David Lindorff — President Trump’s War Crime is Worse than the One He Accuses Assad of

The single most important thing that happened Friday night when the US military on President Trump’s orders launched a wave of over 100 cruise missiles against Syria was that once again the US violated the most profound international law of war: initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US or its allies.

Called a “Crime against Peace,” this violation (whose perpetrators, under the precedent set in the Nuremberg Trials that followed World War II, can face capital punishment), is considered worse than any other war crime because, as US Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson explained in his argument at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, a war of aggressionis “not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”...

That goes for May and Macron, too.

The American, British and French people should horrified and ashamed. This is sinking too the lowest level, commonly associated with Hitler and the Nazis. 

Nuremberg not only condemned them but also made an example of them as a warning to future leaders. 

Trump, May, and Macron ignored the message.

This puts senior officials and military of the US, UK and France at legal jeopardy along with their leaders. The Nuremberg defense of following orders was rejected and a precedent established. They all know this, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Counterpunch
President Trump’s War Crime is Worse than the One He Accuses Assad of

David Lindorff

See also at Counterpunch

Donald Trump, Theresa May, and Emmanuel Macron are war criminals.

They’re certainly not the first war criminals to hold positions of power in their countries.

Every living former US president with the possible — possible — exception of Jimmy Carter has a lot to answer for, as do Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, et al....

Trump Isn’t the First War Criminal President. He Should be the Last.
Thomas Knapp

China's reaction to the Syrian missile strike.

US President Donald Trump announced on Friday he ordered strikes on the Syrian regime in response to a chemical attack last weekend. He said the strikes were in coordination with France and the United Kingdom. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said his country is being "invaded" by the three countries. The Russian Embassy in the USA said in a statement that "insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible."

In a sensational statement, Trump asserted the Bashar Assad government used chemical weapons on civilians. He said "The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."Trump also warned "Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace."

The facts cannot be distorted. This military strike was not authorized by the UN, and the strikes targeted a legal government of a UN member state. The US and its European allies launched strikes to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack in Duma last weekend. However, it has not been confirmed if the chemical weapons attack happened or if it did, whether government forces or opposition forces launched it. International organizations have not carried out any authoritative investigation.

The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no need for it to use chemical weapons to capture the opposition-controlled Duma city and the use of chemical weapons has provided an excuse for Western intervention. The Syrian government's argument or Trump's accusations against the "evil" Assad regime, which one is in line with basic logic? The answer is quite obvious.

The US has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the US-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003. However, the coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false.

Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark path." Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.

The situation is still fomenting. The Trump administration said it will sustain the strikes. But how long will the military action continue and whether Russia will fight back as it claimed previously remain uncertain. Western countries continue bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance breeds risk and danger.

Not official, but nothing like this gets published in China without government approval. In addition, Global Times is a subsidiary of People's Daily, operated by the CCP.

Global Times (China)
US, allies risk Russian retaliation in Syrian attack

Editorial

Also at Global Times

After US, British and French forces launched over 100 missiles at Syria, Washington quickly stated that it was satisfied with the effectiveness of the strike. US President Donald Trump tweeted "Mission Accomplished!" Will there be more military actions on Syria? The US said that will depend on whether Bashar al-Assad's regime will use more chemical weapons in the future.

According to these signals from Washington, most observers believe that this round of strikes against Syria by the US and its allies have come to an end. They have not actually weakened Syrian government forces or hurt Russia's military presence in Syria, but they conveyed a warning that Trump dares to strike.

As for what Trump wants in Syria, many people are confused. Does he really want to stop the Syrian government forces from using chemical weapons? In that case, it's simple, because there is no need at all for the nation's government forces, which already control the situation in Syria's battlefield, to use chemical weapons.

Using chemical weapons would only attract condemnation and attacks from the outside world. Hence, Assad's government has sufficient reason as it claims to keep away from chemical weapons.

Was Trump trying to turn the tables on the Syrian battlefield, where government forces are scoring victories while opposition forces are shrinking? Then 100 missiles are far from enough.

Was Washington attempting to humiliate Russia? Undoubtedly it embarrassed Moscow, but the strike avoided the region where Russian troops are stationed and the US issued a signal to stop the strike immediately afterward. Apparently, Washington restrained itself so as not to push the Kremlin into a corner and escalate the conflict.

Perhaps even Trump and his team have no clue what they want to do in Syria. They may want to showcase the might of the US and the West, send a warning to their potential opponents and boost the unity of the West. Washington may feel that it is no big deal to beat Syria up.

But the US severely underestimated the negative consequences of its reckless military action. It will inevitably stimulate hatred and make many countries and forces believe that the ultimate way to resolve conflicts and disputes can only be the use of force.

It can be foreseen that the military strike on Syria will have a negative impact on the upcoming talks between the two Koreas and the Trump-Kim summit.

One of the major characteristics of the Trump administration's diplomacy is willfulness and recklessness, as if the all-mighty US has the right to do everything.

However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?

Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were lynching Syria without due evidence.

It is worrying that the US may disturb Syria with yet more missiles from time to time, throwing yet more salt on an open wound of a country.

