Labour’s commissioned Legal Opinion on legitimacy of UK Air Strikes on Syria
This is the text of the legal opinion by Professor Dapo Akande, commissioned by Tom Watson, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party on the recent airstrikes on Damascus by the UK armed forces
Opinion of Professor Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law & Co-Director, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law & Armed Conflict, University of Oxford 16 April 2018
1. I have been asked by Tom Watson MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, to prepare a brief opinion responding to the UK government’s position on the legality, under international law, of military action taken against the Syrian government on 13/14 April 2018. As set out in this opinion, the position taken by the government is significantly flawed. The military action taken was not in accordance with the United Nations Charter and international law.
2. The United Nations Charter (Article 2 (4)) prohibits the threat or use of armed force by states against other states. The International Court of Justice has held that prohibition of the use of force is also a principle of customary international law (Nicaragua Case 1986). The United Nations Charter provides two explicit exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force. First, states may use force in individual or collective self-defence (Article 51). Second, force may also be authorized by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, to maintain international peace and security. In addition, a use of force on the territory of a state that is consented to by the government of that state will not be in breach of the prohibition of the use of force. In recent years, the UK has relied on each of these three legal bases for force: the UK’s use of force against ISIS in Syria is being conducted on the basis of the collective self-defence of Iraq; the use of force in Libya in 2011 was authorized by the UN Security Council; and the UK’s use of force against ISIS in Iraq is being conducted with the consent of the Iraqi government.
3. In seeking to justify the airstrikes against the Assad government, the government relies on a legal position that is different from those stated in the previous paragraph. The UK government states that “The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention . . .” and then sets out three conditions for such a use of force. This argument asserts that under international law, states may, on an exceptional basis, take action in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering, even where such action is not carried out in self-defence, authorised by the UN Security Council nor undertaken with the consent of the government of the territorial state.
4. However, despite the fact that the UK has advanced this legal position on a number of occasions, including in August 2013 when the government proposed to take military action in Syria, it is quite clear that the position advocated by the government is not an accurate reflection of international law as it currently stands. International law does not permit individual states to use force on the territory of other states in order to pursue humanitarian ends determined by those states.
5. Although the government appears to suggest that the so-called doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” is an established principle of customary international law, there is very little support by states for this legal position. For the formation of a rule of customary international law, two elements must be shown. First it must be shown that there is general state practice and second, such general state practice must be accepted as law (the requirement of opinio juris). There is neither a general state practice of humanitarian intervention nor is any such practice accepted as law. The UK government is one of only a handful of States that accepts that international law provides a right of humanitarian intervention. Indeed, neither the United States nor France has ever advanced such a view of the law nor have they sought to provide any legal justification for the recent strikes. With a couple of exceptions (namely Belgium and Denmark), other European states have also refused to endorse a legal principle permitting humanitarian intervention. On the contrary, a large number of states has rejected this legal position. In April 2000, the Declaration of the South Summit issued by the Group of 77 (which is composed of about 130 member States) states explicitly that: “‘We reject the so-called “right” of humanitarian intervention, which has no legal basis in the United Nations Charter or in the general principles of international law” (para. 54). In short, there is little opinio juris on which a doctrine of humanitarian intervention might be based under customary international law.
6. Although the matter has not been expressly considered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court did seem to reject the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in Military & Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (1986). In that case, the Court stated that: “while the United States might form its own appraisal of the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect.” (para. 268).
7. The responsibility to protect doctrine “R2P” does not change this position in any way. The 2005 World Summit Outcome document, agreed by consensus at Head of State level in the UN General Assembly, is the definitive document on what the “R2P” doctrine is intended to mean. Paragraph 139 of the document speaks of collective action, through the Security Council, should peaceful means fail. In other words, forceful action to prevent mass atrocity crimes is reserved to the Security Council. The notion that where the Security Council is deadlocked, “R2P” provides a legal framework for the international community to use military force – either by way of a regional coalition or a so-called “coalition of the willing” is absent from the document and would not have been approved were it suggested.
8. The most significant problem with the government’s legal position is that it would require a radical restructuring of the most fundamental rules of the international legal order. The argument that there is a right of humanitarian intervention under customary international law implies that a rule of customary international law can prevail over or modify the prohibition of the use of force in the UN Charter. Such an argument is problematic for three reasons. First, it would suggest that a rule of customary international law can prevail over an explicit and binding treaty rule. Second, such an argument would undermine the provision in the UN Charter (Art. 103) which ensures primacy of the Charter since the argument would suggest that states can override the Charter by pointing to a rule of customary law. Third, the argument would undermine the rule that the prohibition of force is a peremptory or overriding norm of international law (a norm of jus cogens) which prevails over inconsistent rules. Thus, even if it could be shown that the conditions existed for a rule of international law permitting humanitarian intervention, it would nonetheless be the case that such a rule of customary international law could not prevail over the prohibition of the use of force contained in the UN Charter.
