Somalia again by Charles E. Carlson
10 January, 2007
Today`s bombing on a Somali Island to assassinate supposed enemy terrorists is another unauthorized war act by the Bush administration. What is the Democrat Congress going to do about it?
It is irrelevant whether the attack was effective or not...it is already known that it has killed innocent civilians, including children. It is not relevant that the helicopter gunships attacked Somalis with the blessing of its puppet government, which the USA`s UN proxy appointed to be a spokesman for the people. Here is what the Associated Press says about the raid:
"It was the first overt military action by the U.S. in Somalia since it led a U.N. force that intervened in the 1990s in an effort to fight famine. The mission led to clashes between U.N. forces and Somali warlords, including the "Black Hawk Down" battle that killed 18 U.S. soldiers. President Abdullahi Yusuf, head of Somalia`s U.N.-backed transitional government, told journalists in Mogadishu that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."
We Hold These Truths wrote this eight years in advance. It was about a different unauthorized raid in a different country, Sudan, which Democrat President Bill Clinton bombed 8 years ago. We now have a Democrat Congress and we are again attacking Somalia and getting ready to attack Sudan. This is not a case of "history repeating itself," rather it is a case of dark and devious men finding ways to instigate new wars when the public has just spoken out against war.
The USA is a war-based economy, and those who control it will not give up their war agenda easily. Now is an even better time than 8 years ago to reread this story because Sudan is next on the administration`s warmaking list.Sudan is a made to order Democrats` war that has been in gestation for more the 20 years because Sudan has oil...quite a lot of it. It is to be a war of oilfield occupation masquerading as a "humanitarian" war we are told, to save victims from a unexplained race war....but from what race? All sides are Muslim; all sides are black; all sides are hungry and thirstily. The same is true of Somalis...it makes one wonder if it may have oil too?
Stripped of the non-existent racist theme, Sudan`s western half is the victim of a terrible, not man-made drought. There is a desperate shortage of water and rain is non-existent in a land that depends on agriculture to feed millions. The people are killing each other over water and food and the USA would attack the central government in response. Blaming it for the killing.- CEC
Read about the Clinton attack on Sudan and what We Hold These Truths said then! Grounds for Impeachment, Charles E. Carlson Aug 27, 1998, (quoted below as written)
Sneak Attack Latest of Many Attempts to Overthrow Sudan
http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=242
President William Jefferson Clinton has materially misled and probably lied outright to the public about his August 20, 1998, Cruise Missile Attack on Sudan in at least three respects: First, the President misled the public and Congress that he had proof that the Government of Sudan participated in the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi.
Second, the President exaggerated the urgency of the matter stating he acted in self-defense, to further justify his act.
Third, the President falsely represented that Sudan was an imminent threat to produce and presumable use "chemical weapons."
This sneak attack on a privately owned factory in Khartoum exposes Americans to indeterminate future risk of reprisals. The question must be asked. Did the President deceive the Congress and the people in order to perform unconstitutional acts?
Anticipatory Retaliation, DOUBLESPEAK.
The Administration is attempting to cover it tracks with confusing rhetoric. Lawrence Eagleberger, a former State Department official appeared, on August 22nd Nightline and used the oxymoron, "anticipatory retaliation" to excuse the Presidents sneak attack. Such statements belong in a comic satire on out of control government.
Even if the President did not lie about his motives, the acts speak for themselves and are in direct conflict with Constitutional separation of powers. Article 1 section 8 clearly states that (only) "CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO-- DECLARE WAR, GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL AND MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURE OF LAND AND WATER." Letters of Marque and Reprisal are forms of economic sanctions.
Constitutional Attorney Herbert W. Titus, the author of FORECASTER FOUNDATION NEWSLETTER and radio, THATS THE LAW, commented that National Security advisor Samuel Berger resorted to quoting Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to support the mugging of Sudan. Mr. Titus insists that the President must obey and answer to the Constitution for his acts. Commenting on Bergers arguments, Mr. Titus stating, "under no circumstances can Congress delegate these powers to the UN Security Council or any other foreign entity. Article I, Section I (of the US Constitution) states that these powers are vested by the people to the Congress. Neither the Congress nor the President can divest the Congress of those powers, only the People can."(1)
We Hold These Truths Agrees with Mr. Titus. Our forefathers wisely denied the warmaking authority to the President because it is a dangerous power. War acts always require the public to fight, starve and die. Kings and presidents merely watch. Knowing this, the founders required that the warmaking decisions be made by congressional representatives of the people. Mr. Clinton has again chosen to act as kings did in the 17th century, and Congress has failed to assert its authority to hold him in rein.