Reckless strike on Syria a shameless act

See also

Zero Hedge
China: "The Arrogant US Has A Record Of Launching Wars On Deceptive Grounds"

Tyler Durden

Asia Times Trump, dissatisfied with options presented, wants ‘large strike’ on Syria: Report

President said to be at odds with his defense secretary

Donald Trump is now channeling John Bolton, going against everything he had said in the past, in particular the campaign in which many voted for Trump rather than "warmonger" Clinton.

What he is proposing done is illegal aggression. Congress needs remove the president from office. "Trump must go." May and Macron too. They must all face the International Court of Justice at The Hague, along with all officials involved in the US, Britain and France.

But Trump's impreachment would just put in Pence, who is probably worse.

Tidbit: [Russian Federation Foreign Minister Lavrov] also said that the alleged chemical attack was “staged” by a malicious country, which the Russian military later identified as Britain.

Asia Times
Trump, dissatisfied with options presented, wants ‘large strike’ on Syria: Report

also

RT
Syria 'chemical attack' staged to provoke US airstrike, London pushed perpetrators – Russian MoD

also

I had surmised this. Neither side wants this to escalate out of control given the stakes. Nuclear winter is guaranteed lose-lose.

As per Suchkov’s report above, which I find very believable, the two are actually haggling over the details of the US giving target locations to the Russians in advance (probably over how much time in advance and for how many / which targets). That is quite unlike any war the US has recently fought — except for the 2017 strikes on Syria when the American side likewise told the Russians (who told the Syrians) that a strike was coming a couple of hours later and where it would hit.

Both sides have drawn their lines and neither is enthusiastic about losing face. Trump has vowed missiles are coming and Russia’s chief general Gerasimov vowed he’ll fire at any ship or aircraft that puts his men at risk. In such circumstances negotiating the details of the coming strike in advance is as wise as it is cynical. Unless Trump manages yet another flip-flop, or Lavrov can pull another rabbit out of the bag, it may be the only and best way to avoid this blowing up into something even far nastier.

That is something we should all be thankful for. Ironically the US-Russian military communication channel that is making this possible isn’t an outgrowth of past good relations, but of their rivalry....

We may just get out of this one alive. Thanks to the fact the two militaries have been forced to talk to each other for nearly three years now.

Russia Insider
US and Russia Are Talking Around the Clock to Choreograph Trump’s Coming Syria Strike

Related

Sic Semper Tyrannis
"Remember the Maine!"Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.)

At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert Storm.

He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. — Wikipedia

Also of interest

She gave the interview in fluent English.

Russia Feed
Maria Zakharova OWNS British MSM clown in rare English tete-a-tete (VIDEO)

US Attack on Syria Would Be Illegal Under International Law (Part 1 of 2) — Ben Norton interviews Alfred de Zaya

BEN NORTON: ... would a strike led by Donald Trump, would a U.S. strike be legal?

ALFRED DE ZAYAS: I could answer that in two seconds. Of course it would be illegal. And I remind you that international law is also the law of the land in the United States and on American citizen. And Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter is very clear in stipulating a prohibition on the use of force. There are only two exceptions. Force can be used in self-defence. Article 51. Or if the Security Council so decides pursuant to Article 39, it must first determine that there is a threat or a breach of international peace. And then if you have a clear resolution of the Security Council then certain use of force would be legal.
Otherwise you have the crime of aggression. And since 2010 we have a definition of what the crime of aggression entails, and of course an unprovoked attack on Syria by the United States, that is essentially not a party to this civil war and which is acting actually already illegally in the territory. It's interesting to note, most people don't know that, that in international law if there's a civil war, there's an obligation of neutrality for the rest of the international community. The only country that is there, shall we say, by invitation, and therefore legally is Russia. We may not want to accept it but that is what international law says and so whatever activities the United States is having in Syria at present are incompatible, both with the United Nations Charter and with customary international law.

There you have it.

We are eroding those very principles that we ostensibly want to protect. So we're doing more damage to international law and to international relations than we seem to understand. And what bothers me is the misuse of certain concepts, like human rights. I have spent my career as a professor of law, professor of human rights, secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, chief of the Petitions Department of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and six years as an independent expert. And I am just shocked that those countries that should be the leaders in defending human rights are actually instrumental izing human rights as weapons.
So since there are geopolitical interests in Syria, everybody knows about the pipeline and the conflicting interests of the Russians and the Europeans and the Americans. Now that it seemed like Assad had won the war and had expelled the rebels from this enclave, well, how could you keep the United States in, and how could you get the Europeans back in the game? Well, by creating a false flag, by claiming that there was a chemical attack and that Assad did it....

TRNN
US Attack on Syria Would Be Illegal Under International Law

Ben Norton interviews Alfred de Zayas, UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, and retired senior lawyer with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as a retired chief of the petitions department at OHCHR

Kara Love — If John Bolton Is Right, Pearl Harbor Was Perfectly Legal

"Preemptive war."

