[Peace-discuss] NPR transcript with Lederman/Koh

Tue May 9 20:07:16 UTC 2017

In Bangkok when ambulances with their sirens blaring were stopped in traffic, with little notice by other cars, I was at first horrified that people weren’t taking notice.

 Over the years I watched films with police chases whereby all that mattered was the goal of the “police” to catch the bad guy, at everyones  expense, with pedestrians, shop keepers, all being mere “collateral damage.” Then I began to recognize the manipulation of audiences to the narcissism of the “elites,” or “stars” or whoever was the central figure in the film.

Yes, the young mother of two who was killed by an ISP officer in Decatur, which you wrote about last year, David, is a prime example of this manipulation by the powers that be, to the concept of narcissism and the resultant “collateral damage.”

At the U of I COL discussion over a year ago, in relation to “The Legitimacy of Targeted Killing.” I was again an audience to the view of people being “collateral damage” when we target one person against all laws, for execution without due process.  All others killed in the process are “yes, isn’t that awful, sigh, too bad, but  you know “collateral damage.” This is the thinking of the Harold K. Koh’s and all those in power.

The idea that some lives are worth more than others is played out daily on the streets of America, across the Middle East and North Africa by our bombs, weapons, and sheer callousness.

As Mort asked earlier, “how vile can these characters get?” I have to respond, it just keeps getting worse every day, until the people throw off the shackles of manipulation by the mainstream media and lies of government.

On May 9, 2017, at 12:21, David Green via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

It was almost exactly one year ago that a young mother of two was killed by an ISP officer in Decatur on a 100 mph chase on city streets to apprehend a disturbed man who had shot at a police officer in Mahomet and was fleeing on the interstate miles away.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 12:35 PM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Someone needs to tell Harold Killer Koh, that his example of running a red light because your wife is having a baby, a real emergency that one, says the woman who had two emergency C-sections. Never mind the potential killing and disabling of maybe four people in another car, or a pedestrian, perhaps another woman with a baby or five kids at home. A selfish act promoted by Hollywood films for decades.

We’re speaking of the same people, who think slaughtering thousands in an effort to control their resources is not a selfish act either. Here is a typical propaganda narrative that we see everywhere:

When the United States carries out an attack on another nation, as it did last night on an air base in Syria, there is usually a legal justification to back it up.

Really?

Was there a legal justification for US attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.,etc?

There was a lot of propaganda supporting those attacks, but legal justification?

On May 9, 2017, at 09:10, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

How vile can these characters get?

On May 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
When the United States carries out an attack on another nation, as it did last night on an air base in Syria, there is usually a legal justification to back it up. Not this time, at least the Trump administration has offered none so far. With no prior blessing from either the United Nations or Congress, many are asking whether the attack on Syria broke the law. NPR's David Welna has the story.
DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: One thing you cannot say about the Tomahawk missile attack of that Syrian air base, that the Trump administration did not warn it was coming. At the United Nations yesterday, U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley told her colleagues that when the international community fails to act collectively against the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons, nation states may act alone. Today, Haley sought to justify last night's airstrikes.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
NIKKI HALEY: The United States will not stand by when chemical weapons are used. It is in our vital national security interests to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons.
WELNA: But Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman, who served in the Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says the U.S. has veered outside international law under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. He says the state cannot use force within the territory of another state without that state's consent.
MARTY LEDERMAN: There are one or two exceptions to the norm. One is if it's an act of inherent self-defense. That's not at issue here. Another would be if the U.N. Security Council had approved it. That also has not happened here. And so there does not appear that there is any argument, at least none that we've heard yet, why this action would not breach the United Nations Charter.
WELNA: Another veteran of the Obama administration, however, is defending the Syria airstrike. Harold Koh is a Yale law professor who was the State Department's legal adviser during Obama's first term. Koh says a limited one-shot action like this should not be forbidden.
HAROLD KOH: If you are rushing your spouse to a hospital to deliver a baby and you're trying to decide whether you can run a red light, you take that risk and hope that you're not going to be held liable after the fact. And that's essentially what they did last night.
WELNA: Which is why Koh says there need to be exceptions in international law, as well.
KOH: If the ban on the use of force in the U.N. Charter is absolute, unless there is a U.N. Security Council resolution, Russia or China could commit genocide against its own people indefinitely and veto resolutions against it, and nobody could do a thing about it. How can that be consistent with the purposes of the U.N.?
WELNA: Trump could have also sought prior approval from Congress for last night's attack in the form of a new authorization for the use of military force or AUMF. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain says a new a new AUMF is needed but not right now.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JOHN MCCAIN: We have to respect the role of the president as commander in chief. And I would be glad and will continue to engage in negotiations with my Democrat friends on a new AUMF, but I'm not ready for Congress to micromanage the commander in chief.
WELNA: Georgetown's Lederman says Obama refused to order airstrikes against Syria's military because Congress would not agree to it.
LEDERMAN: President Trump might have had much more success, either internationally or domestically with Republican Congress, at attaining such authorization. And one of the most important and, thus far, unanswered questions in this episode is why he did not even make any efforts to put this under stronger international law or domestic law footing?
WELNA: A footing that many in Congress are now demanding. David Welna, NPR News, Washington.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20170509/9d48eb21/attachment-0001.html>