Arab League Suspends Syria

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
November 12, 2011
Arab League Emergency Session on Syria

On November 12, 2011, the Arab League voted to suspend Syria until it implements a plan to end the bloodshed. President Barack Obama applauded the decision, saying:

"...After the Assad regime flagrantly failed to keep its commitments, the Arab League has demonstrated leadership in its effort to end the crisis and hold the Syrian government accountable. These significant steps expose the increasing diplomatic isolation of a regime that has systematically violated human rights and repressed peaceful protests. The United States joins with the Arab League in its support for the Syrian people, who continue to demand their universal rights in the face of the regime's callous violence. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to pressure the Assad regime and support the Syrian people as they pursue the dignity and transition to democracy that they deserve."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released a statement, saying:

"Today the Arab League took a strong and historic stance aimed at stopping the violence in Syria and protecting Syrian civilians. The United States commends the principled stand taken by the Arab League and supports full implementation of its efforts to bring a peaceful end to the crisis.

"The failure of the Asad regime, once again, to heed the call of regional states and the international community underscores the fact that it has lost all credibility. The United States reiterates its calls for an immediate end to the violence, for free unfettered access for human rights monitors and journalists to deter and document grave human rights abuses and for Asad to step aside so a peaceful transition can begin. As today's Arab League decision demonstrates, the international pressure will continue to build until the brutal Asad regime heeds the calls of its own people and the world community."

Comments

Comments

great28
November 13, 2011

W.W. writes:

Truly weird symbol in the middle of this picture :

Berlusconi? sometimes people gets more influent when they are behind

Goldman&Sachs; mob is buying Italy and Greece to keep on their terroristic financial barabbas - robespierre hegemony on people

Sirya Iran must act now - but we still are in the Goldman&Sachs; terroristic view and nobody works on friday saturday and sundays !

The world will re start spinning when humans will be able to put a part their personal belief for the sake of community and common wealth

This is our project this is our view this is our future :COMMONWEALTH

local46
November 14, 2011

W.W. writes:

we all are stuck cos the system calculated is not longer fitting the needs of the moment.

it goes faster the the light now remember?

time to work time to act time to do and execute yesterday what the president order to do today

palgye
|
South Korea
November 14, 2011

Palgye in South Korea writes:

I remind of Lybia. Their's solution are always go to the bad.

Not all economy, sometimes policy.

Q
Who are did work at Lybia, in this picture?

A

Is just waiting they fall into the........
No,
Want Do something but I'm old and I had damage in head.

And they not believe my words. Are you read my voice?

POLICY.

Zharkov
|
United States
November 14, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

A giant leap in logic can be found in the conclusion that, because people have sovereignty, that magically gives foreign governments implied consent to intervene to "protect the people".

Oddly, the concept that citizens must protect their own sovereignty seems to have fallen through the cracks in the doctrine. If people are sovereign, it is a violation of their sovereignty for foreign governments to push them into a civil war or assassinate their leaders.

The notion that citizens are unarmed and helpless to protect themselves is hardly valid in a country such as Afghanistan or Iraq where the average citizen owns military-grade weapons not even available in the U.S.

The "responsibility to protect" may originate from royalty, where the king of one nation would agree to protect the king or queen of another in an informal or formal alliance, none of which is relevant to the concept that citizens have sovereignty and people have their own responsibility to protect individual sovereignty through armed force if necessary.

Protecting citizen sovereignty was what our 2nd Amendment was about, and the reason why early court decisions held that a citizen had the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent an unlawful arrest by police, and a right Americans no longer have.

The "responsibility to protect" tosses the concept of citizen sovereignty into the trash, as it justifies foreign intervention with or without citizen permission. It is a doctrine justifying conquest of any country for which any pretext may be found.

Are Americans angry about ObamaCare? Then it's time for Venezuela to bomb Washington!

Not sure if Obama is qualified to be president? Send in Mexican troops to remove him!

The "responsibility to protect" doctrine virtually guarantees an absurd outcome. The doctrine can be used to justify permanent occupation of foreign countries on the pretext that they may backslide into whatever oppression they had before intervention occurred.