9. It is possible for parties to a treaty to collectively interpret that treaty in a way which appears at odds with the text, and for such interpretation to become binding and definitive. The government might argue that its legal position is based on an interpretation of the UN Charter. However, for subsequent practice of states to establish a definitive interpretation of a treaty, such practice must establish the agreement of all the treaty parties as to the interpretation to be given to the treaty. For the reasons given earlier, it is clear that there is no agreement among UN members to interpret the prohibition of the use of force in a manner that permits humanitarian intervention.
10. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, along the lines suggested by the government, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The first of the three conditions set out by the government is that “there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief.” While the humanitarian distress caused by the Syrian civil war is appalling and the use of chemical weapons is brutal and barbaric, it is by no means clear that the action taken by the government was one that was designed to bring “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent. Furthermore, although the government’s test requires that the international community as a whole accept the evidence of extreme humanitarian distress, in this particular case the action taken by the government came before the inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.
11. One significant problem with the interpretation given by the government to its legal position, is that if accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends. It is precisely because of the risk of abuse that this may give rise to, and the consequent humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action. Acceptance of the government’s legal position in this particular case would essentially open up the possibility of a small group of states, or individual states, taking action based on their own subjective interpretations as to when it is right or proper to use force.
12. While the prospects of Security Council endorsement of strikes in Syria are non- existent, an attempt might have been made to conform to the UN Charter by seeking endorsement of the strikes from the UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution 377A (1950) which allows the Assembly to take measures in response to breaches of international peace, where the Council is blocked through the threat or use of force. This is the route that would permit collective international endorsement of both the overwhelming humanitarian suffering and of the need for military action to provide relief.
1. I have been asked by Tom Watson MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, to prepare a brief opinion responding to the UK government’s position on the legality, under international law, of military action taken against the Syrian government on 13/14 April 2018. As set out in this opinion, the position taken by the government is significantly flawed. The military action taken was not in accordance with the United Nations Charter and international law.
2. The United Nations Charter (Article 2 (4)) prohibits the threat or use of armed force by states against other states. The International Court of Justice has held that prohibition of the use of force is also a principle of customary international law (Nicaragua Case 1986). The United Nations Charter provides two explicit exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force. First, states may use force in individual or collective self-defence (Article 51). Second, force may also be authorized by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, to maintain international peace and security. In addition, a use of force on the territory of a state that is consented to by the government of that state will not be in breach of the prohibition of the use of force. In recent years, the UK has relied on each of these three legal bases for force: the UK’s use of force against ISIS in Syria is being conducted on the basis of the collective self-defence of Iraq; the use of force in Libya in 2011 was authorized by the UN Security Council; and the UK’s use of force against ISIS in Iraq is being conducted with the consent of the Iraqi government.
3. In seeking to justify the airstrikes against the Assad government, the government relies on a legal position that is different from those stated in the previous paragraph. The UK government states that “The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention . . .” and then sets out three conditions for such a use of force. This argument asserts that under international law, states may, on an exceptional basis, take action in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering, even where such action is not carried out in self-defence, authorised by the UN Security Council nor undertaken with the consent of the government of the territorial state.
4. However, despite the fact that the UK has advanced this legal position on a number of occasions, including in August 2013 when the government proposed to take military action in Syria, it is quite clear that the position advocated by the government is not an accurate reflection of international law as it currently stands. International law does not permit individual states to use force on the territory of other states in order to pursue humanitarian ends determined by those states.
5. Although the government appears to suggest that the so-called doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” is an established principle of customary international law, there is very little support by states for this legal position. For the formation of a rule of customary international law, two elements must be shown. First it must be shown that there is general state practice and second, such general state practice must be accepted as law (the requirement of opinio juris). There is neither a general state practice of humanitarian intervention nor is any such practice accepted as law. The UK government is one of only a handful of States that accepts that international law provides a right of humanitarian intervention. Indeed, neither the United States nor France has ever advanced such a view of the law nor have they sought to provide any legal justification for the recent strikes. With a couple of exceptions (namely Belgium and Denmark), other European states have also refused to endorse a legal principle permitting humanitarian intervention. On the contrary, a large number of states has rejected this legal position. In April 2000, the Declaration of the South Summit issued by the Group of 77 (which is composed of about 130 member States) states explicitly that: “‘We reject the so-called “right” of humanitarian intervention, which has no legal basis in the United Nations Charter or in the general principles of international law” (para. 54). In short, there is little opinio juris on which a doctrine of humanitarian intervention might be based under customary international law.
6. Although the matter has not been expressly considered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court did seem to reject the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in Military & Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (1986). In that case, the Court stated that: “while the United States might form its own appraisal of the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect.” (para. 268).
