Until U.S. Declassifies Evidence Against Syria, Bombing Can Not Be Justified
In a world of disinformation, propaganda, fake news and false flags, we're finding it difficult to understand why so few U.S. officials have demanded to see the administration's proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the Khan Shaykhun chemical gas attack. We're finding it difficult to understand why the western media hasn't rigorously challenged the Trump administration for not making that proof public. As we stated in our last post, something is awfully wrong with this story and we're determined to find out what.
The International Red Cross has re-designated the Syrian Civil War to that of an international armed conflict. An international armed conflict is in effect when multiple state and non state actors are conducting military operations within a nation without that nation's permission. Currently, there are dozens of armed factions operating in Syria, all with dubious motives, including the uninvited United States and its so-called coalition partners. And considering it's no secret the CIA and U.S. Special forces has been crawling all over Syria providing aid and support to anyone who'll oppose Bashar al-Assad, an international armed conflict is more than an apt description.
Heretofore, the United States has hidden behind an outdated AUMF( Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist). Loosely interpreted, this authorization allows the United States the right to seek out and terminate any terrorist group anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, when Donald Trump bombed Syria's air base in Shayrat to retaliate against the chemical gas attack, he wasn't bombing ISIS, the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army or some Al Qaeda affiliate, he was attacking the Syrian government, and that, by any measure, is considered an act of aggression/war by international law.
From our understanding, the current AUMF provides no legal cover for attacking a sovereign nation. Without providing congress with a strong case against Syria, (the U.S.' latest target), with a plan to achieve proposed goals and a clear exit strategy, there's no way to for it conduct a proper review of the administration's request for said authority and hold robust debates before if any such authority is deemed warranted.
Still, therein lies another problem. Since the ill fated Iraq war vote, many politicians would rather abdicate their constitutional responsibility to demand a vote for a new AUMF, for fear of having to defend that vote should the conflict go badly. And they almost always do. If you recall, it was the Iraq war vote that kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House for getting it wrong and why Barack Obama was elected President twice for getting that vote right.
Bottom line: Let's be clear, the United States has attacked another sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat or even indirect provocation against it or its national interest. And it is this context, that "We the People" are being asked to accept the word of Donald Trump, a proven liar, that we're not being led to the precipice of the proverbial slippery slope on trumped up charges. We've seen this all before and so have you. Maybe they think we forgot. Podcast below.
Comments
Post a Comment