On
Syria, Obama's
Authorization
Hit as Too
Broad or
Narrow,
of ICC
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 1 --
With US
President
Barack Obama
saying that to
strike Syria
he needs
nothing from
the UN or its
Security
Council,
only the US
Congress,
focused turned
there on
Sunday
afternoon.
After
an in-person
briefing for
Congress
members by the
Administration,
a
range of
Representatives
spoke to the
media.
The reasons
given for
possibly
voting "No" on
the
Authorization
send to
Congress
by Obama
ranged from
Republicans
like Scott
Rigell of
Virginia
(Newport News
and Virginia
Beach) who
said the
Authorization
does not
go far enough
in terms of
regime change
to Democratic
like Elijah
Cummings of
Maryland who
said the
Authorization
is not limited
enough.
Rigell
said that
missile strike
on a military
base would
just kill
conscripts who
are not
responsible;
he mused that
the US
prohibition
on trying to
assassinate
heads of state
might create a
safe zone
around Bashar
al Assad. Then
he said the
ideal outcome
would be
Assad on trial
as a war
criminal in
The Hague.
This
was more than
a little
strange, as
Inner City
Press noted.
Does the
Republican
Scott Rigell
want the US to
join the
Hague-based
International
Criminal
Court?
Representative
Sander
Levin
D-Michigan
said that on
Obama's
Authorization,
he's a
Yes vote. But
is his
brother,
Senator Carl
Levin?
Michael
Burgess
R-Texas said
he was going
to download
Obama's Syria
resolution
& read on
way home.
Well, it's
only a page
and a half.
Cummings
said
that his
constituents
don't much
understand
chemical
weapons,
and that Obama
will have to
explain them.
It
seemed that no
one doubts
that Assad was
responsible
for using
chemical
weapons: there
was no
questioning or
answers about
the
rebels having
such weapons,
nor about the
United
Nations. It
was very
telling, and
will be
further
explored in
the days to
come. Watch
this
site.
, 
