WHERE IS THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AUTHORIZING US AIR STRIKES AGAINST SYRIAN GOVERNMENT ? (04.08.2015)
The US regime and Rupert Murdoch gave a highly unusual off the official public record 'briefing' saying 'President' Obama had authorised air strikes against the Syrian government in Syria, without actually providing a copy of his statement, on the necessary official public record, containing any legal grounds.
Last time anyone looked, Rupert Murdoch's wishes that don't wash, are no legal substitute for the official public record of the US regime.
The actual 'press' release is:
President Barack Obama has authorized using air power to defend a new U.S.-backed fighting force in Syria if it is attacked by Syrian government forces or other groups, raising the risk of the American military coming into direct conflict with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
U.S. officials said the decision ended a monthslong debate over the role the American military should play in supporting its few allies on the battlefield in Syria.
Administration officials had been deeply concerned that defending the Pentagon-backed force could inadvertently open the first open conflict with the Assad government, which has denounced the U.S. program.
Though the new rules allow Pentagon strikes to defend the U.S.-allied force against any regime attacks, U.S. military officials played down the chances of a direct confrontation, at least in the near term. The newly trained force has committed to fighting Islamic State, not the regime, and won’t be fielded in areas the regime controls. U.S. officials say they believe the regime won’t challenge the new force.
Alistair Baskey, a White House National Security Council spokesman, declined to comment on the specifics of the new rules of engagement. But he said the administration has made clear it will “take the steps necessary to ensure that these forces could successfully carry out their mission.” U.S. support to the Pentagon-trained force, he added, would include “defensive fires support to protect them.”
The decision comes as the U.S. and Turkey discussed joint operations to clear a zone along the Turkish-Syrian border of Islamic State militants. Turkish officials urged the U.S. to be more serious about defending allied ground forces there. The U.S. and Turkey plan to send rebels they are training into the zone as well as into other areas in northern Syria where Islamic State holds territory.
Officials said another impetus for the decision was the recent insertion of the first group of Pentagon-trained fighters into northern Syria, where last week they were ambushed by al Qaeda-linked fighters.
The Pentagon has struggled to recruit and vet rebels for the new train-and-equip program which it launched last year, in part because the U.S. is asking them to fight Islamic State instead of the Assad regime. Most rebels see the government as their main enemy. U.S. military officials say fewer than 60 rebels have completed the Pentagon training program and re-entered the fight so far, casting doubt on the effort.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter has acknowledged the recruitment problems, but he has said the effort is essential to the administration’s strategy to turn the tide against Islamic State.
Mr. Carter says U.S. air power alone won’t be sufficient, and that local Syrian forces are needed to take and hold territory as Islamic State is pushed back. Mr. Obama has ruled out committing U.S. ground forces to the fight.
A promise of defensive air support, U.S. officials said, could help persuade prospective recruits the Pentagon is serious about protecting them, including against the regime.
But it also underlined the many challenges the new force will face entering a crowded battlefield where competing rebel groups are vying for dominance, and where aligning oneself with the U.S. has been more of a liability than an advantage.
Some U.S. lawmakers including Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, have sharply criticized the White House’s commitment to the train-and-equip program, saying more needs to be done to support rebels both in the fight against Islamic State and to isolate the Assad regime.
The Pentagon would only be authorized to conduct so-called offensive air operations in Syria in support of the newly trained force when it fights Islamic State, which is sometimes referred to as ISIS.
The Pentagon-backed force has been explicitly directed not to conduct offensive operations against the Assad regime, the officials said.
The Pentagon, however, would have more leeway to use air power in so-called defensive operations should the new force come under attack while operating in northern Syria.
While the new rules don’t explicitly name the Assad regime, officials said the guidelines will allow the Pentagon to defend the new force against any attackers, including the regime and the Nusra Front, Syria’s al Qaeda affiliate.
“For offensive operations, it’s ISIS only. But if attacked, we’ll defend them against anyone who’s attacking them,” said a senior military official. “We’re not looking to engage the regime, but we’ve made a commitment to help defend these people.”
The Pentagon used air power for the first time on Friday to help defend its new force when the compound it was using in northern Syria came under attack from the Nusra Front.
The new rules, which the Pentagon recommended and which Mr. Obama approved, will apply only to forces trained and equipped by the Pentagon. Those forces are currently only in northern Syria, and officials made clear the new rules won’t apply to forces backed by the U.S. in southern Syria.
The new rules of engagement have been in the works for months, and the delay in reaching a decision reflected the Obama administration’s reluctance to spell out the conditions under which the U.S. might find itself in a fight with the Assad regime.
