The President's actions in Syria are grave breaches of Geneva.  Americans appear to have underestimated the seriousness of the President's actions.

On accusation alone, the United States (illegally) reserves the right for "higher necessity" to invade any country for any (fabricated) reason. That is not civilized nor a lawful precedent, nor one any reasonable legal counsel or government can rely.

Foreign powers are likely discussing and planning combat operations against the United States to retaliate for these breaches of Geneva.   The United States has no lawful authority to conduct pre-emptive strikes against any nation planning to use deadly force to enforce the laws of war. 

The investigation into these war crimes must be real, not more of the shame investigation we saw with Iraq WMD or the 9-11 investigation.

This note highlights some of the post-attack disinformation effort to shield the President from a war crimes trial, and discusses the inherent legal challenges confronting DOJ OLC.

Table of Contents
(to be added)

    
President's Core Legal Problem

The Department of Defense per 5100.77 and 2310.1E has a legal obligation to report and investigate these war crimes American combat troops committed in Syria while working in concert with CIA and DOJ connected personnel.

These legal obligations are not new, but were well discussed within the NAVY emails when Americans were transferred from Guantanamo to US NAVY brigs.

Real Risk: Possible Foreign Intervention To Restore American Law and Order

The Congress and President are communicating to the public that despite the  "lessons" of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the Supreme Court, the Americans plan to ignore Geneva on multiple levels:

1. Planning: A guiding principle when planning combat operations;

2. Oversight: A leash when conducting combat operations under the umbrella of Geneva; and

3. Enforcement: A stick imposing legal consequences for breaches of Geneva.  

Lack of action has serious consequences. Geneva must be followed. Those who refuse to abide by Geneva are subject to retaliatory and reciprocal actions.

It is preferable these legal issues are timely resolved within the courts and civil process. This seems lost on Americans.

The United States does not appear responsive to her legal requirements. The implications are serious:

If the US government will not assent to the rule of law -- and remains unresponsive to judicial-legislative options to enforce the laws of war -- foreign powers are permitted under Geneva to use deadly force against the United States to enforce the laws of war.

The question turns on when foreign powers believe, absent legal constraints within the legislative and judicial arena, the President and the Executive Branch staff become the objects of lawful attack by foreign powers to enforce the laws of war.

This President and Congress appear to have crossed that threshold, arguably putting at risk the security and safety of all Americans.

This result contradicts the intent of the Framers when passing this Constitution: To provide for the common defense, not, as now, recklessly exposing Americans to collective, lawful retaliation for war crimes.
 
This government's actions are indefensible.  American citizens are not required to defend war criminals in court or on the battlefield. Rather, any combat-related actions Americans take to defend these war criminals could be construed as a subsequent violation of the laws of war.

No  one can reasonably conclude that this government's war crimes are lawful. American government propaganda invokes the idea of American "justice" while it brazenly violates these judicial standards.  The opponents of the United States government are mobilized because the United States government shows contempt to norms of civilized behavior.

The United States government has squandered the mandate of 9-11: The perceived threat to international peace isn't terrorism, but the United States. Other nations are likely more concerned about a massive, unlawful, reckless American military attack than an isolated act of terrorism.

DoD Emails Warned US of GOP's Planned Illegal Incursion Into Syria

The United States' daylight attack on Syria is equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Although smaller in scale, the President's actions in Syria are very serious.

The United States President illegally planned to expand combat operations from Iraq into Syria. The DoD emails revealed these plans.

Incriminating DoD Emails

The NAVY emails highlight the knowledge military personnel had of Geneva, and the known policies imposing on US government personnel and obligation to enforce the laws of war through investigations.

It is likely there are similar DoD emails related to the combat operations in Syria:

A. Military Personnel Concern

DoD personnel well discussing the legal problem of unlawful military action inside Syria in violation of Geneva, and

B. Senior Management Coverup

White House-CIA-DOD-DoJ efforts to mitigate the legal consequences for DoD personnel through a public relations effort, as we saw with the DOD email re: Iraq WMD.

These emails must be secured, and forwarded for adjudication before a war crimes tribunal. Arguably, the Vice President's habit of destroying or hiding evidence is fair warning to American legal counsel they have a duty to act; and fair warning of a likely destruction effort underway to thwart access to this war crimes evidence re: Syria. 

