Syria: Humanitarian Accountibility or American Exceptionalism

  High risks has been placed on the international table when President Obama traveled to New York to delegate one of the biggest incidents since he took office. He arrived at the United Nations General Assembly to deliberate on a solution to destroy the chemicals weapons used for Mass Destruction in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. These chemical weapons has been devastating. Destroying the lives of more than 300 Syrian civilians . 
    Allegations of the Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad, was responsible for the massacre. And it has touched off the most severe foreign policy question since the uprising in 2011. Is a military response appropriate? 13 different videos that was taken by the intelligence community and submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee for review, depicting the most gruesome images the world has seen in this generation. The footage was an important move in the administration's efforts to convince The U.N. Security Council that a punitive strike against Syria must be carried out.
     From Afghanistan to Iraq and Libya, United States has flexed its muscles in the "War on Terrorism". But on the new international platform and globalization on the rise, would this be a wise choice in the Syria situation? As far as we can see, there is indisputable evidence that chemicals weapons were used on a mass scale. As the investigation took place on September 16, 2013. An U.N. team known as The Mission to investigate the Allegation of the use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic found Clear and Convincing evidence that sarin gas was used in an incident on August 21, 2013. There is also a hint that President Bashid al-Assad has used the chemical weapons on that date in a response to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia supplying the opposition with anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.  He didn't directly admit to it, but he was definitely unhappy the way Saudi Arabia has been supplying the Free Syrian Army against Assad's regime. -New York Times: Assad Uses Crisis to His Advantage, List Demands-  It appeared that Assad's days were numbered. But certain factors had turned the war in his favor, making what was thought as his removal as President and the end of a bloodbath not possible.
   Under a deal brokered by the United States, Russia and China, Assad must report data on the country’s chemical weapons within a week and have them destroyed by next year. And in exchange for signing the Chemical Weapons Convention and relinquishing its arsenal of chemical weapons, he demanded U.S. agree to a term to stop arming the Syrian opposition. Did Assad forces use chemical weapons in retaliation for America and the Saudis supplying the opposition? If the Republic of Syria is not happy with Assad, why dosn't he simply step down and reside? Syria's civil war grew out of protests that swept across the Arab World in 2011, becoming by far the deadliest of those uprisings and the most difficult to resolve.
     Since the independence of Syria and the commencement of the Ba'ath Party, the country has been in turmoil. After an Ten year struggle with the French occupation, Syria was completely recognized as an independent republic in 1946. Shortly after it's independence, Syria founded the Ba'ath Party in a response to satisfy the factions that plagued the Arab World and to unify it into a single State. It's motto, "Unity, Liberty, Socialism", referring to Arab Unity, and freedom from non-Arab control and interference. Merging with the Arab Socialist Party led by Akram al-Hawrani, in 1952, it formed the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, which gained success. In response of the constant struggle between the various classes and successions of coups that arise, the Syrian Arab Republic was formed to offset the violent struggles that Socialism has created.
       When listening to someone speaking about Socialism, it can sound very appealing, it can even be taken as an alternative to Democracy. But at the end of the day, it's giving the government too much power. Government, just like anything else in society, is subject to human err and possible corruption. For that matter alone, Socialism cannot benefit or progress. All its power is centralized and given to the leaders without any checks and balances, which is very important in gaining different perspectives in a national situation and opening to different options and possibilities to solve problems. Without separation of powers and the mechanism of checks and balances, leaders focuses more on the struggle to gain personal power for their own benefit and will kill to gain the centralized power that Socialism provides, focusing less on the needs of the people. The needs of the people, which is the sole reason why they were granted the position in the first place.
     Hafez al-Assad, Father of the current President Bashar al-Assad, took control in a critical time, when the Ba'ath Party in Syria came under reform called "The Corrective Movement" in 1970. Still a Socialist State, as rectified by the New Syrian Constitution which followed a Parliamentary elections for the People's Council in 1973, he lead Syria in a series of conflicts and war that left his nation unsure about its future. From the involvement of the Lebanese Civil War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Hamas Massacre, as well as aiding the U.S. in dismantling the power of Iraq in Kuwait. Hafez al-Assad died on June 10th 2000 after 30 years in power.
        His son Bashar al-Assad became successor after an amendment of the Constitution was made, lowering the required age to become president. This alone seems to prove that Syria's oligarchs are corrupted and authoritarian. But with his election to office, Syria generated new hopes of a stronger state, and a renaissance of intellectual and political thinking. Known as the Damascus Spring, salons developed rapidly. However, by autumn 2001, The Syrian government suppressed the movement, arrested leading intellectuals, and began yet another episode of civil conflict characterized by tyranny. This time opening Syria into a new breed of death and destruction called terrorism.
     In 2002, U.S. claim Damascus was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and put Syria on its watchlist known as the axis of evil. Doing that same time U.S. was critical of Syria's relationships with Hamas, the Jihad Movement in Palestine and Hezbollah, which was all regarded as terrorist groups. The next year in 2003, U.S. threatened sanctions, but Syria denied U.S. allegations that it was developing chemical weapons.
Renewed opposition activity occurred in October of 2005 when activist Micheal Kilo and other figures that opposed the dictatorship of the government, launched the Damascus Declaration, which criticized the Syrian government as "authoritarian, totalitarian, and cliquish" and called for democratic reform. Leading dissidents Kamal al-Labwani and Micheal Kilo were sentenced to long jail terms in 2007, only weeks after the human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni was jailed.
        Since then, the uprising of 2011, encouraged by the Arab Spring, anti-Assad groups determined to restore a Democratic base Republic, met to form what is known as the Syrian National Council. With the support of the new Free Syrian Army, they establish an alternative government, whose objective is to oust Assad's Regime and stabilize their nation. This of course set the stage for the civil war.
        The use of chemical weapons has always been used by the Syrian Government. This is the primary reason why Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government seems to be responsible. But before any military response can be justified there has to be a thorough investigation by the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. assumed that demanding an resolution to disarm Syrian government chemical weapons would weaken Assad and give The Syrian National Council (rebels) the advantage.But it seems that its actually working in favor for Assad. Not only does it give him the opportunity to stay in power and reach an resolution that might maintain a Socialist Regime, it will also allow him to keep the contractual agreement with Iran to install a pipeline through his nation. Which of course, will not benefit the people, only him and his group of oligarchs.

