Syria

By Keil Myers
The United States has exhibited some hesitancy to support the opposition to the Assad regime in the Syria civil war. One reason for this lukewarm support is most likely due to the composition of the major Syrian rebel groups where they almost all have ties to Muslim extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. In Addition to this opposition groups have been shown to commit various human rights abuses. Such items understandably make the United States less willing to fully commit to assisting these groups for fear of merely replacing one problem with another potentially larger one. Nevertheless, such reluctance is leading to exactly what the United States fears and further intervention is required in order to limit the damage that this war will cause.

There are several major opposition groups with some of the larger ones including the Free Syria Army which is a group primarily made up of military deserters along with multiple smaller militias note under the direct control of the main FSA. These groups have been indicted of human rights violations with the most recent case being in the last month where a video was taken of a FSA commander eating the heart of a dead Syrian soldier. Along with this the FSA has worked with groups such as Al Nusra, a group that has sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda such ties have made the United States somewhat reluctant to become heavily involved with opposition groups like the FSA. However, with the more than the reluctant support that the United States has displayed the FSA could potentially strengthen its control of the groups and individuals currently outside of its control.

The next largest opposition group to the Assad regime is the Syrian Nation Council. This group was, until recently, widely considered the voice of the Syrian people. The SNC is a loose coalition of representatives from various groups with the organization itself based in Turkey. However, the United States was hesitant to trust the SNC due to its heavy ties with the Muslim Brotherhood with many in Syria itself seeing the SNC as
a front for the organization and one member of the council claimed that the majority of the members of the council were Muslim extremists. Ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups have made the United States and other western nations less willing to assist the SNC and why they chose to merge with the Syrian National Coalition. 

Formed in 2012 in order to provide a more inclusive government than the Syrian National Coalition is the largest opposition group has been generally recognized as the legitimate government of the Syrian people. The National Coalition consists of a larger number of groups including members of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syria Army, various local committees, as well as other religious and secular groups.  While not all of these groups have ties to extremist Islam many of them do. Nevertheless, the majority of the coalition is made up of individuals and groups that would be willing to moderate their position as the situation required and they deserve more than the weak support that the United States has provided so far.



So while the United States reluctance to support the rebel groups is understandable as things stand not intervening in Syria is more likely to cause more damage than intervening. In the last few weeks reports from Washington and the United Nations Security Council has stated that they are almost certain that members of the Assad regime have employed chemical weapons on the rebels. Last year President Obama proclaimed that the use of chemical weapons was the red line, which if crossed would prompt a response from the United States. Use of these weapons is unethical and their use should prompt the United States to abandon its reluctance to assist the rebels in order to limit the collateral damage to civilians. In addition to this such actions would serve to let the world know that the use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated.

In addition to this, the United States reluctance to help the rebels is helping to radicalize the revolution in Syria. Similar to Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries the rebels in Syria and willing to adopt the philosophies and attitudes of those who are willing to help them in their revolution and as a result the number of Islamic radicals in the opposition is growing. For instance, The Economist recently reported that due to the western world's hesitancy to support the opposition, members of the opposition haveturned to Islamist groups for support. This support has led to those who are more extreme to become more powerful and to have greater influence in the revolution. This radicalization has made the made increased involvement distasteful to western governments leading to moderate politics to enter a death spiral in the opposition. The United States should shed its reluctance to assist the rebels in order to ingratiate itself to the rebels and increase the influence of voices favorable to the United States in the coming government.

The United States reluctance to increase its involvement with the Syrian is understandable considering the most of the opposition may be worse than the Assad regime. Their hesitance has driven the opposition towards greater radicalization and  weakened the moderates in the opposition. Nevertheless in the face of the increasing  radicalization and the use of chemical weapons the United States should forgo their fears and become further involved in supporting the Syrian opposition in order to limit the damage of this civil war to the Syrian people as well as the spread of Islamic radicalism in the Middle East.

Here’s a brief summary of the different rebel factions in case anyone is interested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218

NSA PRISM How Far is Too Far?

By Tim Newton
The Guardian reports that the NSA has gone further in it's collection of private data in wide spread gathering, using a program called "PRISM" to collect private data from several top internet companies including Facebook, Yahoo, and Google.  To quote from their article:

 "The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers."
All of the companies involved claim that they have not willingly participated in this program, and have denied all knowledge of said program. This program again falls under the reauthorized Patriot Act provisions, which allow for this and similar types of monitoring as we saw with the collection of data from Verizon subscribers. 

President Obama today responded to these actions by saying “They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said. He added that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.” He also said “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

The question each of us must be asking is was I part of this, and if so why was I included? A CNN poll taken shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up their civil liberties to fight terrorism, with 40% saying they would. Since the beginning of the institutions of governments by mankind we have had a constant struggle with balancing the rights of the individual and the protection of many. With the increasingly difficult blurry line in the global war on terror, including domestic terrorism it becomes difficult to see where our government won't go to "protect" us. I am not saying that we will soon see anything like "1984," or "V for Vendetta." I am however realistic in my view of government. It also begs the question is it necessary? Are acts of terrorism preventable by such means, and if so where is the line and who is watching the line of how far is too far? 

In 2007 a popular senator heavily criticized the same tactics employed today. "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient." Yes, that would be our current President who said that. Watch the full speech below.
 


Our country was founded, when men seeing that their rights were being abridged in the name of protection, became fed up with those actions and pulled away from their national government. In the Declaration of Independence it says:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Now mind you Jefferson did not specify all unalienable rights that we have inherently been endowed with, but he makes it clear that if a Government becomes destructive of the rights of man we must alter it in one form or another. I think the first step is to increase congressional oversight and accountability. Congress was trusted by the founders with more powers precisely because it takes longer for it to act, and by the slow movement through compromise the rights of individuals have a greater tendency to remain protected. Even our current president, when a member of congress could easily see that this was an overreach of power. Something within his greed and ambition seems to have blinded him from the fact that these actions are clearly overstepping his constitutional bounds, as he himself said then:

"To target and gather such data and expect the American people to just trust that the data will be kept and protected from abuses would mean we would basically have to forget about all of human history, which has shown that eventually when people are given power they will seek to abuse it. When first enacted, there was heavy concern by individuals in the nation that social security numbers would become a way of identifying and singling out individuals, so there was a guarantee that social security numbers would never be used as an identification method. Just one example how about the IRS targeting that we continue to learn more about? At hearing after hearing Lois Lerner and Steve Miller denied that such targeting was occurring, even as they new it was occurring. 

Again I'm not saying that government serves no purpose, but that government should be constrained and not left to roam free. We have an established constitution, which should be followed."



It seems after each of these questions people have asked so what should be done? My answer to that so what is this, let's focus on reigning in presidential power again, increase our checks and balances, and make sure that the government is held accountable by the people for actions that are violating our rights. Several of our founders thought that a bill of rights would be unnecessary because they never thought that such basic freedoms would be infringed upon because they had not granted power to the government to infringe upon them. It seems more important than ever for us to reestablish these rights as unacceptable to be infringed upon, and make sure that the government is aware of it. We need to speak out and make our voice heard. America is not the land of big brother government, but the land of the free and home of the brave, we will not be bullied by big government bureaucrats, and we will not be silenced. 

NSA and FBI Compel Verizon to Hand Over Phone Records How Much is Too Much?

By Tim Newton
Last night the Guardian reported that the FBI and NSA obtained a search warrant to obtain all telephone records of individuals in its systems on an ongoing daily basis. As you may know Verizon is a significant provider within the U.S. of phone service. This order was provided by the  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) and was authorized on April 25th for a three month period until the end of July

Over the last few weeks I have not minced my words about government overreach. After trying to plow over the first and second amendments to the constitution, the Obama administration has set it's eyes on a new one: the fourth. It reads;  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

Now we do know that the Patriot act allows for both wiretapping and seizing of said records. This law was of course in reaction to the 9/11 terror attack. I understand why it was passed, but it has long been a great concern for many Americans, because we know that great power is often abused.