A failure of American legal counsel to timely act could warrant an upward adjustment before a war crimes tribunal.

DoJ OLC Unlawful Legal Theory

It appears the DOJ OLC memoranda, like the FISA-connected memoranda, rely on outdated historical analogies to justify illegal action. Geneva was affirmed at Nuremberg. The DOJ OLC memos likely rely on historical analogies unrelated to Nuremberg or Geneva, or pre-date Nuremberg.

Arguably, all DOJ OLC, DoD, and CIA legal counsel who have approved the use of American combat force in Syria to assist the CIA have ignored their Geneva obligations; and have relied on legal sophistry to turn a blind eye to war crimes.

Alleged Co-conspirators: CIA, DOJ, DOD legal Counsel

It it reasonable to begin an official war crimes investigation against American legal counsel who appear to have repeated the same reckless conduct as was adjudicated at the Justice Trial. The Justice Trial was a special class of prosecutions against lawyers. These Nuremberg cases were prosecuted by the United States. All American legal counsel know or should know the precedents of Nuremberg; and the relationship between the Justice Trial and the legal duty of legal counsel in the DoD, CIA, and DOJ to fully enforce the laws of war. 

Even if we ignore the precedents of the Justice Trial, the DOJ OLC memos from 2001 (Philbin) establish the United States government's lawyers well knew Geneva was applicable going forward after Sept 2001. It cannot be credibly argued in public in 2008 that these Geneva obligatgions do not apply to Syria or "terror connected" US combat operations in Syria.

While the American lawyers in Congress and the Executive Branch were claiming this is a "new era" where Geneva did not apply, they had access to DOJ OLC memos saying the opposite. There is no legal justification for American legal counsel to not apply the lessons of Abu Ghraib, and immediately distance themselves from this President.

Legal Theory and Problem

Presidents use the CIA illegally overseas, violating the laws of other nations. However, the President is now using  overseas the military to support unlawful CIA-connected international war crimes overseas.

The danger is using the CIA-military cooperation overseas in a domestic capacity outside the law.  Because Congress refuses to challenge the President's illegal use of US combat forces overseas, the President (falsely) claims he has no legal constraint to domestically using combat forces without a warrant or lawful authority.

The public (again) has fair warning this President views Geneva and the United States as discretionary. However, the law applies regardless the President's claim his action are or are not connected with terrorism. The "cloak of the CIA" does not immunize a President nor military personnel from international or domestic law.

The supposed actions of others do not free the CIA, the military, or the President to violate international and domestic law, especially when the consequences for those illegal actions include (Geneva, Nuremberg-recognized) lawful retaliation against the United States using deadly combat force.

The United States illegally violated Iraq sovereignty. World opposition is linked with the United States using Iraq as a platform to launch raids into neighboring countries. Iraq is a sovereign nation, yet the United States is acting as if Iraq were the state of Texas, free to conduct combat operations in Mexico.

The President stated one of his goals in Iraq was to ensure Iraq was not a threat to its neighors. This goal has been turned on its head. The United States, not Iraq, is a threat to Iraq's neighbors.

Despite the United States' inability to resolve the situation in Afghanistan, it is meddling in Syria. The Russians and Chinese were once with the United States on 9-11-related actions. The United States' actions in Syria are further decimating what little 9-11-related support exists, which has not been squandered after the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The United States is unwilling to let other nations apply the "US legal arguments about Syria" to the United States. This arrogance fuels world contempt for the American government, it's combat actions and international efforts. The United States' actions are viewed less as a bonafide effort to make the Untied States secure, but the unchallenged premise the United States alone can abuse power.

When a world power views itself above the law, and abuses power for its own sake, other nations during WWII showed they can put aside their differences and focus on a common threat to international peace and stability.

Congress, President Indistinguishable From War Crimes

The United States Congress should not be confused why, two years after the "end the war in Iraq"-mandate, the world community views Congress as in collusion with this President's war crimes.

The 9-11 Commission did not adequately explain who placed the explosives. It is a false argument for the President to justify combat operations in Syria on the premise of "anti-terror," when the President will not hold Americans responsible for their role in placing the explosives inside WTC 1, 2, 7.

The American military personnel have been deployed on the back of a myth. This President has not provided them adequate military support. There are not enough troops on the ground, but enough to cycle through. The shame is the American military, once they return to civilian status, ahve learned to have contempt for the law. American civilians are getting abused at the hands of former military personnel.

It is outrageous the United States government approach to the law is one of "We'll deal with the problems we create later." American civilians, to remedy the defects former military personnel have caused, must plan on going through three levels of litigation: First to convince their attorneys to take action; second at the district court; and finally at the appeals and Supreme Court. This process could take years.

The outrage is on accusation alone the President and United States military and intelligence community abuse power, but civilians in Syria and the United States are required to absorb that abuse of power, and spend inordinate time challenging the abuses this Congress turns a blind eye.

This is not governance, oversight, or accountability. It is recklessness. Despite already being perceived as being on thin ice after the recent financial crisis, this United States government still can't get it right. It should be no surprise why this President continues to arrogantly defy the law: He does not perceive there exists any credible check to that abuse in either Congress, the courts, or on the battlefield. Hitler and Napoleon suffered the same delusions.

The American people have in the Oval Office an abusive tyrant masquerading as a freedom-loving buffoon.

DOJ OLC Memoranda

DOJ OLC has streteched beyond reason the analogy of the Spanish American war. Nuremberg, like FISA post-dates the Spanish American war.

The DOJ OLC memoranda, which CIA and DOD legal counsel appear to have relied to support the illegal US action in Syria, appear to invoke historical analogies and legal theories which pre-date Nuremberg.

DOJ OLC Memo (emphasis added): "Similarly, there was extensive use of electronic surveillance during the Spanish-American War. See Bruce W. Bidwell, History of the Military Intelligence Division, Department of the Army General Staff: 1775-1941, at 62 (1986). When an American expeditionary force crossed into northern Mexico to confront the forces of Pancho Villa in 1916, the Army "frequently intercepted messages of the regime in Mexico City or the forces contesting its rule." David Alvarez, Secret Messages 6-7 (2000)."

The United States acquired the Philippines after successfully challenging Span for abusing Cuba. Today, Iraqis a soverign nation, not for the United States to use as a colony.

Unlike the Spanish American war where the US challenged Spain, the United States cannot claim for itself in Iraq the same authority to roll over others. The United States appears to still invoke the (false)  notion that Saddam is still a threat to his neighbors, but is projecting this to Iran and Syria as a pretext to broaden combat operations from Iraq into Iran and Syria, but on the back of a new excuse: Fighting terrorism.

America's War Crime Problem

Syria labeled the American President's act a war crime.

Syrian Government: "They committed a war crime in killing eight Syrian civilians in a quiet village."

A pattern of illegal US military action does not create a right of the US president to expand these illegal combat operations from Iraq into Syria. The right of "self defense" applies more to the Iraqis and Syrians, not to the United States in Iraq.

The Japanese attempted to use the same argument to justify their attack on Pearl Harbor. The courts ruled after WWII the Japanese attacks on the United States were not a lawful reaction to the United States' efforts to contain Japan.

Rather, the United States had lawfully taken military action to contain Japan.  Japan could not lawfully claim the US lawful reaction to Japan's illegal military expansion could lawfully justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Similarly, the United States, like Japan in WWII, has no legal justification to conduct combat operations inside Syria, especially given the Syrian cooperation with the United States.

IHT: "The timing was startling, not least because American officials had praised Syria in recent months for its efforts to halt traffic across the border."

Why did the United States act alone, and not work with Syria, or for that matter Iraq? 

The United States did not exhaust all non-military options, as required under the laws of war, before taking unilateral action inside a foreign, sovereign state. It cannot be argued the United States Congress is effectively protecting the US constitution, nor ensuring the President is lawfully conducting military operations.

Post-Attack Media Disinformation

The American attack in Syria is an interesting case study in American propaganda and disinformation, consistent with the DoD emails. The information is not designed to provide reliable information, but to skew perceptions, create inconsistencies, and fuel arguments between those who might challenge the United States.

The key goal is to insulate the President, dilute the legal attack, and sew confusion. The question turns on how the United States, as the public discussion unfolds, changes its story to accommodate these legal challenges.

