Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 03:28 PM Sep 2013

Many members who voted for tough stance on Syria now oppose military action

Many members who voted for tough stance on Syria now oppose military action

By Bill Branigin

In an opening statement Tuesday before the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary of State John F. Kerry told lawmakers that they had effectively already voted for the use of force in Syria.

“You have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act," Kerry said. "And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided that these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation.”

Kerry's reference is to the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. It cited, among other things, congressional findings that the Syrian government “is pursuing the development and production of biological and chemical weapons” and that, according to the CIA, Syria “already holds a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin but apparently is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents.”

The act further said that it is the “sense of Congress” that Syria should “cease the development and production of biological and chemical weapons.” It adds that as a matter of U.S. policy, “the United States will work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction” and that “Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States.”

The act passed in the House by a vote of 408 to 8, with one member voting present and 17 not voting. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 89 to 4, with seven not voting.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/13/many-members-who-voted-for-tough-stance-on-syria-now-oppose-military-action/

It just goes to show that who the President is matters.

Roll Call...

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00445

House: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll654.xml

H.R.1828
Latest Title: Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003
Sponsor: Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] (introduced 4/12/2003) Cosponsors (297)
Related Bills:S.982
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 108-175 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 108-314
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
12/12/2003--Public Law. (There are 4 other summaries)


(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on November 11, 2003. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 - (Sec. 3) Declares the sense of Congress that the Government of Syria should immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and openly declare its total renunciation of all forms of terrorism, and close all terrorist offices and facilities in Syria, including the offices of Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

Declares the sense of Congress that the Government of Syria should: (1) immediately and unconditionally stop facilitating transit from Syria to Iraq of individuals, military equipment, and all lethal items, except as authorized by the Coalition Provisional Authority or a representative, internationally recognized Iraqi government; (2) cease its support for "volunteers" and terrorists who are traveling from and through Syria into Iraq to launch attacks; (3) undertake concrete, verifiable steps to deter such behavior and control the use of territory under Syrian control; and (4) immediately declare its commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon, and set a firm timetable for such withdrawal.

Declares the sense of Congress that the Government of Lebanon should deploy the Lebanese armed forces to all areas of Lebanon, including South Lebanon, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) (Security Council Resolution 520), in order to assert the sovereignty of the Lebanese state over all of its territory, and should evict all terrorist and foreign forces from southern Lebanon, including Hizballah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Declares the sense of Congress that: (1) the Government of Syria should halt the development and deployment of medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles and cease the development and production of biological and chemical weapons; and (2) the Governments of Lebanon and Syria should enter into serious unconditional bilateral negotiations with the Government of Israel in order to realize a full and permanent peace.

Declares the sense of Congress that the United States should continue to provide humanitarian and educational assistance to the people of Lebanon only through appropriate private, nongovernmental organizations and appropriate international organizations, until such time as the Government of Lebanon asserts sovereignty and control over all of its territory and borders and achieves full political independence, as called for in Security Council Resolution 520.

Declares the sense of Congress that, as a violator of several key United Nations Security Council resolutions and as a nation that pursues policies which undermine international peace and security, Syria should not have been permitted to join the United Nations Security Council or serve as the Security Council's President, and should be removed from the Security Council.

(Sec. 4) Declares as U.S. policy that: (1) Syria should bear responsibility for attacks committed by Hizballah and other terrorist groups with offices or other facilities in Syria, or bases in areas of Lebanon occupied by Syria; (2) the United States will work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction; (3) the Secretary of State will continue to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism until it ends support for terrorism, including its support of Hizballah and other terrorist groups in Lebanon and its hosting of terrorist groups in Damascus, and comes into full compliance with U.S. law relating to terrorism and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001); (4) the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity is in the U.S. national security interest; (5) Syria is in violation of Security Council Resolution 520 through its continued occupation of Lebanese territory and its encroachment upon its political independence; (6) Syria's obligation to withdraw from Lebanon is not conditioned upon progress in the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria's obligation under Security Council Resolution 520; (7) Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle East and U.S. national security interests; (8) Syria will be held accountable for any harm to Coalition armed forces or to any U.S. citizen in Iraq if the Government of Syria is found to be responsible owing to its facilitation of terrorist activities and its shipments of military supplies to Iraq; and (9) the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria ends all support for terrorism, withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, and halts the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.

(Sec. 5) Sets forth the following penalties against Syria until the President determines and certifies to Congress that Syria meets the requirements of this Act.

Directs the President to prohibit the export to Syria of any item, including the issuance of an export license, on the United States Munitions List or Commerce Control List of dual-use items in the Export Administration Regulations.

Requires the President, at the same time, to impose two or more of the following sanctions: (1) prohibit the export to Syria of U.S. products (other than food and medicine); (2) prohibit U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria; (3) restrict Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C., and at the United Nations in New York City, to travel only within a 25-mile radius of Washington, D.C., or the United Nations headquarters building, respectively; (4) prohibit aircraft of any air carrier owned or controlled by Syria to take off from, land in, or overfly the United States; (5) reduce U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria (other than those required to protect U.S. interests or carry out the purposes of this Act); and (6) block transactions in any property in which the Government of Syria has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Authorizes the President to waive such sanctions for one or more six-month periods if the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so and reports his reasons to Congress.

Authorizes the President to provide development assistance to Syria and Lebanon under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 if he certifies to Congress that the Government of Syria: (1) has ceased providing support for international terrorist groups and does not allow terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, to maintain facilities in territory under Syrian control; (2) has ended its occupation of Lebanon as described in this Act ; (3) has ceased the development and deployment of medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, is not pursuing or engaged in the research, development, acquisition, production, transfer, or deployment of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, has provided credible assurances that such behavior will not be undertaken in the future, and has agreed to allow United Nations and other international observers to verify such actions and assurances; (4) has ceased all support for, and facilitation of, all terrorist activities inside of Iraq, including preventing the use of territory under its control by any means whatsoever to support those engaged in terrorist activities inside of Iraq; and (5) is strictly respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese army throughout Lebanon, as required under Security Council Resolution 520.

Requires the President also, as a condition for renewed development assistance to Syria, to determine that substantial progress has been made both in negotiations aimed at achieving a peace agreement between Israel and Syria and in negotiations aimed at achieving a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

(Sec. 6) Requires annual reports to the appropriate congressional committees on Syria's progress in complying with the requirements of this Act, beginning six months after enactment of this Act.

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Many members who voted for tough stance on Syria now oppose military action (Original Post) ProSense Sep 2013 OP
Politics.. kentuck Sep 2013 #1
I suppose. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #2
Kick for ProSense Sep 2013 #3
K&R michigandem58 Sep 2013 #4
Thanks. ProSense Sep 2013 #5
Deserves more exposure! michigandem58 Sep 2013 #7
K & R SunSeeker Sep 2013 #6
K&R great white snark Sep 2013 #8
You mean there's politics at play here? Well, I never. Everybody hearts Putin & Assad now. YAY!!! Tarheel_Dem Sep 2013 #9
Public Law 108–175 n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #10
"Everybody" is false Stupefacto Sep 2013 #11
Welcome to DU. ProSense Sep 2013 #12
Well, obviously the only people who matter heart Pooty & Assad. "Everybody" was a bit broad. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2013 #13
Something familiar ProSense Sep 2013 #16
there has been rather substantial turnover since 2003 dsc Sep 2013 #14
It's easy enough to see who is still there, and ProSense Sep 2013 #15
In the House I am not so sure of that dsc Sep 2013 #18
Of course.. "a one hatey"! Cha Sep 2013 #17
Circumstances change, so policies change FarCenter Sep 2013 #19
It's not a policy. It's a law. ProSense Sep 2013 #20
I don't see wording in the summary of H.R.1828 that authorizes the use of force against Syria? FarCenter Sep 2013 #21
Here is what Kerry said: ProSense Sep 2013 #23
Ah! So it is Bill Branigan who is making stuff up and putting words in Kerry's mouth. FarCenter Sep 2013 #27
Do you disagree with what Kerry said about what the law states? ProSense Sep 2013 #28
The law exists; Kerry's quote is fairly consident with it; Branigan's is not. FarCenter Sep 2013 #29
I hope we can use this same method Hutzpa Sep 2013 #22
President Obama has that effect CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #24
There were ProSense Sep 2013 #26
HRW is a subsidiary of the US foreign affairs, media, and investment banking establishment. FarCenter Sep 2013 #30
So are you implying that ProSense Sep 2013 #31
“Wouldn’t want to create an impression that HRW is not interested in what Snowden has to say.” FarCenter Sep 2013 #32
Again, thanks for proving the point. ProSense Sep 2013 #33
You'll appreciate this. WilliamPitt Sep 2013 #25
LOL Scurrilous Sep 2013 #34
that's because they are smart enough to know stupidicus Sep 2013 #35
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime... ProSense Sep 2013 #36
which says nothing about the use of the military action on our part to do it stupidicus Sep 2013 #37
They were going to stand on the border and yell: Leave!!! ProSense Sep 2013 #38
advisors/advising and training/materials aren't missile, etc strikes stupidicus Sep 2013 #39
Again ProSense Sep 2013 #40
again stupidicus Sep 2013 #41