7. The responsibility to protect doctrine “R2P” does not change this position in any way. The 2005 World Summit Outcome document, agreed by consensus at Head of State level in the UN General Assembly, is the definitive document on what the “R2P” doctrine is intended to mean. Paragraph 139 of the document speaks of collective action, through the Security Council, should peaceful means fail. In other words, forceful action to prevent mass atrocity crimes is reserved to the Security Council. The notion that where the Security Council is deadlocked, “R2P” provides a legal framework for the international community to use military force – either by way of a regional coalition or a so-called “coalition of the willing” is absent from the document and would not have been approved were it suggested.
8. The most significant problem with the government’s legal position is that it would require a radical restructuring of the most fundamental rules of the international legal order. The argument that there is a right of humanitarian intervention under customary international law implies that a rule of customary international law can prevail over or modify the prohibition of the use of force in the UN Charter. Such an argument is problematic for three reasons. First, it would suggest that a rule of customary international law can prevail over an explicit and binding treaty rule. Second, such an argument would undermine the provision in the UN Charter (Art. 103) which ensures primacy of the Charter since the argument would suggest that states can override the Charter by pointing to a rule of customary law. Third, the argument would undermine the rule that the prohibition of force is a peremptory or overriding norm of international law (a norm of jus cogens) which prevails over inconsistent rules. Thus, even if it could be shown that the conditions existed for a rule of international law permitting humanitarian intervention, it would nonetheless be the case that such a rule of customary international law could not prevail over the prohibition of the use of force contained in the UN Charter.
9. It is possible for parties to a treaty to collectively interpret that treaty in a way which appears at odds with the text, and for such interpretation to become binding and definitive. The government might argue that its legal position is based on an interpretation of the UN Charter. However, for subsequent practice of states to establish a definitive interpretation of a treaty, such practice must establish the agreement of all the treaty parties as to the interpretation to be given to the treaty. For the reasons given earlier, it is clear that there is no agreement among UN members to interpret the prohibition of the use of force in a manner that permits humanitarian intervention.
10. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, along the lines suggested by the government, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The first of the three conditions set out by the government is that “there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief.” While the humanitarian distress caused by the Syrian civil war is appalling and the use of chemical weapons is brutal and barbaric, it is by no means clear that the action taken by the government was one that was designed to bring “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent. Furthermore, although the government’s test requires that the international community as a whole accept the evidence of extreme humanitarian distress, in this particular case the action taken by the government came before the inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.
11. One significant problem with the interpretation given by the government to its legal position, is that if accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends. It is precisely because of the risk of abuse that this may give rise to, and the consequent humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action. Acceptance of the government’s legal position in this particular case would essentially open up the possibility of a small group of states, or individual states, taking action based on their own subjective interpretations as to when it is right or proper to use force.
12. While the prospects of Security Council endorsement of strikes in Syria are non- existent, an attempt might have been made to conform to the UN Charter by seeking endorsement of the strikes from the UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution 377A (1950) which allows the Assembly to take measures in response to breaches of international peace, where the Council is blocked through the threat or use of force. This is the route that would permit collective international endorsement of both the overwhelming humanitarian suffering and of the need for military action to provide relief.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
This Fisk story cannot be correct, he is a liar, the UK Government have boots on the ground, Jaish al islam who say without doubt Assad was responsible.
The Fisk report DOES NOT EXIST, as far as the local fakestream media sewer in Austfailure is concerned. And it NEVER EXISTED, either.
The same invisibility applies to OANN’s cable news video.
http://www.oann.com/oan-investigation-finds-no-evidence-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria/
Reblogged this on Worldtruth.
Be wary. Because I think there may have been a chlorine attack by the ‘rebels’ which consisted of one rocket being fired to engineer their false flag. It had little impact but they tried to generate what panic they could & added their usual fake videos to the mix.
The MSM keep referring to this yellow rocket/cannister and they will now claim that is proof of the government using it. Eliot Higgins is also referring to it citing a recent CBS report saying they were shown by a local to the site. It’s shown sitting on top of a hole in a roof. When someone asked why didn’t Russia/Syria remove it – he’s now claiming it’s because they’re stupid.
If the OPCW cover that MSM will go full on claiming they were right all along.
Higgins also fails to provide the CBS report link instead shows a snapshot. Maybe because this was also in the report:
We asked one mother of five why she didn’t leave, if the fighting had been so bad.
“We tried more than once,” she told us. “But the rebels wouldn’t let us go.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-inside-douma-the-site-of-apparent-chemical-attack-2018-04-16/
The government knows that its legal justification is wrong both as to law and as to the facts, but it does not care.
However, the official narrative is already unravelling even in the corporate media. Robert Fisk has visited Douma and spoken to the doctor at the hospital where the video was made of the supposed victims of the alleged chemical weapons attack. He reports that the doctor told him the “victims” were suffering from a lack of oxygen due to dust, not chemical poisoning, and that a White Helmet rushed in an shouted that there had been a gas attack, causing panic, which he then videoed.
I would have provided a link to the Fisk article, but for some reason I cannot “open the page”. So here’s a link to Zero Hedge’s covering of Fisk’s report: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-16/first-western-journalist-syrian-hospital-which-treated-chemical-weapons-victims
Meanwhile, no doubt to thwart Fisk and other journalists’ reports, the Fraudian sewer has their favourite MOSSAD disinformer, Chulov, reporting, from Tel Aviv or some other bolt-hole, that the ‘doctors’ in Douma were being threatened by the evil Assad forces.
If I’d have Corbyn, I would have said that when I became PM, I would order a full public inquiry into how the PM ordered yet another illegal act of war based on a tissue of lies and if members of the old government were found to have broken the law I would recommend they be sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes.
There would be lots of advantages linked to such a powerful statement, not least making May and he co-conspirators just a little bit nervous about what the future might hold for them.
And get George Galloway to chair the proceedings.
Looks like the airbases were the real target of the weekends fireworks: but the air defences protected them. Also looks like Bibi’s Zionist takfiri air force went back for a second go this morning. And if the IHRA definitions (with the full eleven “working examples”) get imposed on the Labour party, and then on the “left” in wider society …no further criticism of Israel will be allowed. Luckily, they have the “most moral” armed forces in the world …and would never fly air cover for jihadists!
https://www.rt.com/news/424333-syria-missiles-defense-homs/
If the detestable IHRA DEMANDS are inflicted on the UK, you will be fully reduced to the position of slaves, or, to quote Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former leader of the highly influential Shas (ie Talmud) Party in Israel, ‘ The goyim were only put on earth to serve the Jews’. The good Rabbi’s funeral drew the largest ever crowd in Israeli history, several hundred thousand strong. Why Corbyn does not dismiss this vile attempt to destroy Freedom of Opinion utterly in the UK, while strongly attacking real Judeophobia, is beyond me.
UK has no constitution? Wrong, it does. There are no tools to combat the present Neo-fascist onslaught. Wrong again, there are. — Does the everyday citizen/subject, appreciate the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’ ? Probably not. ——————-1, youtube.com/watch?v=SDc7nzmffSY , — is an important presentation with deep research and analysis on what our Common LAW is all about. —- 2, bilderberg.org/EWG.pdf — To know wherefrom EU originates. That’s just a begining
3, sidercatweb.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/freenations-net-1.pdf — 4, Shoe-horned into the EU, a widely available doc. revealing gov. shenanigans preceding the 1972 vote on EEC membership. — 5, the petition of the barons, 2001. — 6, telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Eu — 7, truthwars .co.uk
Estaugh.
While it might not have lawful status, if we can”t show it is illegal, then our lack of a written constitution means that any attempt to hold to accountability can and will, just go back and forth between contenders. We took many of our rights from membership within the EU and they are now contested or outright undone since May came into power.
There’s no written constitution is there? There’s custom and precedent as a form of constraint, but no binding written constitution.
Agreed. Another term for “written” is CODIFIED. I was interested in Paul Krugman’s comment a while back. He was asked, during an interview, “What is backing the dollar? He replied, “Men with guns.” So, law covers both civil and military institutions…covering the various degrees of law enforcement. In the UK we have a hierarchy of inherited legal institutions, posts, that convey and exercise various degrees of governing authority, e.g, legal inferiors and legal superiors. The Queen, the monarch, is the supreme governing authority and the Government is Her Majesty’s Government…she says it a lot during Queen’s speeches. Now, what reasonable principle has been employed to justify the existence of these arrangements? I suggest POSSESSION and taking possession looms very large. That is, THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST…by military means. The Queen is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Legal reasoning includes the civil and the military minded. That is what Marx is talking about when he refers to the ruling class ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. These political economic terms have legal status and existence. He knew Hegel, a constitutional monarchist who is well known for his possession of the absolute truth….and less well known for saying, it may serve “just as much to conceal as to reveal human thoughts.” Too bad Hegel didn’t live long enough to write more about the art of deception. Marx was right. The barbarism that’s happening in the Syrian context has left the reasonably civilised and morally minded at a loss. We need to get that sorted before the support for WW3 get their way. And, as for those who play the Devil’s Advocate, they are liable to become what they personify…the opposite of true existence. Careless talk costs lives. Step forward, the Guardian.
I think I have just about worked out Mrs May’s moral framework of priorities.
1) Never ever fail to prioritise arms sales above womens rights. There is no democracy, however imperfect, where a woman could become President that should be allied with if a misogynistic dictatorship which spends billions on UK arms exports is the alternative.
2) There is no rule of law for either the USA or Israel, as they have told us that we are their closest allies (except when they want something from Macron).
3) Hundreds of thousands of starving children in Yemen do not count, but videos purporting inaccurately to show 70 odd children exposed to chlorine gas is an international outrage.
4) Because we no longer have a navy or airforce worthy of the name, our new job is fomenting terror, overthrowing governments and arming headchopping jihadists. MI6 is our new army, as it is beautifully unaccountable, even to the Prime Minister.
It is particularly important that children are educated in these priorities at school, as neocon conquest is the new Judeo-Christianity.