The goal is to distract attention from the White House. A sign of success is when the (false) media messages can create unchallenged premises which the opposition uses as an (invalid) starting point for analysis, investigation, and oversight. As an example, these flawed arguments are illustrated in the American hypocrisy toward Russia re Georgia.

Disinformation Strategy: Blaming the Cooperative

One excuse distracts attention from Syria's efforts to assist the United States, but pretends the Syrians do not meet an arbitrary (American) standard::

IHT: "Syria sacrificed the inviolability of its territory by failing to eliminate the infiltration of would-be fighters and suicide bombers"

Using this standard, the US President, in failing to eliminate illegal border crossings from Mexico, "sacrificed" the "inviolability" of the United States.

Disinformation Reversal: Assign Your Opponent Flaws You Possess

The United States changed the focus from the failure of the United States to accommodate Syria, to whether or not Syria accomodates the United States:

Guardian: "Syria has since refused to restart intelligence-sharing with the US until Washington recognises its assistance by returning an ambassador to Damascus"

Planting Dubious Information With Foreign Media to Create A Smokescreen

In an apparent attempt to muddy the waters, there are reports the Israelis said the United States and Syrians cooperated:

Media: "The American commando attack in Syrian territory on the Iraqi border was coordinated in advance with Syrian military intelligence."

This argument built off the assertion the Syrians and Americans were still meeting in London, supposed "evidence" of Syrian-US cooperation on the attack, but State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood said he was not aware of such a meeting.
 
Disinformation Without Evidence

The Americans have provided no evidence they have a dead body. According to the Syrians, the supposed target of the attack -- Abu Ghadiya -- is still alive. However, the organization he is supposedly affiliated says he was killed two years ago.

His full name is (unverified) supposedly Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidh.

Disinformation Alludes to Mysterious Documents

There is supposedly a video of the attack, which has yet to be authenticated. As with the President's Nigerian Yellow cake forgeries before the illegal invasion of Iraq, we have yet to see the "documents" the White House supposedly has.

Times: Documents there revealed names and details of more than 500 foreign fighters who had entered from Syria, and of at least 95 Syrian "co-ordinators" who helped to channel the jihadists across the border.

Why hasn't the President waved these "documents" before the world community to bolster his case?

Legal Problem

The President has no legal justification for the use of American combat forces in Syria. There are contradictory legal theories not limited to proportionality and necessity which undermines the President's claim of "hot pursuit".  Congress has the legal obligation to investigate these war crimes.

In the wake of lawful Russian military activity in Georgia, it remains unclear how the Chinese and Russians plan to support Syria against the United States President. Russia plans to challenge NATO through the Syrian port of Tartus, and has raised about the US actions in Syria:

Reuters reports Moscow saying, "We believe attacks that are worthy of condemnation should not be launched on the territory of sovereign states under the slogan of the fight against terrorism."

Core Legal Problem: Unstable, Changing American Arguments

The problem of "shifting legal arguments" is similar to the President's approach to FISA: After being caught, hoping to find some language that would dissuade oversight and investigations.

Unilateral Legalization: Asserting The Illegal Activity Is Linked With Modern Law

Another (false) argument the President would broadly apply (on accusation alone) to any country, without permitting other nations to apply this standard to the United States:

Bush at the UN: "As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly, and solve problems before they spill across borders," Bush said. 

Using this standard, Canada could arguably invoke this "obligation" to solve the "American problem" of failed governance.

DOJ OLC Legal Memoranda

The doctrine of "hot pursuit" requires the United States to show that American forces were actively chasing specific military threats. However, the American raid into Syria does not meet the legal definition of "hot pursuit".

The "hot pursuit" doctrine requires a tangible link between the activities in Iraq, the movement of foreign combat forces from Iraq into Syria, and a credible basis to attack the specific target in  Syria.  None of these appear to apply, raising the prospect of subsequent war crimes charges against the President of the United States and combatant commanders.

It remains unclear how many DOJ OLC legal counsel might be implicated in this illegal war of aggression against Syria.

If the "hot pursuit" doctrine were relevant, the United States should be able to show (which it cannot) that it was actively tracking specific people from Iraq into Syria; and those specific people were engaged in combat operations.