The U.S. hasn’t yet used air power to help defend the new force against the regime, and military officials made clear they hoped that day would never come because of the risk it could lead to a direct conflict between the U.S. and the Assad government, which is backed by Russia and Iran.
U.S. officials said they had no information to suggest that the Assad regime had any plans to attack the Pentagon-trained force, though U.S. intelligence in Syria is spotty and the Pentagon was [not] caught off guard last week by Nusra’s assault on the force [in a thoroughly stage managed affair].
Pentagon officials on Sunday declined to comment on where the force was currently located, citing concerns about their security.
Last year, the Nusra Front attacked rebel groups linked to a separate train-and-equip program run by the Central Intelligence Agency. The assault pushed the CIA-backed rebels out of northern Syria.
In response, the spy agency has shifted its support to rebel units in the south. In contrast to the Pentagon program, the CIA program has been focused on fighting the Assad regime.
Mr. Assad has been struggling to fend off advances by Islamic State and the Nusra Front, and can ill afford to open a new front with the Americans, officials said.
The Pentagon’s confidence in being able to avoid a standoff with the Assad regime over the new force stems in part from past experience. Officials said the regime, for example, hasn’t challenge U.S. air operations in Syria over the last year in support of Kurdish and other Arab forces battling Islamic State.
In the past, the U.S. has passed messages to the Assad regime warning its forces against interfering in the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State campaign. U.S. officials say those warnings have been heeded thus far. It is unclear if a message has been passed to the regime regarding U.S. air support to the Pentagon-trained force.
The Pentagon had hoped to train 3,000 fighters by year’s end, but the process of finding and vetting applicants who are committed to fighting Islamic State and who don’t have ties to other hard-line groups has been slow, officials say.
It is the absence of many 'specifics' that raises alarm bells.
In legal terms, it will be illuminating to find the actual 'official' public record that Murdoch's NATO war propaganda is based on, because to call the report Alice in Wonderland is being far too generous.
Of course Murdoch and his incendiary war propaganda has long been discredited by all sentient human beings.
another recent not unrelated incendiary murdoch fiction
Murdoch should be facing criminal prosecution before a jury, over his use of what is criminal propaganda against the Syrian government for clearly identifiable criminal personal financial gain.
It is a matter of fact, Murdoch & Co have no recognized legal authority in the Syrian Golan Heights.
The focus of any so called alternative 'news' media has been on 'similarities' with NATO airstrikes on Libya, which is designed to try and sidestep (for example) the Faustian Pact between NATO Kurdish assets like Demirtas and Barzani that were previously used to invade Iraq.
That is similar to alternative 'news' media gate-keeping focusing on 9/11 to 'hide' what was already in full view, which was the Genocide of 500,000 Iraqi children by the US & UK that Dennis Halliday from the UN pointed out, before 9/11.
Most civilians have always 'joined the dots' that 'governments' who do not care about their murder of 500,000 children are capable of anything, and that 9/11 'truthers' who do not care about the murder of 500,000 Iraqi children 'hidden' in full view before 9/11, are not really genuine about discovering any truth behind 9/11.
It is not necessary to prove 9/11 was an inside job before putting the US & UK on trial for Genocide over the murder of 500,000 children.
The US & UK governments can still be tried and should have been put behind bars over the illegal sanctions that were Genocide before 9/11.
Our own evidence proves that NATO 'governments' are only ever trying to illegally keep civilians from challenging all their war mongering in courts of law.
Mr Hammond: "The overall plan in Syria remains to see a political transition in the regime to a Government which has legitimacy and buy-in from the majority of groups in Syria, that can then take the fight to [whoever is then deemed to be] Daesh...
It is curious that members of the UN are not jumping up and down demanding that the UNSC haul in the US [and indeed the UK] to answer serious questions, because there is no pretense there could even be any UN resolution 'authorizing' US [or UK] criminality in Syria.
NATO propaganda in Turkey's Daily Sabah lacks basic specifics like legal grounds, when referring to Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu's remarks in May that "They [foreign backed mercenary terrorists] have to be supported from the air. If you do not protect them or provide air support, what is the point?"
Of course the 'point' is the US & Turkish regimes cannot publicly produce any legal grounds to invade and attack the foreign state of Syria using air cover to protect their mercenary terrorists.
A backdoor behind closed doors 'meeting' about civilian human lives between "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov in Qatar's capital Doha to [supposedly] discuss the future of Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus" is more than entirely inappropriate and re-inforces the false perception that some political leaders should and can 'decide' whatever they like.
A separate Iranian report over what Moscow Times apparently reported Putin said when he personally summonsed the `Turkish ambassador makes the Turkish Daily Sabah Doha claims unlikely.
Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives.