New York Times: Bomb Syria even if it is illegal

Ahh yes, the New York Times. Once again, telling people that the laws and constitution mean nothing if it interferes with making themselves “Feel good.”

In a column by Ian Hurd, the New York Slimes is demanding that Obama “Do Something” about Syria. Never mind that we really don’t have any interest in Syria. On the other hand, bombing Assad’s forces and infrastructure will help the Slimes favorite terrorist group, Al Qaeda. Here are the details, along with a few pithy comments from yours truly.

THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.

So far, Hurd is correct. Syria never signed the agreement not to use gas on anyone. However, Hurd shows his inner Moonbat with the following paragraph.

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.

Ok, so where was the outrage when the rebel initiated chemical warfare ((U.N. Has Gathered Testimony Indicating That Syrian Rebels Have Used Sarin Gas)) last spring? Oh, we can’t bomb the Rebels, they are the “Good guys” in this, even if they are murdering Islamic radicals bent on destroying the United States.

What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts — genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category.

Nope, they are not. Now as to slavery, I guess Mr. Hurd has forgotten it is still practiced in Africa, and primarily in Islamic areas ((Current-day Slavery in Mauritania)). So why haven’t we launched an all out attack to “Free the slaves!!”?

As many as 10 countries have stocks of chemical weapons today, with the largest held by Russia and by the United States. Both countries are slowly destroying their stockpiles, but missed what was supposed to be a final deadline last year for doing so.

The reason we both missed the deadline had nothing to do with trying to hide/avoid destroying them. It’s simple logistics. Chemical weapons are rather dangerous, don’t you know, and have to be handled very carefully ((Disarming And Destroying Chemical Weapons)). However, we are working on it with the Russians and other nations.

There is no doubt that Mr. Assad’s government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war, including the prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of civilians, even in non-international conflicts, set out in 1949 in the Geneva Conventions. But the conventions also don’t mean much unless the Security Council agrees to act. It is an indictment of the current state of international law that there is no universally recognized basis to intervene.

Allow me to explain a few things about those conventions. They are generally meaningless. Just ask those taken prisoner in WW2 by the Japanese, Korean war by the Chinese and North Koreans, Vietnam war by the North Vietnamese, and the few taken during during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom by the Iraqis. You might also try talking with some Russians taken by the Germans in WW2 and see how they were treated, and vice verse.

Arguably, the key legal obligation of nations in the post-1945 world is adherence to the United Nations Charter. It demands that states refrain “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The use of force is permitted when authorized by the Security Council or for self-defense (and countries like Jordan and Turkey are considering this route to justify joining an anti-Assad coalition) — but not purely on humanitarian grounds.

First, it’s looking like they are pulling back from that, now that the Al Qaeda RIF’s have pretty much taken over the “Rebel Alliance.” The last thing they want is another nutbar regime on their borders, especially Jordan. Second, if you try asking the majority of Americans, you know, the people the New York Slimes refers to as “those ignorant rednecks in flyover country,” they’ll tell you to take the UN and shove it where the sun don’t shine, then sit down and rotate on it. It’s only the Progressive Liberal Transnational Elites that give a damn about the UN. You know, people like Ian Hurd and everyone at the New York Slimes. Most Americans want to get out of the UN and kick them out of the U.S.

Of course ethics, not only laws, should guide policy decisions. Since the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, a movement has emerged in support of adding humanitarian intervention as a third category of lawful war, under the concept of the “responsibility to protect.” It is widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments. It is not, however, in the charter, and it lacks the force of law.

First, the Balkan’s mess was due to the Europeans screwing the whole thing up so badly that they begged Clinton to send in US Forces. About the only good thing that’s come out of that fiasco is the destruction of the factory where they made Yugo’s ((History of the Yugo Cars)). As to Rwanda, yes it was a tragedy, but that has been the basic description of Africa for about 70,000 years or so. About the only time they have had any stability is when the Europeans were running the place. So how many US Marines went in to Rwanda to shoot up the those doing all the killing? That would be none. I don’t seem to recall any western forces going in there and actually doing anything to stop the slaughter.

Norms and institutions of international criminal law, including 11 years of experience with the International Criminal Court, have strengthened since then. Special tribunals for Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia reflect a growing consensus that perpetrators of atrocities should be punished.

Ok dumbass, did you forget that the United States does NOT recognize the ICC, especially since they tried to go after a tank crew that accidentally whacked a couple of moronic journalists who were filming them under fire  ((Spain seeks US soldiers’ arrest))? The idiots were using a camera that looked like a missile launcher so the tank commander sent them a 120MM HE note informing them it was a bad idea. It was an accident, the crew was afraid they were about to be hit with something that could kill them, and at the range they were at, they couldn’t see that it was a camera sitting on the photographers shoulder. So, BOOM!

This didn’t stop one pack of idiots in Spain from issuing a warrant for their arrest. They demanded that the United States promptly send them to Europe to be tried and jailed. President Bush told them to pound sand and if they tried grabbing them, to expect a visit from Delta Force and the Navy SEALS.

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.

This would be popular in many quarters, (Like the editorial offices of the NY Slimes. AW)) and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

Yes, it’s called an Act of War. There is nothing “Legal” about it. Let me try and explain a few things to you Genius. International Law is meaningless and always has been. Nations put their interests first and don’t give a damn what you Progressive Liberal Transnational Elitists think. Countries will do whatever they want, which is why the Arab Islamic countries have been trying to wipe Israel off the map since 1948. By your definition, the next time some Hezbollah or the Palestinians launch a few rockets into Israel, we should attack them and the Arab countries backing them. Since the New York Slimes is run by a bunch of Israel hating anti-Semites, we know they won’t be calling for that to happen.

Now, lets put the shoe on the other foot. It is common knowledge that the New York Slimes has intentionally blown operations that had serious consequences on the War on Terror. The NY Slimes actively worked to subvert covert operations against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Iranians simply because they didn’t like Bush or his policies. It didn’t matter that these were lawful operations and that congress was in the loop.

So, I think we need to bomb the New York Times. Yes, unlike Syria where it may be illegal, bombing the New York times actually IS illegal. However, we must stop the criminal acts of the government management before more damage is done and people are horribly killed in a brutal manner. Granted, I have no real interest in this, and the other countries who might also want to stop the New York Times from committing these acts aren’t really interested in doing so. However, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!! Therefore, I think we should ignore the laws and launch airstrikes and cruise missiles into the New York Times publishing company, In addition, we must also prevent them from continuing their behavior, so we must also destroy all your printing presses, materials used in making the newspaper as well as all computers and servers used in the manufacture of the New York Times. Granted, a number of people working in these locations might be killed, but WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!

So, how does it feel? Think this is a good idea? I don’t. As much as I despise the New York Times, demanding that it be bombed, even if it isn’t legal, is wrong, even if I do “Have a dog in that hunt.” (Our forces and citizens put at risk)

With regards to Syria, it’s none of our business. Neither side is any good, so we just need to sit back. If you want to do anything, how about building a wall around the country, with a one way door so everyone who wants to go there to “STOP EVIL NOW!” (No matter which side you may consider evil), can go in. (I’ll be happy to front Ian Hurd a plane ticket) They just can’t come back out. If things start quieting down inside, air drop a few thousand new AK47’s and a few tons of ammunition. If things are still quiet after that, then we can go in and look around. I’m sure that everything will be as peaceful as a cemetery at that point.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]

Save