The fact of the matter is, under the rules of the UN, and the new international order after WWII, pre-emptive war was made a thing of the past, and only under very limited circumstances was it not made a thing that pariah states engaged in.
Who changed all that? GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY.
And Biden? A cog of the Deep State? Supported that bullshit. He caused the normalization of preemptive war in the modern era, so. . . . one could say, this is partially HIS FAULT!
Biden’s vote to invade Iraq was no “mistake,” but an indication of his contempt for international law.
truthout.org
Biden may run from it today, but he played a critical role in ensuring America’s involvement in the most disastrous foreign policy venture of the 21st century. Here’s how.
www.commondreams.org
The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.
www.msnbc.com
A thorough examination of legal precedent is necessary before coming to snap conclusions about Russia's invasion, including what St. Thomas Aquinas has to do with Vladimir Putin, writes Joe Lauria. By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News As Michael Brenner humorously pointed out in the
consortiumnews.com
" . . Ritter goes into great detail about how the U.S. finessed the law, or outright tried to create new legal arguments to get around the U.N. Charter in order to invade Iraq in 2003, as it had earlier bombed Serbia over Kosovo in 1999. The 2003 invasion was denounced as “illegal” by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and nearly everyone in Washington now says it was maybe the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. As WikiLeaks has revealed, not only was the crime of aggression committed, but also war crimes against civilians during the course of the war. And yet no one in government, the military or the media has paid a price.
It’s not just in Iraq and Serbia that the U.S. has made a mockery of the laws of war. There are abundant small examples from more obscure wars, like the 1989 invasion of Panama in which an entire poor neighborhood was pulverized, thousands of civilians were killed and there was no Security Council authorization. The U.S. said saving American lives allowed them to invade.
Then there was the time the U.S. massaged the law in the 1983 invasion of Grenada, which The New York Times — by today’s standards — took a very skeptical view of. In an article titled, “Legal Basis for Invasion,” the Times concludes that there wasn’t much of one. “The rationale suggested by the State Department today might be a significant departure insofar as it purports to provide a basis for ignoring the international law rules against invasions and interventions in the affairs of sovereign states whenever a few countries get together to form a collective security treaty,” the Times wrote on Oct. 27, 1983. . . ."
Scott Ritter, in part one of a two-part series, lays out international law regarding the crime of aggression and how it relates to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from oth
consortiumnews.com
