Advertisement

Posts tagged with World Court

Obama Wants Vigilante Type Attack on Syria

The important question in Syria isn't whether Syria used chemical weapons on its own people or should be punished for doing so. The important question is whether the established legal procedures should be used or whether the United States will ignore the law and launch a "lynch mob" style vigilante attack on Syria.

America's Imperial President Barack Obama has decided he is the Imperial Wizard of Earth and like other Imperial Wizards believes he can decide what punishment to apply for various infractions. Like other Imperial Wizards, he doesn't believe he needs to seek the approval of the established legal authorities for his actions.

American leaders have long touted the idea of the rule of law in dealing with questionable activities. Law enforcement officials are supposed to act within an established legal framework that regulates how they deal with suspected lawbreakers. For example, they have to present evidence of illegal activity to a judge if they want to search a suspects residence. The courts, rather than law enforcement officers determine what punishment, if any, should be imposed.

Vigilantes don't bother with using the legal system. If they believe someone has done something wrong they just impose whatever punishment they want.' A unilateral attack by the United States against Syria would be a vigilante attack unless it is preapproved by an appropriate international body such as the United Nations or the World Court.

Congressional approval of Obama's vigilante attack would tell the world that the United States is a hypocritical nation. Congress would be saying that the rule of law is good enough for the United States but not the smaller nations of the world. Congress would be saying that the smaller nations have to accept whatever treatment the Imperial United States wants to give them.

Reply

American Bombing of Syria Would Be Unjust and Immoral

Let me see if I've got this right. President Barack Obama has decided the Syria government has used unacceptable means of killing Syrians so Obama is considering demonstrating the acceptable way of killing Syrians by using conventional weapons to kill Syrians.

The fact that Obama is even considering such an action raises doubts about his sanity.

Killing residents of a country because the country's government used chemical weapons to attack another country might be acceptable. However, the United States cannot justify punishing residents of a country because its government has mistreated them. Such an action would compound the original injury.

If the United States has evidence Syrian government officials have violated international law, the correct response would be to present the evidence to the World Court for prosecution for war crimes whenever prosecution becomes practical.

Killing even one innocent Syrian for a Syrian government official's mistreatment of other Syrians would be murder. If Obama kills any civilians to "punish" Syrian government officials, Congress should impeach and remove Obama from office for the high crime of murder. The United States should then turn Obama over to the World Court for possible prosecution for war crimes.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution assigns the Vice President and member of the president's cabinet the responsibility of monitoring a president's mental and physical health and relieving him if it appears he is not mentally or physically able to properly handle the powers of the presidency. The responsibility is similar to the responsibility of senior officers on a ship to relieve a captain who has become unable to handle the captain's duties.

If Obama is considering killing innocent Syrians to punish its government for mistreating other Syrians, the cabinet should ask mental health professionals to evaluate whether or not Obama should be relieved of his duties until such time as he regains the mental competence to handle the office responsibly.

Reply