Trump: destroying international law

           By Reginald Johnson

    The distinguished economist and foreign policy analyst Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia says that President Trump is a "thug" who is flaunting both domestic and international law and creating a more dangerous world in the process.

      In an interview with Danny Haiphong following the US attack on Venezuela and abduction of that nation's leader Nicolas Maduro, Sachs said, "We have a thug who is President of the United States. He is threatening the lives of world leaders, kidnapping them, threatening the worst, threatening the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro. This is thuggery."

Sachs said that  "we have international law to prevent human annihilation, to prevent the tragedy of international anarchy."

  But Trump is ignoring rules outlined in the UN Charter prohibiting threats against other countries, its leaders and attacks against other countries except in cases of self-defense.

 Sachs said the assault on Venezuela was "brazenly illegal" and a "grotesque violation of the UN Charter."

"Trump is ripping up the UN Charter. Obviously, he did not pay one iota of attention to it and in my view this extroardinarily dangerous," he said.

 In other comments on the Venezuela situation to the UN Security Council, Sachs, a former advisor to the Secretary-General, said it was imperative that the world body condemn the US attack on Venezuela, and threats against other countries.

  He urged the council to pass resolutions calling on the United States to "immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela," end the naval quarantine and withdraw all forces from in or near Venezuela.

 Sachs closed his remarks to the council with a sobering message: "The survival of humanity depends on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance. That is the choice before this council today."

  The Venezuelan representative to the UN, Samuel Moncada, condemned the US attack and also pleaded with the council to do something.

  "If the kidnapping of a Head of State, the bombing of a sovereign country and the open threat of further armed action are tolerated or downplayed, the message sent to the world is a devastating one --- namely, that the law is optional and that force is the true arbiter of international relations," he said.

 US Ambassador to the UN Michael Waltz, meanwhile, justified the US assault by characterizing it as a "law enforcement action" designed to remove a "narco-trafficker" who was involved in illegal activity harmful to the American people. About 100 Venezuelan and Cuban security forces died during the attack.

  "There is no war against Venezuela," he said.

Despite wide criticism by member countries of the US action, the council failed to take up any statement condemning the attack.

  In recent weeks, Trump has continued his pattern of threatening other countries. He's demanded that Denmark give up control of Greenland and turn it over to the US, saying that America needs Greenland for national security. Trump has indicated he would use military force if a "deal" is not reached.

 Most disturbingly, Trump continues to threaten Iran, saying that the government there is crushing a purported "democratic uprising" by the people and the US may have to take punitive military action. The US already bombed Iran last year, with Trump claiming the US needed to destroy that nation's alleged nuclear bombing-making facilities. Iran has denied making any nuclear weapons.

  It should be noted that last year's attack was illegal under the UN Charter, since Iran had not attacked the US and there was no threat of an imminent attack by Iran. Any renewed attack by the US would be similarly illegal.

  Sachs said "there is a high likelihood" of war with Iran in the near future.

 "If it happens," he said, "that would be vastly more dangerous than what's happening in the Americas, because that area is in the most explosive zone in the world and it is an area where the great powers can easily clash and where escalation --- even to nuclear war --- becomes possible."

U.S. breaking the law? Who cares?

                  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.

 

 

 

  

Impeach Obama

By Reginald Johnson

    

   As the United States edges closer to war with Syria, one thing is clear --- President Barack Obama should be impeached.

     Like his predecessor, George Bush, Obama has no regard for international law or the United Nations. He also puts very little value in the views of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress.

   The oath that every new president takes upon entering office states that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    In planning an attack on Syria, carrying out the intervention in Libya two years ago and bombing Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with drone strikes, Obama has violated the norms of international law, which put strict limitations on when it is permissible to attack another nation. These rules are spelled out in treaties and convenants, all or which have been signed onto by the United States and incorporated into our law.

   At home, he pushed for the passage of a repressive law contained in Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the military to arbitrarily arrest and indefinitely detain anyone in the United States they deem to be terrorists or their associates.

  The NDAA seriously undermines rights guaranteed in the First and Sixth Amendments and in the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution. Critics believe the wording of the statute may open the door to the disappearing of activists and dissidents.