Capitalism Behind the Fight for Freedom

  The fact that Iran's contractual agreement with Syria and Iraq to construct a pipeline that will feed oil into the European market, is the underhanded force behind the Big Dogs(United States, Russia, and China) to get involved, but on opposite sides. Though alot of bloggers and journalist has written that U.S. and Israel is trying to keep Syria's government destabilized, that is not the case. Syria's Republic (rebels) to fight for a Democratic policy just happen to be in line with the U.S. protecting Israel's interest to maintain control over the only pipeline feeding the European market. For the U.S. to take out Assad's regime and allow the rebels to take control and establish a Democracy, falls right in place for Israel(U.S. ally)and Turkey. Israel and Turkey remains sole controller of the oil pipe, making it the sole controller of the European Market.
    When looking at confirmed and unconfirmed reports alike, their is definitely a hint of a conspiracy to take Bashar al-Assad out of power. From Israel and Turkey supplying the Free Syrian Army(rebels) to United States hand in transferring weapons to the Free Syrian Army via Saudi Arabia as well as United States unrelenting allegations that Assad and his oligarchs were the culprits behind the chemical weapons. Though Washington was pushing a resolution that will include Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, invoking a military strike if Syria does not comply with the disposal of their chemical arson, Russia and China did not agree but the U.N. Security Council ruled on Chapter 7 Military Response Friday September 27.
      Both Russia and China's hard line disagreement does not go unsound, Both nations ,who are growing first world powers, are also permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. President Putin of Russia has made it very clear that international law has been broken by a faction of Syria, and there has to be accountability. At the same time Russia and China are letting the U.S. know that they are not to take action into their own hands as if they regulate international authority by themselves. The U.S. has to respect the U.N. Security Council and The International Court of  Justice, both Russia and China will not allowed deliberations to go avoided. Standing on the 'Rule of Law' and 'Due Process' standard of the U.N. Constitution which demand that no country or leader is above the law, gives Assad a credible process to determine accountability.