 The response from the White House was that laws governing such orders "are something that have been in place for a number of years now" and that they are vital to national security. I don't understand though, how my phone records are so vital to national security. The concerns of course come from how this information is used. Even  former vice-president Al Gore called the "secret blanket surveillance" as "obscenely outrageous".

In response to this news, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) said "Of course, keeping American citizens safe is one of government’s most important responsibilities, but there is a fine line between protecting our nation and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. Our government continues to come close to that line and in some areas may have even crossed it. It is exactly these types of concerning reports that spotlight the need for transparency and access to information that I have fought for in Congress and will continue to work towards.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) also spoke out on this issue, he said "The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from evil, too, particularly that which always correlates with concentrated government power, and particularly Executive power. If the President and Congress would obey the Fourth Amendment we all swore to uphold, this new shocking revelation that the government is now spying on citizens' phone data en masse would never have happened."

There is always in government a concern to balance the defense of the nation while maintaining the rights of the individual. I do understand that there is a concern for national security, something which we know is of continuing concern to many of us. After the Boston Bombing attack we all must have wondered if there were warning signs that might have been seen. I do not think however that millions should have their privacy eliminated by the actions of a few. Specifically where there is no just cause to do so. It not only sets up for possible abuse of power, but it also leads to continuing increased lack of privacy and more intrusion by government in the future, if they can seize your phone records, why not your email?Why not your facebook account? Why not all of your banking records? There was a reason we instituted the fourth amendment, so that government stays within the bounds of a set of laws, and does not exceed those bounds and infringe upon the rights of the citizens of our nation. 
 

IRS Scandal Ways and Means Second Hearing Thoughts

By Tim Newton
So I've been hearing from a few critics lately about the IRS Scandal. They say  "why should we subsidize these groups that are clearly political in nature?" I have also heard the statement "shouldn't they expect to be investigated further if their group seems political in nature?"
I refer those who ask these questions to two videos, one which details this argument more fully, the second answers these questions. No representative that I have heard from has disagreed on the fact that these groups were targeted and that there was harassment that occurred, and that it was definitely inappropriate on all counts. No one is doubting that, the question remains to be answered is who directed this. From what we learned from Rep. Issa this weekend, he believes and seems to have evidence that it went deeper than just a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati.


Rep Jim Mcdermott (D-WA)




Rep Aaron Schock (R-IL)



Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI)
(his time starts a minute and a half in)



We must consider several ideas here, the first of which is this, if political groups need additional scrutiny, was it done equally? The answer is a resounding no. Out of the 300 groups singled out in Cincinnati 75 were conservative, and 3 were liberal. From what we can tell there is no evidence of any kind that liberal groups were given the same scrutiny and harassment or asked similar questions.

Next we must consider the question: Was the type of scrutiny appropriate and even handed, and were records obtained handled fairly? Again a resounding no, as evidenced during Rep. Ryan's questioning, it is evident that much of the handling was inappropriate and at times excessive, at times even illegal actions were made by the IRS. Asking for donors lists, requesting not to have them protest, detailing every speech made by a speaker, who made it and their credentials? Not only are these things excessive, but definitely overreach and out of control is what it seems. 

Now, whenever you have a group that is receiving status for educating and promoting the well being of citizens, there will be innately an ideology involved of some sort. These groups are not big money funneling groups, but groups seeking to promote what they deem is in the public benefit of the U.S. Over the course of our history our country has had a healthy and constant discussion of the rights of the people and the role of government, which is one of the most polarizing questions of our time. 

The next question we need to consider is this: What form of subsidization is occurring here, and why do we have the designation for these groups for individuals to donate their funds to them? Now when we talk of tax exemptions here it is referring to exemptions for individuals donating to these groups. This does not mean that the individual group is receiving any money from the government. Similarly if you are asking that question are you as concerned about a liberal group as you are a conservative group? 

What is to be done about the issue? The first I would say is that the truth in it's entirety needs to come forth, and be examined. Next we need to consider the proper course of action, such as additional transparency and accountability for actions of individuals within the IRS and other possible entities outside. If it does come out that it is individuals lower down then maybe their authority needs to be limited further, and greater accountability measures need to be put into place on these matters.

Americans: Independent Investigator Needed

By Tim Newton
Most Americans believe that we have come to the point with the IRS that a special prosecutor is needed to investigate and uncover the full truth of the targeting and harassment of conservative groups by the IRS according to a new poll. the Quinnipiac University national poll stated that 76% of those who were interviewed said they believed it was necessary.


Much has been happening in the IRS scandal, and we know this for sure from hearings in the house and senate continuing the investigation beyond the report from the IRS. We know that the criteria used to sort through non profit groups for extra scrutiny did include ones with the names "Tea Party," "Patriots," and those seeking to teach about the constitution. Overall from what we have learned, nearly 500 conservative groups were targeted, including 5 pro-Israel groups, groups promoting the constitution,groups that criticized Obama administration, at least two pro-life groups a Texas voting-rights group and several conservative activists and businesses were targeted for additional scrutiny from the IRS after requesting to receive non profit status. It seems that the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly can be added to the list of the Obama administration's attack on the first amendment, adding to it's previous attacks on the press and religious freedom of the people. It seems that the very cornerstones of our free society are edging away as the administration continues to make their attacks on one provision of the Bill of Rights after another.

The scandal has continued and the cover-up is being unraveled. Consequences are coming and coming fast. We recently learned that Lois Lerner has been placed on administrative leave, and is receiving increased heat from republicans for pleading the fifth after reading a written statement and making a claim that she was innocent. It is not a surprise she is pleading the fifth, since last year she was asked to testify about whether the standards had changed for determining which groups would receive extra scrutiny and she said the standards had not changed. We do know now that the standards had changed before, and once the investigation began they changed again. There are also some barely legal things that were done like attempting to impose a gift tax on individuals who made donations to conservative groups.

Also we have learned that the wife of  previous IRS head Douglas Shulman is  an executive for a liberal group whose primary aim is to remove private interest groups from having political influence in government, while also being heavily funded by labor groups.

With an independent investigator more ability to be free of the administration's control would give an opportunity to not only investigate the targeting of individuals but the continued harassment of these groups that applied for tax exempt status.Hopefully with such an investigation this targeting and harassment will stop.

Some have asked well shouldn't we give political groups more scrutiny anyways? My answer is this, the point of tax exempt status is not to have the government or the people pay for a groups existence by not taxing them, but to recognize that they are not out to make a profit, and therefore the moneys they bring in are not in the same category as a business. If you are going to however say we need more scrutiny for political groups, then apply it equally, and don't single out conservative groups alone, many liberal groups were asking for the same status and very very few were given the same scrutiny.

 On the other hand, the bigger issue to me is the continued harassment, some groups being told they couldn't picket planned parenthood, some groups being told they needed to detail the content of prayers that might be prayed at group meetings, some of the questions singled out specific individuals without explanation for why, even when that individual was not a politician, and had no reason why they were involved in the questioning. They were also asked to detail all of their donors and the amount of donation, which is illegal. When that wasn't enough, some of these groups members were also audited, as were their businesses and families, and they had had not previous contact or issues with the IRS before starting these groups.
 Check out our previous posts on this issue:
IRS Scandal: Why does it matter? Read more here

IRS Scandal goes deeper: Read more here

Watch several videos from the Ways and Means Committee Meeting on the IRS Scandal here

A week of scandals, overview of IRS, AP and more. Read more here