A Word On International Law

This journal has always taken the position against a military strike against Syria. There are humanitarian concerns such as dead civilians that will inevitably result. That has been our concern for the people of Syria. Our concern for the nation of Syria and the future of the nation state however has been our government’s assault on the sovereignty of another nation. It seems that every serious member of this national discussion that is in opposition of military strike proposes other options that further erode the national sovereignty of both sides, and I begin to wonder if that is their true aim.

This journal takes the position that the best course of action is to do nothing. We keep hearing that a strike on Syria would be in violation of “International Law”. Can anyone explain what this international law is? There are no international treaties signed by the United States that prohibit war on another country, and our people have never consented to be governed by any body, certainly not a foreign one, to govern them. We have consented to be governed by our Federal, State, County, and City governments, and those governments are only legitimate as long as they have our consent.

One of the main arguments against Assad’s government is that somehow his people have not consented to be governed by him. Those same people are proposing handing the crisis and right of governance and military action over to an international body to which neither the United States nor the Syrians have given consent.

To erode our sovereignty and hand power over to ANY body or leader outside this country and outside our constitution is an act of treason, and this journal is bold enough to call it out as such.

More to come shortly…..

Advertisements

Syria

The United States government is currently in support of waging a war in the interest of non-American Bankers against a secular democracy. The American media has been for the last few months, referring to the government of Syria as the “Assad Regime”. Syria has a democratically elected government. The use of the word regime insinuates dictatorship, a sentiment which fails to be supported by facts. Their government could arguably be called corrupt or opposed to the United States, but that does not equate them with a form of government that they are not.

The so called rebels in Syria are Al-Qaeda linked groups, a fact which our government and several members of Congress admit.1 These rebels have been slaughtering Christian villages and Assad forces have been stopping them.2

Today Saudi backed Syrian rebels claim that they set off Saudi supplied chemical weapons by mistake.3 This on the same day that John Kerry and President Obama continue to blame Assad. The President of the United States on the other hand seems to be disregarding the Constitutional restrictions of his office by claiming that he can decide to go to war, even while congress is not in session. Article one of the United States Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the authority to declare war.4 On the President going to war, candidate Obama said: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”5 This begs the question, is the United States still operating under the constitution? The President has demonstrated that he is not ignorant of Article one of the Constitution, just willing to ignore it. While our government de-legitimizes itself more every day by breaking its own laws and ignoring our civil liberties, it wants us to support it in violating the liberties of the people of the sovereign state of Syria. It wants us to believe that launching cruise missiles against Syria (which will kill civilians) is a necessary response to dead civilians (a la Bill Clinton bombing aspirin factory).

Our government wants us to remember 9/11 when we are groped at the airport and are stripped of our liberties, but want us to forget 9/11 while our government arms Al-Qaeda in Syria and argues for war against a democracy.

The important question in this and any matter of importance is “cui bono?’ The answer is international bankers. The United States has been systematically supporting the overthrow of debt free independent governments who owe nothing to the International Monetary Fund. For example, immediately after coming into power in Egypt Morsi agreed to a $4.8 billion IMF loan.6 When these nations inevitably cannot repay their loans they usually forfeit land, give special deals to American companies or privatize natural resources such as water as repayment.

These are wars of plunder, but President Obama also benefits personally. Every major scandal has disappeared from the news. The NSA scandal, the IRS scandal, and the Benghazi scandal, are all gone. Every single one connected to higher and higher Obama administration officials have disappeared from the airwaves just as Clinton scandals did during the Kosovo conflict.

Wars of plunder and distraction.


Citations:

1. Syria Al-Qaeda Connection

2. Obama backed Al-Qaeda rebels kill Christians

3. Saudi Supplied Syrian Rebels Admit Gas Attack

4. Article One of the U.S. Constitution

5. Candidate Obama quotes Constitution, President Obama ignores it

6. Reuters on Egypt IMF deal

Links:

1. John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hitman