Use of Force: Violation of Doctrine of Proportionality, Necessity

The doctrine of necessity means the American President has the obligation to show why, without this action against civilians, the United States was put at greater risk. The President cannot meet this legal standard.

The President cannot adequately demonstrate that the force he used was proportional to anything. Once protected civilians are attacked, as they appear to have been in Syria, no level of American military force against Syria can be justified.

Americans Lost Track of Supposed Combat-Related Targets

"Hot pursuit" is related to the idea that the President, when fighting a foreign enemy, can engage in combat operations without an authorization of Congress; and can lawfully expand combat from one theater into another. This principle took root along the Canadian-US border  many years when the President actively tracked forces.

The US-Canadian analogy does not apply to Iraq-Syria, nor to the President's use of force against Syria.

President Illegally Attacked Geneva-Protected Syrian Civilians

The American's problem is that in killing Syrian civilians, the Americans cannot (going backwards in time) show they were actively tracking anyone related to combat operations in Iraq.

If hot pursuit were real, the United States forces should have been tracking combat forces from Iraq into Syria, and engaged those combat forces. However, the record does not support the American military. Somehow,  the "tracked" forces  magically changed into civilians. This means the President's claimed link between Iraq and Syria is illusory.

The President's Missing Link

The President would have us (absurdly) believe that he:

1. Tracked military targets in Iraq;

2. Watched them move across the border to Syria;

3. Knew where those military targets were located;

4. Somehow lost them, and their weapons;

5. Accidentally attacked civilians.

This defies reason. The President is implicitly admitting that, in being "confused" about the targets, he was no longer engaged in hot pursuit, but a lazy, convenient, pretextual attack on an uncertain target, in violation of the laws of war.

The President is implicitly admitting he never successfully tracked any combat forces from Iraq to Syria; nor has he provided any evidence that he took efforts to prove the target in Syria was linked with any military threat against American military forces.

"Hot pursuit," if it were real, would be linked with combat weapons. However, the targets have no obvious link with a bonafide military target, but civilian activity.

Fatal Appeal to Ignorance

When the United States implicitly argues, "We could not be sure they were civilians," it is essentially admitting the doctrine of "hot pursuit" no longer applies. Geneva requires certainty about a target before it is attacked, and that the target has a tangible connection to an enemy's military capability, otherwise the attacking nation is on notice that any civilian deaths were preventable.

The United States is not at war with Syria. Syria is a sovereign nation. the United States has provided no evidence to the ICC or Security Council that Syria is a failed state; nor that the United States can better conduct governance.

Attacking Protected Syrian Civilians In Violation of Geneva

Rather, the Americans are implicitly admitting that it lost track of the combat forces (if they existed at all); and then attacked an uncertain target, not necessarily one distinguished from a civilian target. This is a subsequent war crime of this President.

Failure to Prove Military Connection

The United States should be required to explain how it was tracking anyone; and how it selected the targets it did in Syria. The United States, when it attacked Syrian civilians, had a legal duty to ensure that the civilian casualties were avoided. The evidence suggests the civilians were the object of the attack; and those civilians were not linked with any combat operations in Iraq, nor a specific, tangible movement from Iraq into Syria.

Syria appears to have the moral and legal high ground. Even if the United States has attempted to contact the Syrian government, the damage to the American reputation is far higher than had it foregone destroying a target in Syria. If those forces were genuine military threats, the United States could have easily presented the evidence of their return from Syria to Iraq to the international community.

The United States Congress must start a war crimes investigation into this President's illegal activity in Syria. Congress must review the following:

United Nations

What is the reason the President did not publicly notify Syria of the specific concerns the President had with these specific allegations of military incursions into Iraq from Syria?

Civilian Protections Under Geneva

Why did the President "lose track" of the supposed "military forces" as they moved from Iraq into Syria?

How did the President confuse combat forces supposedly moving from Iraq into Syria with civilians?

What was the reason the president said this level of force against civilians was appropriate?

DOJ OLC Legal Memoranda

How does DOJ OLC justify supporting the theory of "hot pursuit" when the President cannot explain why he cannot trace the combat forces or weapons from Iraq into Syria, but attacked Syrian civilians?

