Vladimir Putin Op-Ed: Habitual U.S. Military Interventions Alarming

Yesterday, Vladimir Putin contributed an Op-Ed to the New York Times in order to speak directly to the American people regarding the potential U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict. While I don’t share his support of the UN, we should all reflect on this: “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States…Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us”…No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect…It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.” Why is this coming from Putin and not Obama?

The Essence of Obama on Syria

Image

whitehouse.gov

I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets…We would not put boots on the ground…our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive…I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress…I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.

In essence, Obama is ready to strike Syrian targets at any time, promises that we won’t be committing troops to Syria, and will seek authorization from Congress for the use of force, but claims he doesn’t really need this authorization.His claims that he doesn’t need Congressional authorization is exceedingly ridiculous and what’s more, he bases this claim, in part, on his own precedent in Libya in 2011! Another thing that stands out from his press release is that he mentions that the mission would not be time-sensitive, ie. Obama admits Syria poses no imminent threat to us (which should be exceedingly obvious).

Let’s remember this statement when we commit thousands of troops to Syria because the situation “is more complicated than we expected,” specifically because of our needless foreign intervention in the first place. Let us remember this like we remember presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s statement from December 20th, 2007 when he said:

the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

When a politician get’s caught in outright lies like Barack Obama has, they must be put to task for it.

Fourth Amendment in Shambles


Today, President Obama held a press conference, the chief purpose being to “ease concerns on surveillance” of U.S. citizens. He “threw his administration’s support behind a proposal to change the procedures of the secret court that approves electronic spying under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” If Obama really wanted to bolster public confidence, he would eliminate the FISA court altogether. The FISA court has been nothing but a mindless drone that signs any warrant the government brings its way, with no thought given to the 4th Amendment. Any judge or court who is willing to sign a warrant authorizing spying on hundreds of millions of American citizens should be disbarred. 

Warrants are supposed to specifically designate the person or places to be searched, not cover every American citizen with a reckless disregard to their civil liberties and privacy. “[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[emphasis added]” Can anyone from the FISA court or Obama administration read?

Obama also mentioned his administration was “planning to release a previously classified legal analysis explaining why the government believes it is lawful under a provision of the Patriot Act known as Section 215 for the N.S.A. to collect and store logs of every phone call dialed or received in the United States.” That statement explains everything that is wrong with the government’s sanctioning of its surveillance in the first place. The Patriot Act has been unconstitutional since Day One. Any legal reasoning building off the PATRIOT Act is an absurdity constructed on top of a farce. 


I don’t doubt that Obama can find legal reasoning under the PATRIOT Act to spy on every American citizen; however, this doesn’t in any way justify the spying under the enumerated provisions of the Constitution. If President Obama issued an executive order to throw every individual of Islamic (or any other) descent into prison and based his legal reasoning off of Korematsu v. United States, would we not say that his legal reasoning is not only seriously flawed, but dangerous and utterly repugnant to a free society? President Obama is doing nothing but paying lip service to the Fourth Amendment and to the justified public concerns over the government surveillance state that’s being erected à la 1948.