  Obama’s administration has waged a relentless campaign to stifle the free flow of information about government activity by prosecuting whistleblowers and hounding reporters. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who released classified information to expose U.S. war crimes, was brought up on charges, tried and sent to jail for 35 years. Computer specialist Edward Snowden, who also released secret documents to reveal a massive and secret system of phone wiretapping and Internet monitoring on millions of Americans by the National Security Agency, is being sought for arrest and is now living in exile.

  Reporters from the Associated Press have had their phones tapped.  James Risen, a New York Times investigative reporter and author, has been ordered to testify in a case involving a CIA analyst who gave him classified information about the agency’s role in disrupting Iran’s nuclear program.

   The government actions in these cases undermine the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

   Snowden’s revelations further show how the U.S. has become a surveillance state under the Obama administration, with the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to privacy and protection against warrantless searches rendered almost a dead letter.

  In the case of Syria, the administration is planning to launch a military attack while disregarding the two requirements that must be met before a country can wage war.  The conditions are these: a nation must be acting in self-defense after it has been attacked, or that nation must get authorization for military action from the Security Council of the United Nations.

  If the attack on Syria takes place,  America will be totally flaunting international law as outlined in the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, passed after World War II.

   The same kind of violations of law took place two years ago with Libya. The U.S. took part in an air invasion of that country, with a relentless bombing campaign that killed thousands of both military personnel and civilians. The Obama administration dubbed this campaign a “humanitarian intervention” aimed at removing the admittedly despotic Libyan leader, Mohamar Gaddafi. But Libya, a sovereign nation, had not attacked the United States. Further, the administration had no war authorization from Congress, as required by the Constitution, and no full approval from the UN to take part in this attack.

   With Syria, Obama is now seeking congressional approval for a bombing campaign aimed at punishing the Syrian government for the alleged use of chemical weapons. The administration claims that government forces killed over 1400 civilians in an August attack on rebels fighting in a civil war.

  But neither Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry, who is testifying at congressional hearings, have pledged the U.S. will drop plans for military action if Congress fails to pass a war resolution.

  And again, Obama is making no moves to get UN approval for an intervention.

Prof. Francis Boyle, who teaches law at the University of Illinois College of Law, believes the U.S. has broken the rules of international law on numerous occasions under Obama. He believes it is imperative that the president be impeached immediately.

  “We need to fight back,” he said during an interview with Scott Harris on the show “Counterpoint” on WPKN radio. “He’s made it clear he’ll attack, no matter what Congress does.”

  Boyle thinks the Syrian situation is fraught with danger given the alliances involved --- Russia, China and Iran with Syria, the U.S., Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia with the Syrian rebels.

  “We have very little time to head off a regional catastrophe,” he said.

 Boyle, the author of numerous books, said an impeachment drive is the one thing that will make Obama stop and hold off on military action.

  The law scholar also maintained, as do many, that the claims that the Syrian government engaged in a chemical weapons attack --- only days after a UN team arrived to investigate previous claims of poison gas use --- are phony.

  “This is nothing more than a pretext,” he said.

   Boyle didn’t get into the prospects for actually gaining a successful impeachment vote. So far, only Republicans, particularly tea party Republicans, have talked of impeachment, citing things of doubtful merit like the alleged mishandling of the Benghazi embassy attack or administration misuse of the IRS. But there’s also been talk of two areas that do have merit --- the illegality of drone strikes and the unconstitutional surveillance by the NSA.

  I don’t know of any liberal or progressive groups, except for Veterans for Peace, who have advocated impeachment.

  It’s time to start talking about this. This administration has done too much to undermine domestic and international law and our Constitution to not talk about it.

    There has to be a break on an executive branch which is constantly getting this nation involved in illegal and costly wars abroad and at the same time restricting constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties at home. 

skip to main | skip to sidebar

Syria in the Gunsights

By Reginald Johnson







Despite revelations by a UN official that Syrian rebels, and not the Syrian government, used chemical weapons in a civil war, officials of the Obama administration and others are still determined to create regime change in Syria, if necessary by force.