The "responsibility to protect" never ends because there is no time limit, no budget limit, no practical guidelines for applying the doctrine, and there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorized spending taxpayer funds to rescue foreign citizens from their own governments.

Eventually, governments always stretch such doctrines to absurd dimensions. We see that happen every day in America where government officials frequently intervene in the most unnecessary of circumstances. The difference is that this Soros doctrine has the potential to destroy America in pointless wars for which there is no national interest at all.

type43
November 14, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ Zharkov in the U.S.A.

it is so obvious that seems a joke

He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation.

Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 15, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ WW & Z,

No good deed goes unpunished and what use is sovreignity if your government has killed you in the street denying your ownership of the political process?

"He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."

Exactly so, WW.

I think the policy crafted to deal with a dictator's genocidal madness in Lybia weighed the risk of "targeting" Ghaddafi, as opposed to not directly targeting him and letting the people own whatever fate would befall him.

You know, not responding to the people's request for international assistance with;- "all neccessary measures"- being the opperative rules of engagement determined by the UNSC would be like walking past a pedestrian that had just been hit by a car, was laying on the side of the road bleeding to death and not doing a damned thing to render assistance as a good samaritan.

I hope Germany is listening...

Now if he's unconcious and can't answer you when you ask him if he needs help...you gonna walk away? Especially when the driver of the car is turning around up the street to have another go at his victim in order to finish him off?

Let's assume like the US that you actually have the means to stop that car in time...do you target the vehical and try and disable it, or do you target the driver?

I suposse you cou;d try and drag the guy out od the gutter the road and onto the sidewalk only to have it become a case of vehicular homicide when the driver drives his car onto the sidewalk to give a court every reason to see a dictator's intent towards his people, but dead is dead and the verdict will come only after the fact.

Now if Z ever got mugged in a parking lot while all the passer-by just stopped and watched him get pounded into the cement, then he might change his opinion about the merits of humanitarian intervention on an international level...but I wouldn't wish upon him such a harsh educational experience that he might not survive.

Well Syria isn't a whole lot different in model respects, and there's plenty of gawkers not willing to do a damned thing about it.

EJ

Zharkov
|
United States
November 15, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

The comparison to a crime victim fails in terms of legality.

The "responsibility to protect" doctrine is the exact opposite of American and British Common Law which was adopted by the US as the basic law of state and federal governments.

Under common law, there is no obligation for a bystander to intervene to prevent a crime; the only obligation is to "raise a hue and cry" if a crime occurs. No US citizen has any obligation to make a citizen's arrest of a criminal. They may have the right to do so, but not a duty to arrest. Police also can decline to arrest in their own discretion, and prosecutors are free to decline to prosecute.

There is no common law duty to stop a criminal. That makes the victim a first responder in his own defense.

The "responsibility to protect" is illegal because it is illegal to make a gift of taxpayer funds to foreign states and that always has been illegal; and it violates the principle of common law that bystanders have no obligation to intervene.

The fact that successive federal administrations and Congress have routinely ignored the law is certainly no defense.

In the 1880's Congress refused to give funds to states to repair damage caused by fire, flood, and storms because that would be an illegal gift of federal funds - no loans, no grants, not a penny. Today, you and they are giving away the family jewels to whichever nation asks.

As America is gradually beaten down and destroyed by endless war, endless gratuities, and non-stop corruption, perhaps you may ask someday, "what happened to America?"

Globalism has led to global economic collapse. Globalism has proven to be a total disaster for Europe and America.

Common sense should tell you that the solution is more regionalism and less globalism. Each region must provide for its own survival so that other regions do not take them down in world-wide, simulaneous collapse.

"Responsibility to protect" has already led to the absurd result of Germany having to pay money to Greece to provide for Greek survival. It is illogical and illegal to weaken America in order to save Iran or Syria from their own governments.

person56
November 15, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ Eric

common threats : Terrorism wheather is Financial or theocratic

Anyone who rise to power through their own skill and resources (their "virtue") rather than luck tend to have a hard time rising to the top, but once they reach the top they are very secure in their position. This is because they effectively crush their opponents and earn great respect from everyone else. Because they are strong and more self-sufficient, they have to make fewer compromises with their allies.reforming an existing order is one of the most dangerous and difficult things a leader can do. Part of the reason is that people are naturally resistant to change and reform. Those who benefited from the old order will resist change very fiercely By contrast, those who stand to benefit from the new order will be less fierce in their support, because the new order is unfamiliar and they are not certain it will live up to its promises. Moreover, it is impossible for the leader to satisfy everybody's expectations. Inevitably, he will disappoint some of his followers Therefore, a leader must have the means to force his supporters to keep supporting him even when they start having second thoughts, otherwise he will lose his power. Only armed prophets, like Moses, succeed in bringing lasting change

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 15, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Z,

Try looking up "the good samaritan act" and see what lawes are on the books before you look like a bleeding idiot for not knowing what you are talking about where it concerns the laws of this land, (both federal and state laws I might add).

You want to pose staw men so I can knock them down in debate?

Well, I'm more inclined to just use a lighter and burn your illogic with the facts.

You make it so easy.

----

@ WW,

I'm not buying your explanation of leadership because your generalities do not apply in all situations or systems of government.

There seems to be no room in your theory for "the loyal minority", so I think it needs some work before it has some relevance to anything other than dictatorial regimes.

Best regards guys,

EJ

Zharkov
|
United States
November 15, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ E in NM, perhaps you might actually read the purpose of Good Samaritan Acts. There is no duty on police to make arrests and be good samaritans nor is there any such duty upon citizens.

The Act is solely to relieve Good Samaritans of liability, not impose a duty to rescue or arrest a criminal.

Comparing nations to individuals is a red herring issue and a minor distraction from the real issues which you are obviously ill-equipped to address. America has a constitution limiting federal power, and you might try to read it sometime.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 16, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well Z, try leaving the scene of an accident you've caused and see what happens,...don't call me to go your bail..., and even if you are just a witness; if you leave without calling for help or responding in some capacity to help an injured person, you may very well be held liable for that person's death...ie: being negligent under the law of most states, and facing jail time.

As it has everything to do with why this natoion and its President would not "sit idly by" as Ghaddafi slaughtered his people, he used his power of his office to intervene militarily by executive priviledge under the war-powers act and that debate just had a new chapter written for posterity and the conclusion is that every situation has differing parameters and thus what triggers humanitarian intervention to remove a regime that is warring against its own people is variable as certain conditions must be met to justify that, and garner international support for such action.

Don't worry Z, my gut tells me that with all the dictators dropping like flies, by the time their species is extinct from the planet, you won't have anything further to complain about on this blog...(chuckle).

See I'm a very practical fellow, and I want you to be happy...

Way things are going, we may just have to do both Syria and Iran at the same time, so we have no further problems with either government.

Frankly I think both will force the President to take action in a military manner before next Nov.'s election and Obama will do what he must whether it affects his getting re-elected or not.

It's a long story, but the reason I know a little something about this subject is because I terned in my Muslim landlord for the neglect of his family back in 2000, and according to the responding EMT's, my phone call directly saved lives in imminent danger.

I happen to know what my legal status would have been had I been witness to such neglect and not called and death had resulted, as well as the fact that as a good samaritan, the only people relieved of liability are firt responders, fire, police, etc.

Didn't protect me from the guy trying to evict me after his kids were placed in foster care while their mom and her youngest child recovered in hospital.

I had fun in court though, as the guy had about as much chance of winning his case as you do.

And he was citing the constitution as well to no avail, funny how that is.

He ended up paying me two month worth of rent for retaliatory eviction and I got paid to move.

Health dept had condemed the whole building, it's not like I had a choice, but all's well that ends well...got a message from the mother a few months later after she'd recovered and was back with her kids in a new place getting her new life together, simple short and sincere, "Thank you very much!"

No good deed goes unpunished, but occasionally you're able to make a lasting difference in someone's life.

