Home | About | Donate

US Can’t Attack North Korea. It’s Against the Law


#1

US Can’t Attack North Korea. It’s Against the Law

John Burroughs

As we learned from the Iraq War, there is great wisdom in the charter requirement that peaceful solutions, however difficult to achieve, take precedence over resorting to force.


#2

Will the empire ignore the UN again? Stay tuned.


#3

Pfffft as if the world’s sole superpower cares about the law. As we type the U.S. is breaking a number of U.N. laws and getting away with it.


#4

This crowd is totally uninterested in and unfazed by the law. They exhibit a total disregard for it and are unlikely to even bother with knowing what it is.


#5

Excellent article and an impassioned appeal to International Law. However, I have a few reservations about the cloak of “legality” which some US generals were claiming as a test for not destroying the planet. General Kehler’s sole logic seemed to be that he would not obey an illegal order because he didn’t;t want to go to jail. How noble of him (Not!). Which law did he have in mind? In Totalitarian States (like Nazi Germany) the law is the servant of the state and bears no relation to Justice, Truth, Morality or Natural Law. One would hope (probably in vain) that military men could find the courage to disobey orders because they are wrong, irrespective of their supposed “legality”. But, as we know from history, such a hope is doomed to disappointment. Human Decency will always be bent by brute force.


#6

Now we know why Trump wants Tillerson out.

Madman.


#7

You know, the UN would probably work if the US would ever try to be supportive and constructive, instead of always being the bully.


#8

The bully with legendary strong-arm tactics including coercion and outright threats.


#9

Tell DJT what the law is and he will either disobey/violate it outright or manage a way around it with his new found unlimited, unrestricted power. And his flying monkeys are of the same mindset, obviously.


#10

Thanks to the crooked lawyers by whom he has always been surrounded & protected, Tweetle-Dumb has man­aged to skate above the law his entire life.   Why should someone who should probably have been in prison for the past two or three decades pay any attention to the law now – especially the toothless law of the U.N., which failed to bring The Lying Son-of-a-Bush, Cheney, Prince, Rummy or even their two-bit torture-justifying “lawyer” – John Yoo – to justice??


#11

In that sense what better position is there for Trump than the presidency? An office that gives those elected the privilege of committing as many war crimes as they want and they will not only get punished but rewarded for it once they leave.


#12

I wish there were a “private message” capability here on CD, so I could have suggested the above edit less openly.


#13

Sorry, anyway thanks for catching me on that.


#14

I give Mr Burroughs credit for a headline that is at once accurate and ironic.


#15

John Burroughs thinks that the Fat Man with an addled brain and an over-fed Military at his disposal is going to be stopped by A PIECE OF PAPER?? Oh Johnny, Johnny, your tender innocence is so sweet! We love you, Johnny, but this is not your sandbox, and these are not your playmates that are dragging us toward worldwide catastrophe. Obeying laws is not in the repertoire of our yellow haired thug. If it was, he would have divested before taking office, as required by the highest law of the land, and actually be a legal President. This fast-growing cancer will not be contained by an aspirin.


#16

Who is doing the provoking- Nikki Haley said she wants to cut off all oil to N Korea. But I do believe China and Russia have already let Trump know what will happen if he uses military force—but they will let the Moron in Chief keep pretending----


#17

" The US is bound by law to seek a diplomatic solution.“
The US being bound by law is nothing but another brainwashing farce that only the most gullible believe!
Paul Craig Roberts:
” Washington does not accept law, neither domestic or international as a constraint on its actions. Washington is exceptional indispensable. No one else counts. No law, no Constitution, and no humane consideration has authority to constrain Washington’s will. IN ITS CLAIMS WASHINGTON SURPASSES THAT OF THE THIRD REICH.


#18

I’m all for negotiations with North Korea and seeking peace.

But this article is pure baloney sausage.

You see, as far as I’ve been able to find, the original U.N. authorization for war against North Korea is still in effect. There never was a peace treaty and only an armistice.

Technically the U.N. is still at war with North Korea and the U.S. is fully authorized in that war to use military force.

I freaking hate this is so. But it still is so.

I hope someone can show me I’m wrong.


#19

And this matters why?

As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?” Any government will ignore the law when they think it is in their interest to do so, whether it’s national law or international law.


#20

The author wrote that, in Korea, ‘We’re currently operating under (U.N.) Resolution 2375 of September 11, 2017, which tightened sanctions on North Korea after it tested a powerful nuclear bomb. It was adopted pursuant to U.N. Charter Article 41, which covers measures not involving the use of force, such as economic sanctions. Neither 2375 nor previous Security Council resolutions on North Korea contain any indication whatever that force is authorized. In fact, they emphasize the need for a peaceful settlement, which is also mandated by the charter.’

Fine, but he goes on to say that Russia and China wanted to include a provision in 2375 prohibiting the use of force on North Korea, but the U.S. was opposed to it. It sounds as if 2375 was eventually adopted without the prohibition. Doesn’t that leave a loop hole for Trump to use force? Wasn’t ambiguity in the language of a Security Council Resolution used as a pretext by Bush to invade Iraq?