The US sneak attack on The Republic of Sudan, a nonbelligerent people with whom we have diplomatic relations, was supposedly for the purpose of stamping out terrorism. However this act places Americans at risk of reprisal because terrorism begets terrorism, it invites retaliation against American citizens. Even if Sudan`s government has guilt, which has not been shown, this does not justify our president destroying innocent civilians in Sudan. There is no declaration of war against Sudan, and it appears their Embassy in Washington was not notified. The Presidents act, especially against a weak, remote, and war ravaged country, will be judged and viewed by citizens in every country as a bully act of terrorism by our government against a helpless people.President Clintons excuse for bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, a city harboring a reported 1.5 million war refugees, is the plants supposed capability of producing "precursors" to chemical weapons. But kerosene, fertilizer and barrels are all "precursors" to a bomb. If the President can destroy one factory, why not destroy all industrial production in Khartoum under the theory that they all make "precursors".
It is more logical to believe Sudanese President Omar Hassan al Bashirs statement that the plant did manufacture childrens medicine, anti-malaria drugs, and 60 other pharmaceuticals. These medical products are necessary for survival in Sudan. Poison gas is not. No reports of chemical weapons use have been heard in the nine years of war in Sudan. It is illogical that a country as poor as Sudan would tie up its only modern pharmaceutical plant to manufacture chemicals it does not use. Even Bill Clinton stopped short of accusing Sudan of actually making chemical weapons.
Warmakers Siege On Sudan
Non Government Organizations (NGOs) with close ties to the Administration have for years promulgated a massive propaganda blitz against the Government of Sudan which is the subject of an article entitled, Using Christians To Make War, by this author. (2) The perpetrators include Freedom House, (Whose Board is controlled by The Council on Foreign Relations), The Hudson Institute, and Swiss based Christian Solidarity International. Michael Horowitz, Director, the Project For Civil Justice at Hudson Institute, is the author of the falsely named Freedom From Religious Persecution Act (S772) which demands strangling sanctions on Sudan. (3) Recently President William Jefferson Clinton bypassed Congress and issued Executive Order 13067, "Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transportation With Sudan, a fact that neither the administration nor the press talks about.
Wagging the Donkey
Three weeks before Mr. Clifton sanctioned Sudan, Mr. Horowitz circulated a memo explaining the reason for the proposed sanctions against Sudan. (4) Horowitz boasted to the bills sponsor, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), that a predetermined purpose of the Wolf Specter Bill was to overthrow the elected Government of Sudan. This also helps explain the subsequent bombing of Sudan.
Horowitz also stated in his memo dated October 16, 1997, that US covert military aid was already being used to pull down the government. Note that diplomatic relations with The Republic of Sudan were still intact at that time, and the Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton, would necessarily be a part of "covert military aid" to bring down the government. Clinton signed his Executive Order, effectively embargoing Sudan 18 days after the Horowitz memo, when the Wolf/Specter bill was stalled in the House of Representatives.
It appears Mr. Clintons sneak attack on Sudan is more of the Warmakers agenda. This raises the questions of how much power Mr. Horowitz and his Warmaker NGOs hold over Mr. Clinton? Why did Mr. Clinton not inform Congress that his "covert military aid" against the Government of Sudan might result in reprisals against American Citizens? Is it possible that those who died in the Nairobi explosion would be alive today except for the Warmakers covert acts?
Thus far, only a few Congressmen, including Indiana Senator Dan Coats, have sidled up to the correct question: Where does the President get the authority to make war without the permission of Congress? Does anyone seriously doubt that it is an act of war to stealth bomb the citizens of a country with whom you are officially at peace? Who is setting the Presidents agenda, and why?
Impeachment Is the Proper Response to War Crimes
Congress should impeach the President (Clinton) for committing direct and material violations of his Constitutional authority, because he has placed every American citizen at risk. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution, and violation of this oath is grounds for impeachment. Only by impeaching the President can Congress and the American people send a message to the world that we wish once again to be the respected nation we once were, rather than our current image of the feared and hated international police thug for the world.
It Is No Small Task
Concurrently with impeachment, Congress should act to repeal all war powers acts including: International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703 (b) and the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601. And, all sanctions should be lifted immediately. This must be done so Mr. Clintons successor will not be tempted to repeat this error. If not done, it will do little good to impeach Mr. Clinton.
Is this an impossible task, as many will surely tell us? Perhaps, but so was the task our founders faced 223 years ago. And our risk today is greater than theirs, for we have no backwoods to retreat to when we lose our freedom.(End of Grounds for Impeachment, published 1988)
http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1134
End.
|