And don’t forget, if voting or “democracy” worked, it would be declared illegal.
I guess it’s no surprise to discover that G7 world leaders don’t care about international law constraints on their crimes, but here’s the latest evidence of that:
G7 Leaders’ Statement on Syria
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/04/16/g7-leaders-statement-syria
“We the G7 Leaders…fully support all efforts made by the US, the UK and France to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons and to deter any future use, demonstrated by their action taken on April 13. This response was limited, proportionate and necessary…”
The G7 is the gang of Western thugs who imagine that their brutal dominance of humanity is ordained by God, and therefore any means, preferably destruction and genocide, are justified to maintain that supremacy, forever. Or else they will destroy the world in a fit of rage.
they think: Ordained by God… or the Devil?
Either is simply their ego projected onto the Universe. Manifestly they are Evil incarnate, just as wicked as any Nazi or any other of humanity’s cast of monsters down through the ages.
Sorry Mulga, but TPTB don’t believe in any God or anything that would not directly benefit their own interests.
Re UK backing of ‘unsavoury’ rebels/terrorists, such as those in Syria, I remember Thatcher’s government supporting (at least vocally), the Khmer Rouge against the ‘liberating’ Vietnamese, just so they kept on side with the Yanks.
Nothing changes it seems…
I have just posted this on the Guardians website. I believe it is very pertinent to the need for the UK and USA to be censured for breaching international law with impunity.
Oh dear the good old Coalition of the Killing have done it again. The UK and USA and France were lying about the latest gas attack.
Journalists now in Ghouta confirm it was the Syrians and Russians telling the truth and our Good Guys bombing people on the basis of lies and the good old White Helmets staging the chemical attack.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-16/first-western-journalist-syrian-hospital-which-treated-chemical-weapons-victims
Maybe the MSM, this web site included, will learn not to believe what they are told by our Governments and the terrorists that work for them, and instead do some independent investigation.
PS. In the post above, when I said “Maybe the MSM, this web site included, will learn not to believe what they are told by our Governments and the terrorists that work for them, and instead do some independent investigation.”I was referring to the Guardian.” not this web site.
From Syrian Arab News Agency SANA:
Angry British MPs denounce their country’s participation in aggression on Syria
https://sana.sy/en/?p=134643
London, SANA – British members in the House of Commons have expressed their contempt over their country’s participation in the US-British-French tripartite aggression on Syria, indicating that this military action is illegal.
British Prime Minister, Theresa May, faced angry MPs in the House of Commons who questioned why she ordered the attack on Syria and launched military action without securing the support of the Commons, as quoted by British media.
The Labor leader, Jeremy Corbyn, questioned the legality of the bombings, saying that according to the UN Charter, all actions must be either self-defense or a UN Security Council resolution, calling for a return to diplomatic work to solve the crisis in Syria
The military actions came before an investigation by OPCW experts and the diplomatic measures were not exhausted, Corbyn said
Why did not we see any bombing against Saudi’s facilities in response to the crisis in Yemen where Saudi Arabia uses widely banned cluster munitions and white phosphorus munitions in Yemen according to the reports of humanitarian organizations? Corbyn asked
Other MPs condemned their government decision to conduct a military intervention in another country without referring to the House of Commons, pointing out that their country is supporting military measures, while neglecting to develop any strategic plan to alleviate human suffering in Syria.
I confirmed something this weekend: it’s not just Luke Harding, Freedland is a spook too. Or in touch with spooks, or clairvoyant: and I don’t much fancy the latter. What I mean is that he espoused the likely government strategy on Syria: but on Thursday on BBC QT …BEFORE the Cabinet met on Friday to decide policy. And that policy is to be targeted attacks to deprive Assad of a specific element of his chemical weapons program: each time he crosses the new humanitarian imperialist red line and uses CW on innocent civilians.
Now there are so many problems with his statement: but let’s just take it as read that we all know what they are. The point is: just as Freedland scried, and Dominic Grieve, Penny Mordaunt, and the others in an endless procession have confirmed today …they have already greenlit the next waive of abductions, kidnaps, and murders to produce the next SAMS and White Helmet co-produced massacre marketing video …and the next …and the next. And each false flag will be rewarded with an evidence free, no questions asked, and no investigation allowed response. They are all ready and “locked and loaded”. That’s what I call a precedent?
And that for me, is what this weekends action was about: creating precedent and establishing their own mandate. Next time, they would just cite the “Douma Precedent”; or the “Khan Sheikhoun Precedent” to head off any potential “War Powers Act” from Corbyn? Or will they: as this article makes clear – there is no clear mandate under International Humanitarian Law for what they plan to do. Much as most of us suspected: but is good to get a professional opinion. If only the legality would stop rogue countries that use chemical weapons with impugnity. Countries like the UK.
Freedland is a Zionist fanatic-no more need be said.
Granted: a Zionist with a direct line to MI6, or so it would seem. Also, cogently, he said Jeremy Corbyn is NOT an anti-semite: which would indicate to me that the current manufactered fake anti-semitism coup is not to unseat him: but to curb his authority and neuter the left …especially those who commit the “thought crime” of anti-semitism. Which is impossible not to do with the current and future definitions imposed. The left, especially any who support BDS or Palestinian rights will be subjected to “racial awareness training”. How very crypto-fascist?
That will in reality be ‘Know your place, goy’ training. A very vital aspect of this upsurge of character assassination, vile bullying, thuggish and open-ended demands and arrogant contempt is PRECISELY to feed real Judeophobia. The Zionists will be ecstatic if their villainous efforts to destroy UK Labour for the Supreme Crime of ‘antisemitism’ manifest as ‘Leftwing policies’ and ANY criticism of Israel or support for the Palestinians, produces a backlash of anger directed at the Jewish community, from anyone. That feeds their modus operandi of hatred and the creation of reciprocal hatred, their existential fuel. Corbyn could land a blow for decency and moral sanity by outright rejecting these odious, arrogant, supremacist demands, vigorously criticising real Judeophobia and declaring his full support for the Palestinians in their unending Hell of violence, murder, dispossession and barbaric cruelty.
It’s been that way for a very long time. It’s just becoming more and more apparent as the general public gets better at piercing the FUD.
“People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
That quote is most often attributed to Karl Rove, though he denies ever having said it. My reading is that it does not really matter who spake it, it is a pithy truth about statecraft generally. Myths are required to keep huge numbers of people more or less on the same page, thinking and feeling they are a People. States are thus, to a very significant degree, reality-distortion fields, and statecraft is fundamentally about keeping that field nimble and functional.
Oh yeah, states are also, generally speaking, acquisitive and expansionary, so competition and war are (almost) baked into their interacting cakes. I add a parenthetical “almost” because I’m open to the idea that states can be better than that, but far, far away from certain a radically different form of state is possible.
A legal opinion questioning the legality of military action against sovereign nation Syria is long overdue after the manipulation and lies surrounding the Iraq invasion. However, the acceptance by this Professor that there has been a chemical attack without actual evidence and who is to blame if indeed such a chemical attack in the Skirpal case or in Syria is also questionable given the no evidence scenario. I think while the UK, France and US may have declared international law as is a Star Chamber but when did humanitarian interventions ever involve bombing a nation into adopting humanitarian policies unless the agenda were entirely different.
For this one can look to the schisms in the right wing propaganda politics. The same UK and US politicians who tell us to ignore social media when people do not agree with them are now using social media as a basis to launch an attack against a sovereign nation. It is the same US who complain of interference in domestic politics and attempts by May to explain her failure as not only a leader but even a human being, these same agents not only interfere with sovereign nations but launch an attack against a sovereign nation without evidence and UN approval, the legal basis on which to do so. This is the same UK, preventing access to alleged chemical materials allegedly found on door handles, on benches or wherever their Skirpal story rests on whatever days means guinea pigs (animals) die but people somehow spectacularly survive and speak through police officers never to be seen again by their relatives or the public. After the Iraq lies regarding weapons of mass destruction which had no evidential basis whatsoever, most people in the UK know the Iraq invasion was about oil and it is therefore ‘highly likely’ it is about propping up the oil price, the reasons hedge fund managers met the Saudis, who fund terrorism, see the wiki leak documents. The Saudis self audit their oil reserves, do they actually have any oil, I do wonder given they are about to launch an IPO worth trillions, is their company worthless? Is this the reason Saudis are busy bombing sovereign country Yemen which has oil and children which the hypocritical UK Government supplies weapons to and the British mainstream press could not care less about. The same US who launched chemical attacks and obliterated whole areas of Vietnam would lead us to believe children survive and can tell you about the smell of blood because obviously that is what children know about. The less said about France and Macron the better. The same UK Government never really explained how Dr Kelly died, let’s also not forget the case of the UK spy houdini who allegedly killed himself after a sex act but managed to lock himself in a suitcase. The UK MI6 sounds more like Danger Mouse, perhaps why James Bond was invented to counteract ridiculous and laughable Foreign Secretaries and spies like Christopher Steele. Real people who however did not sign up or agree to participate in the corrupt and despicable world of politics and spies actually die because of such events in sovereign nations or terrorist attacks in the UK and that is why evidence is really essential. We need actual evidence.It would seem evidence is a dirty word for the UK, US and France Governments unless it comes from Mickey Mouse on social media.
The US, UK, French, Israeli etc regimes, are no different from that of Nazi Germany save in that their mendacity, hypocrisy and narcissistic self-regard are without parallel in history. The only thing that will stop them from committing ever greater atrocities is military defeat and social upheaval, impossible in the age of thermo-nuclear weapons and genetic recombination in bio-warfare. So, sometime soon, they will either go too far and cause a thermo-nuclear war, or will preside over a global ecological collapse caused by their ruling elites’ insatiable greed and hatred of Life.
well said
And please don’t forget, world climate is already past the point of no return, a tipping point, so damaging change is coming no matter what we do now. There are massive changes now which I am seeing even in my lifetime, and my area of eastern Canada (huge drops in fish stocks, weather patterns, extreme storms), and this will only become more extreme over time. Part, but only part, of what precipitated the turmoil in Syria was a prolonged drought, over a number of years.
