sâmbătă, 18 iunie 2011

Blogger-ul de serviciu. Azi: David Rothkopf



"...one of the main messages of modern international affairs comes through loud and clear: Nukes pay. From Pyongyang to Tehran, enterprising leaders know that the easiest way to boost your country's profile, gain political leverage, and win cash and prizes is to toss a little enriched uranium in the old Cuisinart, let the satellites take a few snaps, and start rattling your radioactive saber."



(Din articolul If Greece had nukes, they would be bailed out by now, postat de David Rothkopf pe blogul lui de la Foreign Policy).

Corect! Diferenţa dintre Ahmadinejad şi Băsescu rezidă în zero focoase nucleare, dar în ambiţia primului de a le avea cu orice preţ.

Oricât de nefrecventabil ar fi liderul de la Teheran - de la vestimentaţia cu care n-ar putea fi primit la Plaza Athénée din Paris, până la dosarul său în materie de drepturile omului, generator de spume la gură - Washington-ul ÎL BAGĂ ÎN SEAMĂ, ÎL RESPECTĂ ŞI CHELTUIEŞTE ENORME CAPITOLE BUGETARE PENTRU A-L CONTRACARA - ATENŢIE - NU PENTRU A-L UCIDE... Dacă defunctul lider terorist aruncat în mare era doar echivalentul unui bătăuş de Bronx, Ahmadinejad e un Al Capone la puterea Uraniu 235.

Asta contează. În absenţa unei ambiţii mărturisite şi credibile de a deveni o putere nucleară, nici nu poţi exista pe harta politică a lumii.

Poza a fost preluată de la http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-rothkopf-goes-too-far-with-send-tea-party-to-afghanistan-joke/

joi, 16 iunie 2011

Constituţia SUA şi fotbalul american

Continuă să mai existe "deştepţi" care fac, evlavios, trimitere la Constituţia SUA, atunci când vor să se dea mari în faţa prostimii.


"Deştepţii" nu pricep că, pe fond, între Constituţia lui Ceauşescu din 1965 şi cea americană, nu existau - forţând puţin nota - decât diferenţe de structură şi stil. Ceea ce a făcut însă ca Legea fundamentală americană să fie bună de dat exemplu a fost asumarea practică, de către fiecare Putere în stat (prin persoanele din care a fost alcătuită de-a lungul a peste 200 de ani), a atribuţiilor constituţionale proprii, în aşa fel încât între aceste Puteri să existe, în permanenţă, neîncredere, echilibru şi control reciproc. În afara acestei asumări, orice Constituţie de pe planeta asta rămâne o simplă broşură, iar ţara respectivă o republică cvasi-bananieră.



Din ce în ce mai mult, în ultimii 50 de ani, dar, mai cu seamă de la fatidica dată de 11 septembrie 2001 încoace, Constituţia Statelor Unite a dobândit forma ovală a balonului de fotbal american, cu care cele două mari tabere ideologice de acolo joacă o nesfârşită partidă pe viaţă, moarte şi pe supremaţie naţională şi globală. Cine nu crede, să citească lucrarea lui John Dean "Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches", procurabilă de la http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Government-Republican-Destroyed-Legislative/dp/B001VEHZTS/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1308234519&sr=8-5


Cine n-are timp, şi vrea ceva mai schematizat, îl trimit la acţiunea în justiţie introdusă de un grup de congressmeni împotriva lui Obama, cu privire la neconstituţionalitatea operaţiunilor militare desfăşurate de SUA împotriva Libiei. Pe cine-l aud că "Gaddafi e un tiran" şi că "intervenţia americană e morală", îl bag nemijlocit în mă-sa, fiindcă înseamnă că n-a priceput nimic.


Articolul I Secţiunea a 8-a din Constituţia americană şi War Powers Act din 1973 stabilesc în competenţa Congresului atribuţia de a declara război, precum şi posibilitatea excepţională ca Preşedintele să iniţieze operaţiuni militare fără autorizarea Legislativului, dar nu mai mult de 60 plus încă cel mult 30 de zile. După care trebuie să vină în Congres şi să solicite aprobarea de continuare sau o declaraţie formală de război.


