“The current, rabid
anti-Russian hysteria adds
another layer of fake news
on top of the wholly
fictional U.S. 'War on
Terror' scenario.”
And
now, in an almost laughable
legalistic perversion, a group
of lawyers from the Obama White
House, of all places, is suing
the Trump administration for
failing to provide sufficient
legal rationale for last month’s
Tomahawk hit on Syria. The
lawyers at
United to Protect Democracy
claim their insider knowledge of
“how the federal government
works” gives them unique
insights on “implementing and
enforcing the norms that have
constrained presidential power
for decades” – although they
never constrained Obama from his
own lurch towards apocalypse, in
2011. Indeed, these legal
hit-men for empire acknowledge
as much, admitting (or
bragging?) that “we defended
past presidents against
legitimate oversight and
illegitimate attacks.” The
self-styled “watchdog” group
does not list its board or
members on its website, but
their admission implicates them
in Obama’s legal defense of his
regime change assault on Libya.
The
U.S.-NATO bombing campaign,
which killed an estimated 50,000
people, destroyed the country’s
infrastructure, resulted in the
murder of its chief of state,
empowered jihadist militias, and
unleashed a torrent of arms
across Africa and the Middle
East, nevertheless did not
violate the War Powers Act
because “U.S. operations do not
involve sustained fighting or
active exchanges of fire with
hostile forces, nor do they
involve U.S. ground troops,”
wrote Obama’s lawyers. When
challenged by Congress, Obama
maintained that the war on Libya
was not a war at all, because no
Americans were killed.
“This ‘proxy war’ was never
a secret and was always a
clear violation of the
United Nations Charter.”
Like synchronized dancers, the
U.S. and its allies pivoted
immediately to Syria, where they
attempted to use much the same
formula -- jihadists + arms +
financing + CIA training +
political protection at the UN
-- to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad
government. This “proxy war,”
which involved U.S. military and
intelligence personnel on the
ground from the very start, was
never a secret and was always a
clear violation of the United
Nations Charter, which the U.S.
is legally obligated to uphold.
Nations are forbidden to use
force against other nations
except in self-defense or with
the authorization of the UN
Security Council. Unlike in
Libya, the U.S. did not have the
fig leaf of enforcing a
UN-authorized “no-fly zone” in
Syria. Yet, there was hardly a
peep from any but a handful of
Democrats, and therefore no need
for Obama’s in-house lawyers to
defend their Chief against
charges of aggressive war, the
most serious of international
crimes.
In 2013, after Syria was falsely
blamed for a chemical attack on
civilians, Obama threatened to
directly bomb Syrian forces. His
lawyers were prepared to argue
that an attack on Syria could be
justified – like Bill Clinton’s
bombing of Kosovo in 1999 – on
vague grounds of eliminating a
threat to peace. But of course,
the greatest threat to peace is
aggressive war, of which the
United States was already -- and
chronically -- guilty. In the
end, Obama decided to ask
Congress for authorization to
bomb, and then changed his mind
when the Russians offered to
broker destruction of Syria’s
chemical weapons stockpiles.
But, like all U.S. presidents,
and with no grounds under
international law, Obama
insisted that
Commanders-in-Chief have the
right to bomb other countries to
defend U.S. “national security”
based on their own judgment --
another legal nonsensicality.
“Obama maintained that the
war on Libya was not a war
at all, because no Americans
were killed.”
So,
the legal mercenaries of
United to Protect Democracy,
veterans of Obama’s 2011
military offensive, have no
problem with violating
international law. Their beef
with Trump appears to be that he
did not provide sufficient legal
rationale for his
bombing Syria – which is
different than actually obeying
international law. Trump’s
people issued what are described
as “talking points” to explain
his actions against Syria. But
former White House lawyer Justin
Florence, the group’s legal
director,
wrote
that this is not enough: “The
U.S. government must publicly
articulate its legal theory in
order to uphold the
international legal framework we
have relied on for so many years
as a constraint on other
states.”
The UN Charter is clear on what
constitutes aggression. Trump is
an aggressor. So were Obama, and
Bush (the UN Secretary General
said so), and so was Clinton.
Since the U.S. is a superpower
and a permanent member of the UN
Security Council, the UN will
never authorize the
international community to
punish the U.S. for its crimes.
But, that does not absolve the
U.S. of criminality -- and
humanity’s collective memory and
conscience will never forgive
the United States for the
crushing of nations and the
death of millions. The
Democratic Party hacks with law
degrees at United to Protect
Democracy are concerned, not
about peace, but that U.S.
presidents go through the
motions of rationalizing their
imperial crimes. Say
something that sounds good,
they urge. Convince the American
public that it’s OK for the U.S.
to claim life and death powers
over the rest of humanity. Make
an effort, why don’t ya?
“Humanity’s collective
memory and conscience will
never forgive the United
States for the crushing of
nations and the death of
millions.”
These “watchdogs’” real problem
with Trump is that he has not
bothered to commission creative
lawyers like themselves to
provide lofty wordage to justify
the indefensible. He has not
taken care to skillfully
market U.S. imperial
aggression to its home
population. This may not be
impeachable, but it is
embarrassing and unbefitting of
an “exceptional” empire.
Ajamu Baraka, the 2016 Green
Party vice presidential
candidate and an editor and
columnist at Black Agenda
Report,
wrote
in this issue of BAR:
“The absence of any real
opposition to the reckless use
of U.S. military force -- the
attack on Syria, the macho
demonstration bombing in
Afghanistan, the provocations
toward North Korea -- exposed
once again the unanimity among
the U.S. ruling class and the
state on the use of military
force as the main strategy to
enforce its global interests.”
The American public does not
think of itself as bloodthirsty,
but it has a huge tolerance for
the spilling of other people’s
blood. Americans also have a
peculiar sense of entitlement.
“Imperial privilege is this
strange ability on the part of
the U.S. public to ‘shrug off’
the consequences experienced by
people impacted by the direct
and indirect result of U.S.
militarism,” Baraka writes.
Obama’s former lawyers at United
to Protect Democracy understand
that Americans demand only that
politicians use pretty words to
justify the barbarities
committed in their name. If you
stick with the formula, the
template, and make Americans
feel exceptional, then you can
bomb the hell out of the rest of
the world, at will.