The expected ecological damage to the world will have a devestating effect on all the world. Neither Europe nor the US will be immune from the effects of that, and I fully expect food shortage to be a major drive in aggression of the very near future. Already the US southwest is experiencing drought since last October in some parts (one half inch of precipitation), so wild fires will again be destroying the land…. and expect more of that. Increased heat means more drought, and poor crops yields.
Have you seen the statement, now signed by thousands of scientists, reiterating the ‘Warning to Mankind’ that a similar group made twenty-five years ago, when they declared that if humanity did not change its destructive ways, that a catastrophe would befall the planet? The UN also declared recently that global ecological collapse was ‘imminent’.
Here, in Austfailure, the fakestream media sewer, and the invertebrates employed therein, have either almost completely ceased reporting the parameters of ecological collapse, and certainly investigating the reasons for it, or, in the case of the deranged Murdoch cancer and the ‘elite’ business press, are STILL utterly fanatic denialists of each and every ecological crisis. Under the hard Right Abbott regime, (currently fronted by the former bankster Turnbull, in my opinion a malignant narcissist at least as florid as Trump, but without Trump’s charm), the most imbecile and malicious regime ever seen here, there is a continuing attack on renewable energy, fevered coal-worship, and, now, fracking in the Northern Territory, as a supposedly ‘Labor’ regime reverses its ‘promises’, to ban fracking, that got it elected. This sort of open betrayal in favour of business interests straight after elections is now Standard Operating Procedure throughout our politics.
Elsewhere land-clearing approaches Brazilian levels, the Great Barrier Reef dies, almost certain to be finished off during the next El Nino, the ‘economic rationalists’ (our euphemism for hard Right neo-liberal zealots) demand a population of fifty or, preferably, one hundred million, in a country whose ‘carrying capacity’ as worked out by real scientists, is twenty million, the kelp forests of Tasmania have died off in less than a decade as the waters warm rapidly, our one piddling ‘major’ river, the Murray Darling, has run dry thanks to drought and water theft by big irrigators, facilitated by the National Party sub-fascists (fanatical haters of ALL Greens or environmental activities) and we are still having record high temperatures and wild-fires deep in April. I could go on all day, but the essential feature is that in the midst of rapid ecological collapse, the hard Right is driving on, with frenetic fervour, to make every singly crisis that much worse.
And these people also will have to face crimes against humanity. They have no right to this to the planet we all share.
When it becomes a question of food or no food, I pity what will be done to those so called leaders.
Great post but don’t worry the House of Cards is about to come tumbling down. Watch the video from Ghouta and say goodbye to Theresa May and Boris the Bomber.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-16/first-western-journalist-syrian-hospital-which-treated-chemical-weapons-victims
Fisk confirmed the Russians: they have the young medical student (he can be seen in the background of the SAMS/White Helmets video, looking perplexed) on camera telling the same story. Fisk, who is the be credited with taking enormous personal risk (I don’t mean going to Syria, I mean coming back home!) will be dismissed as “Russian propaganda” no doubt. My question is: where did the bodies come from then? There is seemingly a terrible and dark heart to our Western propagandising?
It will be interesting to see how things play out for Fisk.
Will he try to make waves about the false narrative, or button down for the preservation of his career/ reputation ?
I remember his odd (veiled?) article about 9/11 (2007) which seemed to raise the issues but at the same time raise a flag to say that he is ‘on message’ with the corporate media.
http://911truth.org/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911/
The jury is out on Fisk, for me. He is way left of field on occasion, but not as devastatingly so as Eva or Vanessa. Is this a limited hangout? It would appear not for the moment: let’s see what develops? Like the commenter above: I bookmarked the article, but it won’t open now …which is a good sign! –
The Zionists LOATHE Fisk with the usual fervour. This will simply be ignored or dismissed. Already the Fraudian’s pet MOSSAD asset, Chulov, is reporting that ‘doctors’ (specialising in headectomies) in Douma have been threatened by the Syrian Government, not to speak out. The lies NEVER stop.
@BigB. Have been asking the same question – they would have to be buried in unmarked graves. Any REAL hospital is going to deliver them for autopsy and if they’ve been stolen from a morgue awaiting PM their ruse will be up.
It’s a terrible thought for the victims and for their bereaved families.