What it Boils Down To: Where do Transparency Begins?

        Edward Snowden, 29, may spend decades in prison for leaking information on government activities involving violating the public interest in privacy. The wide open disclosures includes U.S. Goverment gathering billions of phone calls and internet activities. Snowden says his only motive to come forward was to "inform the public". Currently he has taken refuge in Hong Kong until the U.S. can legally extradite him back.

         When he spoke to the reporters from the Guardian and the Washington Post, He said. "Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector. Anywhere". He continued," I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you to your accountant to a Federal Judge, to even the President if I had a personal e-mail.." Snowden could be looking at charges as serious as Treason(Betrayal of the U.S. Government). But according to the Associated Press, Mark Zaid, a National Security Attorney for whistle blowers said that intent would have to be proven. Where Snowden will remain consistent that his "sole motive" was to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.

          Snowden, a former techn
ical assistant for the CIA and a current employee of defense contractor, had access to classified information that he felt he was compelled to release for the sake of public interest. In a note accompanying this first set of documents he provided to the newspaper, Snowden wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, but I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

           The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on Snowden's disclosure, saying the issue has been referred to the Justice Department. However, the Agency said: "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law." The Justice Department has commenced an initiate to investigate unauthorized disclosure of classified information by an individual with authorized access according to Justice Department spokeswoman Nanda Chitre late Sunday, June 9. Furthermore, New York Republican Representative Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism said: "If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date. The United States must make it clear that no country should be granting this individual asylum. This is a matter of extraordinary consequence to American intelligence." Though the Federal Court has ruled that a number of provisions of the Patriot Act are considered unconstitutional, the FBI and other "security agents" continue to intrude on personal records and communications without a court order. Isn't that a direct violation of the 4th Amendment???? What happen to the transparency acts Obama put in place. President Bush believed that the emergency created by the Sept. 11 attacks allowed the government to spy on anyone without a warrant. He was "free from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment" when it came to unleashing the NSA. The agency is a military-intelligence service, and "the Fourth Amendment would not apply to military operations the President ordered within the United States to deter and prevent acts of terrorism." Of course this is an opinion of a man that commenced the plummet of the American Economy and started an illegal war in Iraq when he was suppose to be going after Bin Laden after the 9/11 attack. Wouldn't it only be right to keep the public informed on the terrorist that has been apprehended, so the public would have a sense of justification for the violation of our constitutional rights. I mean, how would informing the public on terrorists after their capture harm their operations. We all know that their is corruption in the government, how can we trust them to hold secret court? Yesterday, Obama defended NSA wiretapping, Saying that NSA cannot wiretap our communications, but we all know that's a lie. The purpose of the Patriot Act is to violate out 4th Amendment rights, with no intent of Transparency. The underlining intent of everything we hear in Conspiracy Theory is the Great and Very Possible Threat of Regimes that we have witness in the Soviet Union. Remember the Iron Curtain, the Cold War? The citizens of Russia virtually had no freedoms. No property rights and no privacy rights. At any given time The Russian Government could easedrop, search your home randomly with no warrant, arrest you or detain you with little suspicion. Attempt to contact anyone outside the Regime was seen as a threat and betrayal to the Soviet Nation. Much land was confiscated and Many execution were done during this time.

     Sounds similar? Look at the real estate bubble, how property been taken away through subprime mortgaging with Government backing. Patriot Act mandated because of some threat from Osama Bin Laden.  And just as Snowden says in the video, the government will continue to increase pressure through "terroristic threats" from above, so the public will demand protection from below. A vicious cycle of fear and increase of  government power until we have inadvertently given up all our rights to the Government, beginning with the 4th Amendment right to our privacy.