19 April 2018

International law.

Phil Giraldi provides a pretty good Cliff Notes version of the U.S. war on the sovereign nation of Syria:
Media coverage of Syria, apart from Carlson, scrupulously avoids the issue that the United States is in Syria completely illegally and has been cynically supporting terrorist groups in spite of its pledge that it is in the country to get rid of such vermin. It is a measure of how divorced from actual U.S. security America’s Syria policy has become that the White House has not hesitated to launch a second illegal cruise missile barrage against a government that hasn’t attacked the U.S. and doesn’t threaten Americans. Bombing the Syrian government hasn’t made the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will likely weaken President Bashar al-Assad just enough to prolong Syria’s civil war and add to the suffering of the civilian population. It is a perfect example of a military intervention that is being done for political reasons with no connection to any discernible interests or overall strategy.[1]
I like the “scrupulously avoids the issue” of illegal war part. It’s typical of American political “debate” now. For example, what is endlessly repeated on the issue of immigration is that we need “comprehensive immigration reform.” What is rarely if ever stated stated is that (1) we don’t need reform of our immigration laws, we need enforcement of them and (2) we don’t need immigration at all. It’s never stated in the MSM because anyone who does state either proposition soon assumes the status of Sunday school picnic whore.

But back to the legality of our war on Syria, it’s amazing that our Constitution and the U.N. Charter are just air brushed out of the picture. Hillary Clinton’s take on the awkwardness of an uncooperative[2] U.N. Security Council suggests the official position on international law:

Russia will never support such a mission [intervention in Syria], so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council.[3]
Right. Just operate as though it doesn’t exist, treaty obligations be damned. Fortunately, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, has the opposite view, stating at her confirmation hearing, “I will show [Donald Trump] that the UN matters.”[4] Oh, wait. It doesn’t all that much.
She [Haley] frequently tells Security Council members that if they fail to meet American expectations on UN resolutions, the United States will “go it alone.”[5]
Keep this in mind for the next time some cretinous U.S. official or TV personality says something about “the rule of law.”

Notes
[1] "Israel Continues to Wag the Dog for Middle East Wars.." By Phil Giraldi, Russia Insider, 4/18/18.
[2] I.e., insufficiently appreciative of how wonderful the United States are.
[3] Quoted in "Hillary's Sociopathic Wikileaks Emails: Kill Assad, Destroy Syria - Deep State Goal for 10 Years." By Patrick Fleming, Russia Insider, 4/19/18.
[4] "Nikki Haley at the UN: Agree With Us or We Go It Alone." By Barbara Crossette, The Nation, 9/14/17.
[5] Id.

No comments: