Wrongheaded NYT Views When They're Right
by Stephen Lendman
Times omits what readers most need to know.
On March 9, a Times editorial headlined "Repeal the Military Force Law." Reasons given omitted what's most important. More on that below.
On September 14, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was introduced. It never should have been done in the first place.
UN Charter provisions explain under what conditions waging war is justified. They're clear and unambiguous.
Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use.
Article 51 allows the "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member".until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security."
Justifiable self-defense is permissible. Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 prohibit unilaterally threatening or using force not allowed under Article 51, authorized by the Security Council, and, for America, constitutionally allowed under Article I, Section 8.
Big Lies launch wars. Waging them on terror doesn't wash. Nor does doing so on people, groups, or those harboring them. Nothing in international or constitutional law permits it.
September 11, 2001 was the mother of all false flags. Bush officials took full advantage. So did Congress. Multiple direct and proxy wars followed. They're lawless. They still rage. They do so on humanity. Bipartisan complicity bears full responsibility.
AUMF passed near unanimously. House representatives voted 420 - 1. Barbara Lee (D. CA) was the sole dissenter.
On the same day, it passed the Senate. It did so 98 - 0. Capitol Hill has few profiles in courage. On this day, they were almost entirely absent.
On September 18, Bush signed it into law. Doing so declared war. It did so lawlessly. Nonbelligerent countries were attacked. Wars without end followed.
AUMF authorized "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Saying so doesn't wash. International law says otherwise. So does constitutional law.