Iraqi Military Readiness

Why didn't the Iraqi military raise this issue with the Iraqi government, and seek international support at the UN through the Security Council to resolve these supposed Syrian-backed efforts in Iraq?

Sovereignty

Are Iraqis publicly saying they oppose the attack; or is this a ruse to distract attention from the President's (private) threats against Iraq if they publicly disagreed with the President?

When does the US President plan to admit to the American, Syrian, and Iraqis the US government does not recognize either Iraqi or Syrian sovereignty; and that the United States military, not the Iraqi military, plans to expand illegal combat operations outside Iraq along borders?

How can the President claim the United States is supporting democracy, but the Iraqis have not voted to support US combat operations in Iraq; and this lack of support does not mean the Iraqis support US combat operations in Syria?

Forces Intended To Be Used

Does the United States Congress understand, in the wake of the President's use of combat forces from Iraq into Syria, the Russian concern with placing NATO combat forces in the former Warsaw Pact allies?

Additional Remarks

The information below may or may not be later incorporated in the content above.

All information the President provides to Congress must be vetted in light of the President's deceptions about POW abuse, war crimes, WMD, PNAC-DoD emails, FISA. The President cannot credibly argue he's doing the 'right' thing when he must (later) ask for immunity for doing the 'right" thing.

The public needs to know which authority, if any, Members of Congress have (secretly) granted to the President to "authorize" the use of American combat forces in Syria.

WWII, not Cambodia, seems the more relevant analogy. The analogy of Nixon's incursion into Cambodia is not as relevant to President Bush's activities in Syria because Nixon believed he could secretly conduct massive operations before detection. Bush in Syria is taking a "toe in the water" approach.

We judge the more useful analogy is WWII and Hitler's assurances after invading Czechoslovakia. We expect the President to make (disingenuous) assurances not to do the same, but ignore those assurances, as Hitler did before his invasion of Poland.

Rather than conducting a genuine counter-terror operation in Syria, the President appears to be more interested testing the international reaction to see whether these cross border actions in Syria and Iran could be expanded: Lay the foundation for a "fast" decapitation in Damascus and Tehran. We've learned from Iraq that the GOP geopolitical "strategists" will largely underestimate the problems.

It appears this President believes he could, before he leaves office, expand combat operations from Iraq into Damascus and Tehran with minimal blowback, combat losses. He is most likely the President is underestimating the world reaction to those likely planned military incursions into the streets of the Syrian and Iranian capitals.

We judge the President's attack on Syria as a classic Rovian approach to geo-politics. As with most Rovian-like adventures, we judge the President has sufficient stupidity and lack of Congressional oversight to fuel his absurd belief that now -- with US combat troops stretched worldwide and failing in Afghanistan -- that now is the time to attack Iran and Syria. The Congress has a duty to send this President a lawful wake-up call: Congress, not the President, decides whether money is spent on combat operations.

The same people who underestimated the Iraqi opposition before the invasion of Iraq are still in office, have not been challenged, and have yet to respect a Congressional subpoena. Guantanamo-sham trials show this President is not interested in evidence, but in asserting power on any pretext.  Putting aside the illegal activity in Syria, this President doesn't care whether there is or isn't any evidence to defend his actions. His unchallenged signing statements show he and the GOP continue to put American power above the law and any legal standard applicable to US combat operations in Syria.

While the  United States is distracted by the economic crisis and upcoming election, the GOP appears to have fabricated another pretext to abuse power. In the long term, we can expect GOP-connected legal counsel to rely on this President's illegal activity in Syria as a "precedent" for legal counsel to rely to not resign, but continue working with President engaged in war crimes.

Syria has been subjected to a double standard. During the hearings into the President's illegal activity in Syria, you can expect GOP members of Congress to make inconsistent statements, and distract attention from the lack of an imminent threat the supposed enemies in Syria posed to the United States. By analogy, the US cannot explain why it does not attack targets inside Canada as it "could" be used to launch attacks inside the United States.

VP Cheney is generally well-connected and involved with these types of decisions. Not only is his daughter alleged to have been connected with the propaganda connected with Syria, but the Vice President is alleged to orchestrated an effort to destroy evidence of war crimes. Cheney will generally oppose and choke off ideas "before they rose to the Oval Office." There is additional discussion on the VP's role in approving and reviewing these types of operations here.