Tarheel_Dem

(31,232 posts)
13. Well, obviously the only people who matter heart Pooty & Assad. "Everybody" was a bit broad.
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 08:23 PM
Sep 2013

DU's aristocracy has declared them both above reproach.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
15. It's easy enough to see who is still there, and
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 09:07 PM
Sep 2013

it really doesn't matter as this is a law.

The majority are still there.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
19. Circumstances change, so policies change
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:22 AM
Sep 2013
Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.


Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848), Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3rd series, vol. 97, col. 122.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. It's not a policy. It's a law.
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:46 AM
Sep 2013

"Circumstances change, so policies change"

Why would this law be OK before an actual chemical attack, and not after?

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
21. I don't see wording in the summary of H.R.1828 that authorizes the use of force against Syria?
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:30 PM
Sep 2013

Is Kerry making stuff up again?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
23. Here is what Kerry said:
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:45 PM
Sep 2013
“You have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act," Kerry said. "And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided that these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation.”

As the OP article states, that is directly from the text of law:

(7) Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle East and U.S. national security interests;



ProSense

(116,464 posts)
28. Do you disagree with what Kerry said about what the law states?
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:24 PM
Sep 2013

Or are you just having trouble accepting the fact that the law exists?

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
29. The law exists; Kerry's quote is fairly consident with it; Branigan's is not.
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:38 PM
Sep 2013
In an opening statement Tuesday before the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary of State John F. Kerry told lawmakers that they had effectively already voted for the use of force in Syria.

“You have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act," Kerry said. "And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided that these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation.”


Where in the quote, or in the text of the law, does it "effectively" authorize "the use of force in Syria"?

Hutzpa

(11,461 posts)
22. I hope we can use this same method
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:37 PM
Sep 2013

or approach in the future because it produces results.

Then again, republicans will vote against anything that has Obama's name on it, I bet if the
president suggested pay increase for members of Congress the republicans will still vote
against it just because he is Obama.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
24. President Obama has that effect
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:48 PM
Sep 2013

He turns Republicans into peace proponents and Democrats into sometime back-patters of the likes of Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, the Oath Keepers and Vlad Putin.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
26. There were
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 01:59 PM
Sep 2013

people trying to smear Human Rights Watch after it issued its report on the chemical attacks.



 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
30. HRW is a subsidiary of the US foreign affairs, media, and investment banking establishment.
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:40 PM
Sep 2013

Human Rights Watch - Board of Directors
http://www.hrw.org/node/76172

See bios of Chair and Vice-Chairs.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
31. So are you implying that
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:51 PM
Sep 2013

"HRW is a subsidiary of the US foreign affairs, media, and investment banking establishment."

...a this "subsidiary" staged Snowden's PR even in Russia?

Human Rights Watch
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-to-meet-amnesty-and-human-rights-watch-at-moscow-airport-live-coverag

Still, thanks for confirming my point.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
32. “Wouldn’t want to create an impression that HRW is not interested in what Snowden has to say.”
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:55 PM
Sep 2013

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
33. Again, thanks for proving the point.
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 04:25 PM
Sep 2013

Like I said, there are those who are attempting to discredit and smear anyone who accuses Assad of the chemical attack.

It's likely the UN will be smeared for its report.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
25. You'll appreciate this.
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:51 PM
Sep 2013

Bill Maher has invented a new word.

"Blacktrack": the art of changing your mind instantly because President Obama agrees with you.

Seems to be at play in Congress on this matter.

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
35. that's because they are smart enough to know
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:41 PM
Sep 2013

that just like with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 where section 8 explicitly denied the use of military force, there's no language in there that explicitly sanctions or promotes it.