Depăşind performanţele în materie de neconstituţioalitate ale lui Bush jr. şi ale neoconservatorilor, Obama loveşte militar Libia şi, cu piciorul, mingea de fotbal numită Constituţia SUA. Iată câteva consideraţii din acţiunea congressmenilor americani (Democraţi şi Republicani, în egală măsură), de la http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Libya_Complaint_Master.pdf:


"31. On March 19, 2011, at approximately 3:00 p.m. EDT, President Obama ordered U.S. forces to attack the armed government forces of Libya.
32. Before attacking the government of Libya, President Obama did not seek or receive a declaration of war from Congress.
33. Before attacking the government of Libya, President Obama did not seek or receive approval of Congress in any form.
34. Subsequent to the start of military operations in Libya, the Obama Administration stated that, as a policy, the President did not consider himself bound to consult with Congress or receive its approval for military operations like those ordered in Libya.
35. U.S operations in Libya now include all of the classic elements of a war, including but not limited to close combat support, bombing of Libya’s capital and key Libyan military assets, and commitment of U.S. personnel to ground operations to assist the rebel forces in the Libyan civil war.

44. Libya did not attack the United States or any NATO member.
45. Libya has not been cited as a threat to the United States or any NATO member.

48. The Administration never received the approval of Congress for committing U.S. military forces to the NATO operation in Libya.
54. According to public reports, U.S. personnel with Army Special Forces units and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are on the ground in Libya to assist the rebel forces. Interview by Bill O’Reilly with Ret. Col. David Hunt, U.S. Army, and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, on The O’Reilly Factor (Mar. 24, 2011).

57. President Obama has confirmed that the Libyan War is not a response to a direct threat to the United States or even an effort to combat terrorism.
58. Indeed, on March 28, 2011, President Obama described the Libyan civil war as one of the “times . . . when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are.” President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation on Libya (Mar. 28, 2011).
74. A U.N. resolution does not abrogate or change the obligation of President Obama to obtain a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution.
75. The Obama Administration has denied that the Libyan operations are a war and, on March 24, 2011, White House Spokesman Jay Carney stated that the Administration had defined these combat operations as “a time-limited, scope-limited military action.”
76. “Time-limited, scope-limited” military actions are not referenced in the U.S. Constitution or the constitutional convention debates.

108. In a March 21, 2011 report to Congress, President Obama claimed authority for U.S. military action in Libya pursuant to his “constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.” Letter from President Barack Obama to Speaker of House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of Senate (Mar. 21, 2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya.
109. This policy is also evident in the April 1, 2011 opinion of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), entitled “Authority to Use Military Force in Libya.”
110. The OLC opinion clearly states that no congressional approval is required under the President’s “broad constitutional power” to commit to combat operations in countries like Libya.
111. The OLC opinion further states that a U.N. Security Council resolution expands the power of the President because the President has a distinct obligation to enforce such U.N. resolutions.

137. Instead of complying with the War Powers Resolution, the White House supports a bill introduced in the Senate that is not an authorization but simply a statement of support and request for some level of conferral by the White House. See S. Res. 194, 112th Cong. (2011), available at http://mccain.senate.gov (select “Press Releases,” then “5/23/2011”).
138. In public comments, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has stated that it is sufficient for the President to have “consult[ed]” with a few members and that, while not asking for authorization, the President would “welcome an expression of support from Congress” in the form of the aforementioned resolution introduced in the Senate. Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, Press Briefing (May 20, 2011).
139. On May 20, 2011, President Obama sent a letter to congressional leadership informing it that his Administration concluded that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the U.S. involvement in Libya because of the limited nature of that involvement. See Jake Tapper, White House on War Powers Deadline: Limited Role Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization, ABCNEWS.com (May 20, 2011, 7:14 PM), http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadlinelimited-
us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html.140. Specifically, President Obama stated that the War Powers Resolution does not apply because:
U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the
NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and
search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the
suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly
zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial
vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support
of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.
Id. (quoting the President’s May 20, 2011 letter)."



Cam aşa arată o minge de fotbal american...


Bibliografie obligatorie:






Faceți căutări pe acest blog

Postări populare