Early Signs of A Problem

There is an important problem suggesting the President and his legal counsel knows he has a legal problem: If the operation in Syria were genuinely permissible, and standing on solid legal foundations, the President himself would have publicly announced the successful attack. The president is silent. This is important to note.

The key problem is the inconsistent Presidential position. A major "win" for the President without a Presidential statement. It's more likely the information has been fabricated; and the President hopes to shift the burden from the Administration to Congress and media.

Also notice the public commentary is unresponsive to the core legal challenges. This cannot be attributed to confusion, but a deliberate strategy and calculation to avoid commenting on any legal issues which DOJ OLC legal counsel and the President might have brought before a war crimes tribunal.

Rather, any statements indirectly connected with GOP legal counsel should be construed in light of the attorney standards of conduct which prohibit misleading statements through others.

President Has Burden of Proof

On issues of FISA, Geneva, POW abuse the president has lied and violated the law. He has a higher burden of proof to justify confidence in his Administration's statements about Syria.

The President has a track record of fabricating information, and Congress glacially confronting those misleading statements. The "Administration" statements on Syria should be carefully examined.

The president must publicly be challenged to show what legal basis, other than the PNAC agenda, he is using to attack Syria. Note closely to what extent the President hopes to have the public accept the unchallenged premise that this is a "counter terror" operation; and create a false assumption that there is a "problem with Syria".

How does the United States know this person was killed;

Why not present the information about the "imminent threat" from this person to Syria, Congress, and the public before the attack into Syria to generate world support for the supposed anti-terrorism operation?

The DoD emails from the military analysts show us the analysts have a motivation to lie and misled the public, explaining, in part, the false claims that Syria has not been cooperative with the United States.

The US position is not consistent on the issue of terrorism: It uses Syria to gather information; but then blames Syria as a pretext to expand combat operations from Iraq into Syria. The White House's public stance on Syria re this cross-border raid is at odds with  the Americans using the Syrians to torture a Canadian.  The United States did work with Syria when it sent Arar, a Canadian citizen to Syria for torture.

Congressional Authority To Review Presidential Use of Power in Syria

We need to see the DOJ OLC legal memos.

Congress needs to independently get information, not rely on any We've seen the Administration's approach since 2001: Make assertions, provide no evidence, then not respond for years to Congress. Once connected with war crimes without a statute of limitations, the President and DOJ OLC-GOP legal counsel cannot claim, "We've left office." White House assurances. The legal consequences can follow legal counsel worldwide, even deep into the jungles of Paraguay.

Congress needs to glean the lessons of the false NSA-FISA-WMD briefings. Congress must discuss whether the President provided infromation to the Senate intelligence Committee. There is no reason to believe that information is true or legally valid. One conclusion might be that the Member of Congress silence on Syria suggests that they have been briefed in secret; however, as we've learned with Iraq WMD and FISA, a briefing to Congress does not mean that the briefing was accurate or satisfied the President's the legal requirements.

Did Members of Congress agree, as with FISA beifings, to secretly accept (misleading) information in exchange for secrecy about that information?

Given the President's lies re NSA-FISA, we need some assurances that the Senate was given reliable information related to Syria. Then we can assess whether the Congress adequately conducted a legal review of that information before consenting to the illegal activity in Syria.

Federalist 23 reminds us the Constitution delegates to the Congress the "unlimited discretion" to govern the American military.

Congress must demand the US Attorney General disclose the legal memoranda this President relied before conducting these illegal operations in Syria. DOJ OLC memos have likely contradicted Youngstown as was done with the FISA violations, arguing there is "no limitation of that authority" of the President to conduct combat operations worldwide, even in Syria.

Readers are encouraged to review the Bosnian opinion, [ 19 Op. O.L.C. at 335 ] but note the differences: The President had not been authorized by a Congressional declaration of war to conduct combat operations in Syria.

Lessons of Presidential Propaganda re Iraq WMD

One objective of outside analysts should be to evaluate how the similar propaganda efforts within the DoD and Iraq invasion continue with the President's attack on Syria.