I'm unsurprised that you couldn't figure that one out.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
36. "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime...
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 09:18 PM
Sep 2013
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf


President Clinton explains Iraq strike; Also, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023607079

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
37. which says nothing about the use of the military action on our part to do it
Sun Sep 15, 2013, 07:51 PM
Sep 2013

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided
in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
38. They were going to stand on the border and yell: Leave!!!
Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:02 PM
Sep 2013
which says nothing about the use of the military action on our part to do it

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided
in section 4(a)(2))
in carrying out this Act.


SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN
IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.—The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE.—(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

Who would be the recipient of that "miltary assistance"?

There wasn't a civil war in Iraq. Were they envisioning or planning a coup?







 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
39. advisors/advising and training/materials aren't missile, etc strikes
Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:34 PM
Sep 2013

and helping some group by providing them with such is not "attacking" militarily the enemy we're attempting to undermine.

it's pretty sad when you have to explain the diff between violent and non-violent involvement to someone that thinks they have a tenable argument that equates the two. While providing arms is illegal under international law, it ain't "the same" as the attacks you were hoping for, being a likely supporter of that "credible threat" thing, and that's the diff that shows no incongruity between what those congress critters voted for before and what they support now..

Of course they were trying to promote and support a regime change. Gee what's next, that's a war crime exactly like militarily attacking another country (war of aggression) without a UNSC res authorizing it?

Hardly, and you have no foundation for such a thing, and indeed, the case law on the matter shows the opposite.

Arming Syrian Rebels: Lethal Assistance and International Law
By Ashley Deeks
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 10:00 AM

On the Sunday talk shows, various members of Congress exhorted the United States to increase its assistance to the Syrian rebels, whether by providing them with additional (lethal) equipment, or by establishing a no-fly zone, or by entering Syria to secure its chemical weapons caches. Last night the Post reported that the Executive Branch is seriously weighing whether to arm the rebels. I wrote here about some of the international legal hurdles that the U.S. would confront in evaluating whether to use force directly in Syria. (A no-fly zone, which some have advocated, would fall into the “use of force” category.) But even the provision of lethal equipment to the Syrian rebels has implications in international law.

In Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice evaluated alleged U.S. assistance to the contra rebels, who were operating in and against Nicaragua. The Court concluded that the U.S. provision of arms and training to rebels “can certainly be said to involve the threat or use of force against Nicaragua.” This arming and training also violated the international legal principle of non-intervention. At the same time, the Court concluded that the provision of arms and financial and logistical support did not constitute an “armed attack.” That is, the Court drew a distinction between acts that constitute a use of force and those uses of force that are serious enough to count as “armed attacks.” Note what this means: in the ICJ’s view, providing arms to rebels violates the U.N. Charter, but it is not a serious enough violation to trigger the right of self-defense by the state that is on the receiving end of the rebels’ activity. There’s another point worth noting, too: The United States generally rejects the idea that there is a distinction between a use of force and an armed attack. (See then-State Department Legal Adviser Will Taft’s article here.) http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/arming-syrian-rebels-lethal-assistance-and-international-law/


The only thing you've made a case for here, is that you think those congress critters should agree to be worse criminals than they already are, or suffer what, a "hypocrisy" charge from some obscure and largely unknown DU poster.

I'll go with the court's reasoning in this case, and not that of the warmongers like you.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
40. Again
Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:45 PM
Sep 2013

"advisors/advising and training/materials aren't missile, etc strikes and helping some group by providing them with such is not 'attacking' militarily the enemy we're attempting to undermine. "

...in a law stating that the goal is "regime change," and with Iraq not engaged a civil war, which entity would be the recipient of the military support to "undermine" the regime?

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
41. again
Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:03 PM
Sep 2013

you make it abundantly clear you can't understand the diff between the use of military force and everything that falls short of that, which leads you to erroneously "believe" that just because the congress critters were all in on econ sanctions, etc, in whatever country, that they have to also be approving of war with that country.

WHo the groups were in Iraq such assistance would go to has no bearing on all the distinctions drawn that completely undermine your BS here, nor does the fact that they weren't embroiled in a civil war. It's just your customary dodging of the only relevant material -- that the use of force in Syria is not "just like" approving of sanctions, arming rebels, etc.

it's just the usual meaningless garbage your quiver seems to be exclusively full of, regardless of the issue.

What I find most amusing about your focus on Iraq here, is that that is some of the same BS your Bushbotted, rightwing cousins use to spew in defense of their Fuhrer invading. It was hard to have a debate about the Iraq war without them citing the ILA of 1998 as a partial justification for it, and now we have you doing so.

Thanks for showing your true self for the readers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Many members who voted fo...