Carla del Ponte, who sits on a UN commission of inquiry on Syria, told Italian-Swiss broadcaster RSI, “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.”

Del Ponte, who previously served on Western-backed international courts on Yugoslavia and Rwanda, said, “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and according to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was on the part of the oppostition, the rebels, not the government authorities.”

The commission of inquiry later issued a statement saying it had not yet reached official conclusions about whether poison gas was used in the Syrian conflict, and by whom.

Nonetheless, Del Ponte’s statements would seem to undercut the case being made by the Obama administration, advocates for war in the Republican Party and their many allies in the press, that the U.S. must intervene in Syria, to stop an out-of-control government from using chemical weapons against its own people.

However, in an echo of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Del Ponte’s comments are being brushed aside by administration officials and others as being irrelevant or not worthy of attention. Without any evidence, they insist that government forces are using chemical weapons.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney expressed doubts that the Syrian opposition had used chemical weapons. “We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime.”

Members of Congress, including Democrats, also keep pounding the drums for war, despite Del Ponte’s comments. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, submitted legislation that would officially authorize the Obama administration to arm the opposition groups.

“The Assad regime has crossed a red line that forces us to consider all options,” Menendez said in a written statement.

The New York Times reported that the U.S. and Britain are in secret talks about coordinated air strikes against Syria.

The talk of intervention by the U.S. comes as a major ally, Israel, launched a unilateral and devastating missile attack against a military research center near Damascus last weekend. Dozens of Syrian military were killed. Israel said the attack was done to stop the flow of Syrian aid to the group Hezbollah, which Israel views as terrorist.

The quick downplaying of Del Ponte’s claims about rebel use of sarin gas is reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq War, when Bush administration officials insisted that they had information showing that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, thereby justifying an invasion and regime change. Counter claims by a few skeptics, such as former UN weapons inspectors, that there were no weapons, were given little credence and got almost no attention in the press.

The US invaded Iraq in March of 2003, with a UN weapons inspection team still doing its work and having reached no conclusion. Months later, the team finished its work, with no weapons found. An administration-sanctioned inspection group reached the same conclusion.

The Obama administration would be violating international law in either plotting an invasion of Syria or sending lethal aid to opposition forces. The United Nations Charter, which the U.S. is party to, prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

If the U.S. is so concerned about a “humanitarian disaster” at the hands of the Syrian government, through the possible use of chemical weapons, it is incumbent on this country to bring its case before the Security Council, and appeal for some kind of collective action against Syria. The excuse that is used for not doing this is that Russia, Syria’s ally, would veto any proposed UN action.

But that excuse doesn’t cut it, since the U.S. has never even tried to take its case to the UN. They’re not about to do that, since, as Del Ponte’s comments show, the case against the government may have little basis.

People might also point out that the U.S. is employing a moral double standard in condemning Syria for possible use of chemical weapons, since America used chemical weapons --- white phosphorous grenades --- in Fallujah during the Iraq War.

But let’s face it. The reason why the U.S. wants to topple the Syrian regime has nothing to do with human rights or an impending humanitarian disaster. That’s simply the cover story. The real reason is that Syria is in the way, bordering Iran, and being an ally of Iran. The ultimate target here is Iran, which, like Iraq, is loaded with oil. The U.S. wants to overthrow the government of Iran and gain geopolitical primacy over the entire Middle East region. Installing a pro-western government in Syria is vital to achieving this goal.

As this sorry saga unfolds, once again the mainstream media is failing the test. Failing to ask the tough questions and failing to do balanced reporting. Reports by the main TV networks on Syria have been one-sided with a blanket acceptance of administration claims on such matters as chemical weapons and alleged atrocities by the Syrian military.

There’s also been little concern expressed about the contradiction in the U.S. support for the “rebels” since one of the primary opposition factions is affiliated with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that is supposed to be our sworn enemy. Even some of the commentary from the left on Syria has been weak, until recently.

Over ten years ago, many in the media, both electronic and print, did a very poor job in failing to ask more pointed questions of the Bush administration about their sweeping claims of WMDs and failing to give enough attention to alternative voices who were raising questions about the need to go to war.

Now, it appears the mainstream media is making the same mistake again.