Tag Archives: International Law

International Law Is A Meaningless Concept When It Only Applies To US Enemies, by Caitlin Johnstone

If a person or government is above the law, then there is no rule of law. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

Australian whistleblower David McBride just made the following statement on Twitter:

“I’ve been asked if I think the invasion of Ukraine is illegal.

My answer is: If we don’t hold our own leaders to account, we can’t hold other leaders to account.

If the law is not applied consistently, it is not the law.

It is simply an excuse we use to target our enemies.

We will pay a heavy price for our hubris of 2003 in the future.

We didn’t just fail to punish Bush and Blair: we rewarded them. We re-elected them. We knighted them.

If you want to see Putin in his true light imagine him landing a jet and then saying ‘Mission Accomplished’.”

As far as I can tell this point is logically unassailable. International law is a meaningless concept when it only applies to people the US power alliance doesn’t like. This point is driven home by the life of McBride himself, whose own government responded to his publicizing suppressed information about war crimes committed by Australian forces in Afghanistan by charging him as a criminal.

Neither George W Bush nor Tony Blair are in prison cells at The Hague where international law says they ought to be. Bush is still painting away from the comfort of his home, issuing proclamations comparing Putin to Hitler and platforming arguments for more interventionism in Ukraine. Blair is still merily warmongering his charred little heart out, saying NATO should not rule out directly attacking Russian forces in what amounts to a call for a thermonuclear world war.

Continue reading→

Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani, by Craig Murray

Craig Murray parses US pronouncements and justifications for the Soleimani assassination. From Murray at craigmurray.org.uk:

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

Continue reading

UN To Trump: Obamacare Repeal Would Violate “International Law”; Would Also Be Racist, by Tyler Durden

Anyone looking for fodder for one-world government theories, here it is. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

A confidential memo from the United Nations, sent shortly after Trump moved into the White House, made an “urgent appeal” to the Trump administration that a repeal of Obamacare could violate international law.  Oh yeah, and it would also be racist as well.  Unfortunately, this is not hyperbole.

The letter was written by Dainius Puras whose official title is:

“Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”

Unfortunately, that also is not hyperbole…that is his real, official title as signed on the letter below.

Apparently the letter was originated after Puras received some “information”, undoubtedly from the Obama administration, suggesting that a repeal of Obamacare would leave 30 million people without any access to healthcare and doomed to a sudden, painful death.

“I would like to bring to the attention of your Government information I have received concerning the possibility to repeal core elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with negative impacts on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health in the United States, in particular those with moderate or low income and in situations of poverty or social exclusion.”

“Recent reports have assessed the negative impact that this reform may have on the right to health of almost 30 million people in the U.S.”

“In this context, I would like to draw the attention of your Government to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  The UDHR has become a source and expression of international customary law and all States, including the United States of America, are obliged to protect and guarantee the rights enshrined therein.”

Why do we suddenly feel like Brandt in regards to Puras’ revelation of “certain information, man.”