It will be interesting to see, as with Iraq WMD, military analysts disclose details which contradict the Administration line on Syria. Recall what Nicholas D. Kristof said:

Kristof via NYT: "The real culprits are the neo-con ideologues who screamed for war: People like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and the current President Bush himself."

A group similar to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) should be presumed to have had a role in relaying information to the media about the President's actions in Syria. Already we've heard (false) reports that Syria was "not cooperating," or had a "policy of not cooperating" with the United States.

We encourage readers to review the detailed citations here for additional analysis on the propaganda related to the Vice President and WHIG.

Also of interest will be an analysis of how the White House Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG), or a similar body, was involved with fabricating any information related to this attack on Syria. The president unchanged strategy with CTEG has been to fabricate evidence. Congress, in refusing to investigate or impeach lets this President's mischief continue. For other discussion on the CTEG, and its relationship with propaganda, visit here, and background material is available here.

Also of tangential interest will be how the Feith-like arguments are invoked here; and the relationship an internal body has with the specific DoD emails exchanged related to this attack. Once there is a credible allegation of illegal activity, the President cannot claim that the emails are privileged, but fall within the crime-fraud exception.

We attribute these types of statements as propaganda and spin to justify the American President's decision to illegally exercise power through the District of Columbia in Syria without regard to the consequences in DC or abroad. The Presidents power is being abused in the District of Colbuma. Where the ill efffects occur is less relevant than whether Congress constrains that power from the District of Columbia.

There were groups indirectly linked with the White House who were coordinating information provided to the DoD miltary anslysts. The same investigation needs to occur on the information the President provided through intermediaries to others on the information related to Syria. The public needs to understand who is playing this intermediary role now on issues of Syria; and to what extent, as with WHIG, is the Administration providing false information in the media to mislead the Congress and public on the details.

Groundwork for Scapegoating

We judge the President is framing the Syrian attack as a US counter-terrorism operation with the option to blame the intelligence community if there is a backlash against his decision, as was the case with Iraq WMD. Sadly, rather than focus on the president's illegal activity, Congress conducted a review of the intelligence community, not the President's impeachable offenses. The Senate issued a white wash report.

Its curious the President, despite this supposed "victory" has not publicly taken responsibilty for his "good decision". The President has likely kept silent, waiting for the dust to settle, guaging whether the public and international community will or will not let the President get away with this. As with Iraq, if challenged, the President is expected to blame the intelligence community.

We have no confidence that the stated reasons for the attack on Syria -- that the United States was chasing a specific person -- are credible. Congress needs to independently review these claims; even if they are true, there is no reason for the President to have defied international law, entered the sovereign territory of Syria, and used American military power outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Iraq and the territory around Iraq are not, as the President might claim about Texas and Mexico, logically linked with American.

Consider the curious contrast: The President would have us believe that Guantananmo is "outside" the jurisdiction of the courts; yet, he would ask the opposite about Syria -- that it is within the jurisdiction of the President to assert power, without any review of that power. The precedents from Guantanamo belie this absurdity The President cannot have it both ways on how the use of American power is or is not reviewed in Guantanamo or Syria.

As with the FISA-WMD issues -- where false information was provided -- we have no confidence the President can point to specific, real information. Conversely, Congress seems unusually quiet. It appears Congress may have been briefed in secret using false, misleading, or incorrect information about the "threat from Syria," and Members of Congress may have been provided this information on condition that they not disclose the details of this (unreliable) information.

Congress Has Precedent of Reviewing GOP Legal Counsel To Provide Affidavits

We encourage others to review how affidavits were collected from GOP legal counsel on the US Attorney firings. It is likely GOP legal counsel was involved with the discussions before the President made the decision to attack Syria. Congress, the media, and public need to know what the GOP legal counsel heard before this illegal activity in Syria started.

=======================================================

Summary of Syria-related Content on TPM

Here DOJ OLC data mining, opinions

Here Yoo advocating domestic use of the military without warrants

Here Linking CIA and President: Yoo arguing CIA abuse permissible

Here DoD emails related to Syria

Here Here VP Cheney-Feith related content

Here DoD Data mining

=======================================================

Timeline of US-Syrian Confrontation

=======================================================

Other Research, Issues, Questions, Projects