By Reginald Johnson
Aided
by a compliant media, President Obama and top administration officials keep successfully
peddling the lie that while other countries violate international law, the United
States never does.
This fact was
again on display during the recent “60 Minutes” interview with Obama.
In a question and
answer session at the White House conducted by Steve Kroft, Obama talked about the U.S.
campaign to roll back the the terror group ISIS and later about American
relations with Russia and the U.S. economy.
In the last month,
U.S. warplanes have been bombing targets in both Iraq and Syria, with the
avowed aim of destroying ISIS, which Obama and other officials maintain is a
“grave threat” both to Iraq and the greater Middle East. ISIS
stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria .
Kroft asked a
number of questions --- including why the U.S.
is seemingly getting involved in another war in the region after years of
following a policy of withdrawal, and also how it was that the U.S.
was caught off guard by the sudden rise of ISIS , which
has taken over whole areas of both Iraq
and Syria .
At no point, however, did Kroft ask the
president whether the bombing of Syria ,
a sovereign country, was legal. He should have asked, because clearly the air
strikes are not legal under international law. Syria
has not attacked the U.S.
and America has
not secured either Syria ’s
permission or the United Nations Security Council permission for the strikes.
An attack on a nation’s homeland or Security
Council authorization are the only legal bases for a nation taking military
action against another state.
Clearly, under UN
law and the Nuremberg Principles, the American attack qualifies as “aggression”
against Syria . Checking Dictionary.com, we see the very
first definition of the word aggression is this: “The action of a state in
violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial
rights.”
While the subject
of aggression and the legality of one nation attacking another didn’t come up
during the discussion on Syria ,
it was a different story when the interview turned to Russia
and the situation in Ukraine .
After some
diplomatic comments about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir
Putin, Obama accused the Russians of
“aggression” in Ukraine .
“Russian
aggression violated the sovereignty and terroritorial integrity of a smaller
weaker country and violates international norms,” Obama said, in an apparent
reference to Russia ’s
incursion into and takeover of Crimea in the spring,
following a coup in Ukraine
led by anti-Russian forces.
There is some validity to the claim that Russia
broke international law with respect to Crimea . While
the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a
referendum to rejoin the Russian Federation
following the change in government in Kiev ,
it is also a fact that Russian security forces, not in uniform, had entered Ukraine
prior to the vote and basically taken over the area. This was not authorized by
the UN, or in any way agreed to by Ukraine .
So it was not legal.
But if the Crimean
action by the Russians was illegal, then certainly our attack on Syrian
terrority was illegal.
It should also be
noted that the Russian grab of Crimea was done without
bloodshed, which hasn’t been the case with American attacks on Syria .
Already, U.S.
bombing has caused civilian deaths, according to a human rights group.
The clear hypocrisy
of Obama’s claim about aggression, however, didn’t prompt a question from
Kroft. No, he just let Obama’s claims slide, without challenging the president
over the double standard.
The “60 Minutes”
interviewer also failed to question the president on whether the Syria
attacks are legal under domestic law.
According to
Constitutional provisions and the War Powers Act, Obama needed to get approval
from Congress before sending U.S.
military forces into action in another country. This never happened.
Both the violations
of international law (the treaties of which are ratified by the U.S.
and are part of our law) and of the Constitution with respect to Syria ,
should form the basis for an impeachment proceeding against Obama. He has
failed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States ” as stated in his oath of office.
Unfortunately, while
some members of Congress are grumbling over the president’s failure to get
congressional approval for the Syria
attacks, it is unlikely that a large number of lawmakers would ever move
towards impeachment over this policy.
Too many Democrats
are playing politics and turning a blind eye to Obama’s failings, while
Republicans always want to look “tough” on issues of war --- whether laws are
being broken or not --- and support the Syria attacks.
So the air strikes
will go on and civilian deaths will pile up just like they did in the illegal
Libyan intervention three years ago. And there’s always the danger that the
Syrian intervention could touch off a wider war.
But does anyone care in
Congress or in the mainstream media? Apparently not.