And occasionally America is called upon to make a lasting difference in a lot of people's lives all at once.

And it's not for the oil, it's all about the thanks we get from folks who now call us friends.

So if you are ever put to the test Z, and circumstance gives you the opportunity to act, I hope you'll remember our little conversation here and muddle your way through it making the correct decision to save a life so you can look into the mirror from that point on and have just cause to respect the person you see staring back at you.

It's not odd how saving a few lives will do that for you...and it has lasting effect.

Try it sometime, you may find yourself glad you lost this argument with me in making such a decision.

EJ

sun44
November 16, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ Eric

the art of being nobody but spirit only

When evening comes, I return home and go to my study. On the threshold, I strip naked, taking off my muddy, sweaty work day clothes, and put on the robes of court and palace, and, in this graver dress, I enter the courts of the ancients, and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity, reply to me. And for the space of four hours I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty no more, tremble no more at death; I pass indeed into their world

Do not contact the dead the issue starts when are the death contacting you

Zharkov
|
United States
November 17, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric, as any prosecutor will tell you, the citizens, the police, and the prosecutor are not required by law to arrest or prosecute every case. They have the right and discretion to act, but not a legal duty to act in arrests and prosecutions.

That is the reason why you cannot sue police for failing to stop a crime. They have no legal duty to act.

As soon as you discover the differences between a duty and a right, and between a statute and common law, you will be in a position to debate the red herring issue of individual good samaritanism. Since there is no common law duty to act as a good samaritan, it can only be imposed by statute. However the 5th and 13th Amendments would prohibit imposing such a duty on citizens if America's constitution still mattered to public officials.

Our government has different rules than an individual citizen and those rules are contained in a constitution.

A government that has no constitution can spend taxpayer funds in any manner it wishes, including good samaritanism. The US is not that kind of a rudderless government.

America has a constitution that lists the spending powers. A gift of federal funds to rescue foreign citizens from their own governments is not on the list. When public officials refuse to obey the constitution, it is the right of the citizens to protest, and that is why there is a Tea Party today.

Over 88% of Americans say there is something wrong with our federal government. Only 9% think Congress represents the American people.

In other words, 91% of America think Congress is corrupt and un-American, and they are correct.

What we have is a European-style oligarchy rather than an American government. In every way, federal officials act without reference to their allotted powers in the constitution and, therefore, without regard for the national interest of ordinary citizens.

Frankly, these people don't need a cheering section to bolster their sense of power; they already think they are administrators for the entire world.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 17, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ WW,

The dead don't bother me as ancestors and friends do watch over me, it's the living who do generally bring trouble to my door...and I have a 12 guage solution for that.(chuckle).

What have you been smokin' late at night anyway...?

Ok, so back to reality...did you know that there was Facebook for dogs long before there was Facebook for people?

Yes indeed, it's your local fire hydrant on the street.

And the whole world is asking, "Can I get a witness?" inside Syria..., while the dogs of war do their thing...,

...pissing on the infrastructure of civilization and people's hope and dreams.

No government in its right mind would shred the fabric of its own social order and thus one must conclude that as soon as Assad can be declared criminally insane, the sooner the international community can reserve for him a rubber room in a locked down institutional setting, ...or a hidy hole if he insists on such a fate.

Let us see what artful solution the spirit of nations comes up with, when nobody gets to wage war on their people like this ever again.

Lest folks stand idly by and insist on non-interference and be accessory to murder.

EJ

steps92
November 18, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ eric

I am the Quarterback

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 20, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ WW,

Looking for that "hail Mary" into the end-zone I bet...(chuckle).

@ Z,

To you the opportunity to save lives represents a "red herring", to me it would just be common sense to do so, and that's the difference between us and our opinions of the law.

Fortunately US foreign policy doesn't see humanitarian intevention as a "red herring" but as a common sense approach to saving lives.

Which generally serves our national interest in the process.

Latest Stories

April 17, 2014

The Way Forward in Ukraine

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, on April 16-17 to participate in bilateral meetings and a multilateral… more

Pages