Counterpunch
If John Bolton Is Right, Pearl Harbor Was Perfectly Legal

Kara Love, attorney

Stephan Richter — The liberal international order: Just who shredded it?

Smackdown.

To see where we are — the United States needs to take a look at it's recent past.…

The truth is that it wasn’t Putin — or even Trump now — as much as George W. Bush and his reckless foreign policy cowboys — remember Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, all names that should live in infamy — who did most of the shredding of that liberal international order.

They committed acts of war that were clearly criminal in nature. Their only saving grace was — and is — that they have a U.S. passport.

Otherwise, they would all find themselves in the dock at the ICC in The Hague, where indeed they belong.…

Still, Obama did not break with his predecessor’s Bush league approach. Deliberately obscure mandates in Iraq simply changed topic, gone were the torture memos, in where drone strike memos.

Put yourself into the shoes of a Russian or Chinese policymaker for a moment – and ask any one of these four questions:

Salon
The liberal international order: Just who shredded it?
Stephan Richter | the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Globalist

Reuters — Russia's Foreign Ministry says U.S. strike on Syria an aggressive act

Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Monday that the missile strike on Syria carried out by the United States was a aggressive act against a sovereign state and violated international law.

Reuters
Russia's Foreign Ministry says U.S. strike on Syria an aggressive act

See also

What planet are these people living on?

Russia condemned the U.S. missile strike as illegal and Putin said it would harm U.S.-Russia ties. Moscow also said it would keep military channels of communication open with Washington, but would not exchange any information through them.

U.S. air strike gives Tillerson a boost for Moscow talks

Also

RT
Trump’s decision to hit Syrian airfield was outside UN framework – Belgian foreign minister

Daniel Larison — Trump’s First Big Foreign Policy Failure

Far from being frustrated, many of Trump’s critics across the political spectrum have been vindicated. We have said that his foreign policy views were incoherent, and he has shown that to be true beyond all expectations. He went from supposedly being a firm opponent of intervention against the Syrian government to ordering an attack on the same government within the space of a week. He has been charged with being a militarist and predisposed to respond to problems with nothing more than military options, and he has confirmed that charge beyond doubt. He has demonstrated his recklessness and his readiness to use force even though no U.S. interests were at stake. His critics believed that he was ill-prepared to conduct foreign policy and that he would be incompetent in a crisis, and he has regrettably proved us right.

Trump ordered an illegal attack on a government that posed no threat to the U.S. If we judge his action based on its effectiveness and its success in advancing U.S. interests, Trump has to be judged a clear failure. He “passes” only if we judge him on the absurd basis of simply “doing something”–no matter how useless or irrational–in response to a foreign conflict.... 

The American Conservative
Trump’s First Big Foreign Policy Failure
Daniel Larison

Curtis FJ Doebbler — Why the United States’ Use of Force Against Syria Violates International Law

The United States the use of force against the sovereign state of Syria is a prima facie violation of international law. It is an act of aggression against the UN Member State in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.…

Review of the relevant law follows.

Counterpunch
Why the United States’ Use of Force Against Syria Violates International Law

Curtis FJ Doebbler is a visiting professor of international law at the University of Makeni, Webster University (Geneva) and the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations.

Also

Yet Another President Commits the Ultimate War Crime of Launching a War of Aggression
Dave Lindorff

American Empire Will Not Be Stopped by a Blundering Semi-Isolationist President
Lucy Steigerwald, editor at Young Voices Advocates and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com

President Trump has attacked Syria without congressional authorization, violating the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution is a series of barriers that Congress erected in the wake of the Vietnam War to defend the constitutionally-mandated role of Congress in deciding when the US will use military force if the US has not been attacked.

The "outer wall" of the War Powers Resolution is Section 2(c), which affirms that if the US has not been attacked, the president must receive congressional authorization in order to use force…. 

Truthout  | Op-Ed
In Attacking Syria, Trump Breached the War Powers Resolution
Robert Naiman, Truthout

Publius Tacitus — Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker

Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened:

****

Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

Strong stuff. SST is a venue featuring former military and intel personnel.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker

Publius Tacitus

Iraqi officials said Wednesday that they had removed nearly 300 bodies from the site of an apparent airstrike in west Mosul, the largest civilian death toll since the battle against Islamic State began more than two years ago and among the deadliest incidents in decades of modern warfare.

More bodies were being removed Wednesday as the U.S.-led coalition investigated whether it was responsible, Iraqi officials blamed Islamic State, and the injured continued to suffer....

Los Angeles Times
Nearly 300 died in Mosul airstrike, making it one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in recent memory

Molly Hennessy-Fiske | Contact Reporter

Gilbert Doctorow — Brexit, the Chilcot Report and why we must prosecute our own war criminals

If we as a nation are to learn anything from the human tragedy we have sponsored in the Middle East over the past thirteen years, up to the ongoing civil war in Syria which our proxies among Gulf States enflame, then we must prosecute the war criminals In high office, whatever their party affiliation.

Why We Should Prosecute Our Own War Criminals.

Une parole franche
Brexit, the Chilcot Report and why we must prosecute our own war criminals

Gilbert Doctorow | European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd.