Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition

 

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."

Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): "The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.

"For purposes of this subsection, such acts shall include all activities that the Secretary determines willfully aid or abet the international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to individuals or groups or willfully aid or abet an individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded special nuclear material," the law continues.

The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."

Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., endorsed providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"Our intelligence agencies, I think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support," Corker said. "And there's going to be mistakes. We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition."


Get the MMA Underground app. for iPhone and Andriod devices.
iPhone Application Andriod MMA Underground Application

Recent Comments »

hubris site profile image  

9/21/13 5:19 PM by hubris

great plan arming terrorists Obamafucking brilliant

gokudamus stole my name iv site profile image  

9/21/13 12:19 AM by gokudamus stole my name iv

"Correct, the waiver only applies to the upcoming shipment. That means anything sent to Syria prior to this waiver is in violation of the AECA."How did you reach that conclusion? Because the current situation, where different supplies are being sent to different groups, is getting a waiver? Why do you assume that the situations are legally identical, and that the error isn't that the previous situation was accompanied by no waiver, but that the current situation is?"Yes it is, because that order came from Obama."My point was that it's not the same situation because they are two separate deliveries and the second delivery includes different recipients.More importantly, why are you so convinced there was no waiver for the previous shipment in the first place?

Jack Carter site profile image  

9/20/13 3:49 PM by Jack Carter

  I'm all ears.

gokudamus stole my name iv site profile image  

9/20/13 3:26 PM by gokudamus stole my name iv

"You are wrong by virtue of Obama signing the waiver."You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this waiver is applying to the previous shipments of arms to the rebels. This waiver is being applied to the upcoming delivery of supplies to groups including the rebels and other aid organizations.It is not the same situation as the CIA delivering arms to the rebels.My proof: He needs the waiver in this situation but did not for that one.

Jack Carter site profile image  

9/20/13 3:07 PM by Jack Carter

    You are wrong by virtue of Obama signing the waiver.   You're basically saying that Obama was sending all these military supplies to other countries and it had nothing to do with Syria (because the AECA states that Obama cannot legally get these supplies in INDIRECTLY without that waiver) and ONLY NOW is he going to start sending something into Syria.   Wait, what happened to you saying that weapons were being sent into Syria way before Obama signed the waiver?  

Mulletron5000 site profile image  

9/20/13 3:02 PM by Mulletron5000

^ I am really enjoying this back and forth between you two. No name-calling, just presenting two sides in an adult manner. Thanks.

CHILLITACO site profile image  

9/20/13 3:02 PM by CHILLITACO

^Clearly. IrĂ¡n is the end game.

Jack Carter site profile image  

9/20/13 2:59 PM by Jack Carter

It is the same situation. The AECA says he cannot send any supplies to Syria without getting congressional approval on a fiscal year (Deadline has long passed), or he mist sign a waiver. There is nothing in the AECA wording that make sending any supplies to any group within Syria or any group outside of Syria that will take those supplies/weapons into Syria.   You literally have NOWHERE to go in this argument until you show how Obama did not violate the AECA prior to signing the waiver.

gokudamus stole my name iv site profile image  

9/20/13 2:55 PM by gokudamus stole my name iv

"Wait, we know he violated the AECA by virtue of signing the waiverfor the first time since sending aid into Syria."He is sending different aid to different groups. It's not the same situation." I don't have to show how he violated the AECA; YOU have to show how he did not. "I already did. He provided no arms to Syria, the state sponsor of terrorism. He provided arms to a rebel group attempting to bring down said state. My evidence that my interpretation is the correct one is that literally no one ever made the slightest stink about that violating the AECA even though it was all over the news for months."Once again, he signed the waiver making it LEGAL."Yes, and as I said, this is a different situation, with supplies going to different groups."And it IS a violation of the law as stated in the AECA. That's not my opinoin; that's the strict wording of the actual law."No, the law says he can't provide weapons to states that sponsor terrorism. Unlike Reagan to the state of Iran, Obama has provided no weapons to the state of Syria.

Jack Carter site profile image  

9/20/13 2:45 PM by Jack Carter

Wait, we know he violated the AECA by virtue of signing the waiverfor the first time since sending aid into Syria. I don't have to show how he violated the AECA; YOU have to show how he did not. Once again, he signed the waiver making it LEGAL. There are no other waivers signed over the past two years since Obama has been sending supplies into Syria.   And it IS a violation of the law as stated in the AECA. That's not my opinoin; that's the strict wording of the actual law.   If you have any source of any kind that shows Obama signing a waiver before this one, I'm all ears.