelligence that reinforced their preferred preconceptions. It is the height of irresponsibility for an informed citizenry to learn that the commander-in-chief of the military was allegedly being misled by his subordinates, putting American interests in jeopardy in the process, and to simply brush it off as the cost of doing business.
Do Americans no longer care about good governance? Has the public grown so inured to scandal that most are willing to dismiss them or to excuse them when they arise? Is the popular political press so committed to preserving the mythology surrounding this administration that it would abdicate its responsibilities to the public? The reprehensible revelations above are just a handful of the abuses of public trust that have occurred over the last six years. Americans have grown complacent over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency. A sense of disillusionment that would shrug off these and other misuses of the public trust is unnerving and dangerous. It is a level of dissatisfaction that paves the way for Caesarism. For the sake of the republican ideals, the voters and the press must get serious about holding this White House to account.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment