Obama administration using loophole to quietly sell arms package to Bahrain

Obama administration using loophole to quietly sell arms package to Bahrain

thecable.foreign policy.com

President Barack Obama's administration has been delaying its planned $53 million arms sale to Bahrain due to human rights concerns and congressional opposition, but this week administration officials told several congressional offices that they will move forward with a new and different package of arms sales -- without any formal notification to the public.

The congressional offices that led the charge to oppose the original Bahrain arms sales package are upset that the State Department has decided to move forward with the new package.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
edition.cnn.com

Now this is very interesting and particularly in context to a recent flurry of tweets and information coming about Bahrain having fresh unrest and raids/arrests.

Obama seems to be making a habit of this tactic where he just does what he wants through a back door and around everyone's back when he's been told no by Congress or knows there is a high likelihood of it.

It seems to me that there was some serious trouble when Reagan had this attitude and tried pulling the same thing with the Contras. Why should Obama continue getting a pass? The instances he's doing it in are getting increasingly serious and negative, IMO.

It's also worth asking just what Bahrain needs so much aid for when the U.S. Naval 5th Fleet is headquartered in that TINY Nation. Defending the whole place is well within basic security of the fleet facilities, and I'm really not joking.

thecable.foreign policy.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well - an arms sale is a much better deal for the U.S. than a force deployment.

It's costly to deploy troops. Not that I would mind - it would generate another deployment opportunity for SecDet (now that we have our new uniforms... they issue us the Type III green NWU just before we go to the desert.... I guess the plan is to keep them so confused that we create disorder among the enemy).

But, more importantly, it distances us from the political fall-out that comes with direct participation. Granted - it doesn't keep it from the more observant people... but "more observant" implies substantially above the average attention to detail. The news media won't bore people with the difference between an AK-47, M-16, and M-240; much less who makes them and who sold them to whom.

I, honestly, don't have the activities of many other presidents to compare to this one.

Obviously, though, I feel it's not that good of an idea for the President to go around Congress. The question, however, falls down to authority - and who has jurisdictional authority over this issue. It may, very well, be the authority of the President to make these kinds of calls; and Congress isn't supposed to have a word in it.

Obama, selling weapons to a dictatorship killing it's own people.

That just shows the character of Obama... a disgusting dictatorship supporting POS.

How do you like NDAA with this in mind? I bet you don't.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Libya's rebels turned out to be some very nice people and to represent the vast majority of the population, after-all.

The current government of Bahrain has been supportive of the U.S. Government. I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of allowing it to be overturned.

Sure - the dude may be blowing people up in his country - but that's how they do things over there. Welcome to Middle Eastern Society, where it's just not a good day until a few dozen people have been eviscerated for some reason or another (they'll make # up if they have nothing better to attribute it to).

We can disagree with it all we want to - it's going to be the modus operandi of just about anyone or anything that comes to power in that region.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Obama, selling weapons to a dictatorship killing it's own people.

That just shows the character of Obama... a disgusting dictatorship supporting POS.

And who was the last POTUS who did NOT do that?

Pretty sure y'all have been selling arms to, say, Egypt for a few decades now.....so that would be Regan, both Bushes and Clinton...

And of course there was all those arms sales to the Sandinista's, Chile, Argentina & other Latin American Junta's.......how far back would you have to go to find a president who hadn't done this??

I guess they'll do anything, but what makes sense, to get a few bucks

January 23:

"After the intensification of the Al Khalifa regime's pressures on the Muslim and oppressed people of Bahrain and the serious decision of the county's youths for starting a sacred defense, it is predicted that the Islamic revolution of the Bahraini people will gradually enter a phase of sporadic military, guerilla and irregular operations."

english.farsnews.com...

Big maneuvering ...

Our congressional sources said that State is using a legal loophole to avoid formally notifying Congress and the public about the new arms sale. The administration can sell anything to anyone without formal notification if the sale is under $1 million. If the total package is over $1 million, [color=gold]State can treat each item as an individual sale, creating multiple sales of less than $1 million and avoiding the burden of notification, which would allow Congress to object and possibly block the deal.

So they can pick and choose depending on the "resistence" level from theCOTUS.

We're further told that State is keeping the exact items in the sale secret, but is claiming they are for Bahrain's "external defense" and therefore couldn't be used against protesters. Of course, that's the same argument that State made about the first arms package, which was undercut by videos showing the Bahraini military using Humvees to suppress civilian protesters.

This looks like the "resistence" level from theCOTUS.


All this legal mumbo-jumbo and still a lot of people get killed anyway.

Why don't they simply explain what is going on ?

The Arrogance is Distracting !!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

And who was the last POTUS who did NOT do that?

Last time I checked, two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Obama, Clinton, Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Ford, all POS.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Exactly, western governments have been arming and supporting dictatorships all over the globe since, atleast the industrial revolution. Ever read War is a Racket? Orwells experiences in Burma?

I would say rise up and take the power back people...

Sadly if this doesn't spur people from their consumerist daze nothing will.

Why do people refuse to change the way current society operates? The rich get richer and the poor stay poor. All at the expense of some dead brown people. I guess it's worth it to support our lavish lifestyles, no?

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

And who was the last POTUS who did NOT do that?

Last time I checked, two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Obama, Clinton, Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Ford, all POS.

go back further than that - pretty much your entire "American Century" it seems like your super-powerdom has been created by administrations headed by "pieces of s**t".

I think its funny how you guys all make it sound like Obama himself is selling guns.

Hardcore Nick Cage one-man show Obama, Sell'n guns & screw'n hookers.

"Obama's Administration", eh?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Kennedy, if I am correct, didn't sell arms to any dictatorships. He was the last president who seriously attempted to create a stable, peaceful, environment, despite his personal flaws he was a good president.

reply to post by time91


Almost, but not quite - he continued to support the Turkish govt after the 1960 military coup which saw the elected PM & a couple of cabinet minsters hung by the military, and in April 1961 decided to continue to deploy Jupiter missiles there.

The military did return power to civilians towards the end of 1961, so it wasn't for long.

reply to post by theendisnear69

Exactly, western governments have been arming and supporting dictatorships all over the globe since, atleast the industrial revolution. Ever read War is a Racket? Orwells experiences in Burma?

As well as arming and supporting republics (democratically elected or otherwise).

We arm and support friendly governments. They may be dictatorships now - but if we become even closer friends, it is likely they will soon be won over by the power of the free market - which will eventually breed a republic with the potential for democratic processes (though those aren't guaranteed).

They are going to buy weapons, anyway. May as well boost our own economy with their scuffles as opposed to some random yahoo.

I would say rise up and take the power back people...

I find it ironic how so many on these forums complain about how ignorant "sheople" are... then suggest some kind of civil uprising to reclaim power for said sheople.

Your strategic insight is most impressive.

What "power" are we returning to these people you speak of?

I'm curious to see what, exactly, you think this "power" is.

Sadly if this doesn't spur people from their consumerist daze nothing will.

Do you know why the yin and yang have 'eyes' a color that matches their opposite? It's the idea that nothing can be so completely itself that it does not contain something of its opposite.

I'm smart enough to know that, as ridiculously intelligent as I am - I am not devoid of stupidity. I believe you could learn a lesson from this.

The problem isn't "people being led by masters." The problem is "people kill." We are predators by nature - and pound-for-pound the most lethal and capable land animal on the planet (no sane person would ever want to take on a lion, tiger, or bear - but a trained human is more than capable of taking one on, unaugmented by weapons). Add in tools - and you see why we tend to reign quite supreme on our little rock.

We are territorial by nature (and this is not limited to physical territory concepts). When we feel threatened or cornered, we will become defensive and aggressive (for the most part). Psychologically and physically, this applies. So long as you have people of different opinions attempting to occupy the same general territory - there will be conflicts, and someone will eventually feel the debate is worthwhile to start a war and kill.

Others will simply realize that an easy and luxurious life can be had when you point a weapon at someone and tell them to give you a portion of their daily productivity.

However you look at it - you can't shove the problems society faces completely off on its leaders. The issue resides within what it means to be human. Ignorance of what we are tends to only exacerbate the situation. People aren't aware of how their predatory instincts influence their thought and judgement.

Why do people refuse to change the way current society operates? The rich get richer and the poor stay poor. All at the expense of some dead brown people. I guess it's worth it to support our lavish lifestyles, no?

Change to what?

I hear this a lot on these forums... but no one has really laid out how it is we are going to suddenly change things so that everyone lives comfortably. But there's no plan for this. No logistical accounting of the resources that would need to go into this - how many construction workers would be needed, volumes/masses of materials, man-hours of labor, etc.

Nor has a "common denominator" emerged from the idea. Do we get satellite TV simply because we are here and humans? What about a smart-phone?

What about third-party currency systems that would eventually take over in the absence of government currency systems? Do we hunt down anyone willing to exchange something for goods/services? Sounds delightfully draconian.

The problem is that you want to have control.

You don't realize it yet - but you do. You have a god complex, worse than I do (all liberals do). This, ultimately, leads to oppressive, abusive, totalitarian-dominated societies. Those that cannot or will not comply with your narrow concepts of an acceptable society will be purged, and the activities of others restricted to limit the influence of other societies.

North Korea is a perfect example of a people that live in harmony and for the good of each other.

"But they don't do that, Aim! It's a broken system!"

It's a real system. Unlike your "if everyone did what I thought they should do..." veiled of megalomania.

If everyone behaved the way you thought they should... then it would be little different from a dictatorship, now wouldn't it?

It is not just Obama though, it has been every President. They all use/misuse their power as much as they can. And if it is super necessary and they can't, Congress will just go along with it. No one is there to seriously stand up and question them.

Bahrain is a very important island and base in the 'Great Game.' We back their Sunni King and the majority of their people are Shiite. Protests, YES! The reason is because Iran is the main predominantly Shiite country in the Middle East. Iran on a small scale is instigating the protests like our CIA has been in the rest of the region.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, U.A.E. are all our allies and have essential strategic value to the world's oil exports.

We are hooking the Saudis up with $60 billion worth of an arms package. The $50 something mill we are giving Bahrain to control their 'unwanted,' in our eyes, protests and human rights violations is a drop in the bucket to the waterfall that is going on the Middle East right now.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Ah, I see. Well compared to Obama and really every president in the last 20 or so years he was a saint (in political matters). Without his and McNamara's presence in that position at that moment in history I think we would be living in a different (worse) world.