Mohandeer – Apologies if it’s been said elsewhere on this website (I’ve been incommunicado for a few days and am still catching up on recent comments) but I recall the Russian military comment, when they went to Douma immediately after the ‘attack’ and after liberation, stating that they had been unable to find any supposed victims, dead or alive. Whilst the building where this atrocity took place has been identified – or so it’s been reported – there is nothing to say that these poor people were not killed weeks or even months ago in anticipation of being able to use the footage on an occasion such as this and maybe not expecting the area to have been liberated allowing free access to inspectors; presumably, then buried in unmarked mass graves by the terrorists. But, as you say, the absence of bodies – and indeed any patients still suffering the effects of chemical poisoning – would have to raise serious doubts about the veracity of the attack claims. The latest reports that the OPCW inspection has been delayed, if not curtailed, by gunfire must also raise the question of why the remaining terrorists would do this if ‘the West’ is so confident that the OPCW inspection will support their testimonies as to what happened.
Russia has claimed again today that they possess “irrefutable proof” that there was no chemical attack in Douma. This puts the OPCW in a bind.
Do they call Russia’s bluff on the assumption that no proof could be “irrefutable”? Or are they worried that Russia is not bluffing? Is Russia bluffing?
What proof could they possibility possess that would be strong enough to penetrate coordinated lies of US, a corrupt OPCW, and the Western media?
Recall that Russia has said the attack on Syria “will not be left without consequence” for the perpetrating states. Was this a threat to divulge a piece of Russian intelligence pertaining to Douma, and perhaps to Skripal as well? What could that intelligence be?
I heard the SAA are holding some British, arrested at some point over weekend who were possibly involved in staging the false flag. I have no links as proof however.
An American journalist who gained access to the war-torn town of Douma, where the US, France and the UK charged that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, says he found “no evidence” of a chemical weapons attack. The reporter said he later spoke with another 30 to 40 residents of the town. “I went up to random people. I know there’s a lot of concern from people that the residents being interviewed are plants — they’re Russian operatives or they’re staged interviews or things like that. We just randomly went up to different people — nobody came up to us — and interviewed probably 30 to 40 people. Consistently, not one person in the town said they heard anything about an attack,” Sharp said. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201804171063629688-us-reporter-douma-wa/
This report is confirmation of the irrefutable evidence Lavrov has.
Funny how people are walking around Douma, unaffected by residual ‘sarin’, when large parts of Salisbury are to be cordoned off for NINE MONTHS, as the ‘trail’ (Litvinenko redux?)of ‘nerve agents’ is remediated, or something. Mass demolition, the rubble dumped at sea, perhaps, as in Bali, or shipped off to China, as after 9/11 perhaps? One look at May’s wretched, twisted, visage tells you that a frightful hysteria dwells therein, and under tight, but tenuous, control.
Reblogged this on circusbuoy.
we talk like they talk….we play their game, we wriggle and squirm for truth, are left twisted and manipulated, formed into a shape and led in a direction of their making, the taking of sides, the arguing over them. They who know the game so well, with thousands of years on the board – the game is over before it begins – it is fixed, as all the high players, those leaders we are led to believe are separate and individual – are working together, as one – but we the fools, generation on generation – play ourselves into following, like cattle, pushing to the front we willingly join the battle, played into surrendering possession of ourselves, a willing sacrifice – to the gods of containment.
oh please – don’t give them such credit. That kind of of uber-nihilism is just another way of asserting control. A five year old wouldn’t believe the nonsense our “leaders” are currently talking. They’re not brilliant manipulators fifty steps ahead of us, they’re privileged fools who can’t create a convincing lie even when they have the entire power of the establishment and media behind them.
And DON’T say they don’t need to make it convincing. They do. They just can’t.
If there was just ONE honest and morally sane journalist left anywhere in the Western fakestream brainwashing apparatus, the lies, hypocrisy and sheer cant of the Imperial thugs would be exposed, as they are across the blogosphere. But there is not one, just an asylum of increasingly vicious and hysterical boot-licking propaganda droogs, each vying with the others to ingratiate themselves with their rich, Rightwing, pro-Imperial owners with displays of hysterical hatemongering that are beginning to make Streicher et al look like novices.
Admin : I give them, the ‘leaders” no credit, other than a few meaningless points for their acting skills – on orders and script fed, directed by those high players – so yes they are nothing , and so, how strange there are still those deluded ones who believe in their power, it is truly difficult to fathom, just as are those who are also stuck fast in the thinking of nations apart , it is for them I think, a warm, comforting, and pretty ideology to hold….soft and easy to hide their heads in a bouncing toyland than imagine themselves living in a collaborative nightmare – yes the truth is painful….but to drop the barrier and turn the key to timeless – is a joy – and their worst nightmare.
I agree they have out of desperation overplayed their hand. Now when the truth becomes widespread our lying governments will not be believed by the majority. The other chemical and germ warfare “attacks” had been exposed as having no proof of involvement by the Syrian Army except the claims by those saintly rescuers the White Mens Helmets. Their lack of credibility and even their staging of fake atrocities now lies tattered by the inevitable exposure of the truth.
Jeremy Corbyn who has been the target of the interventionists for opposing violence without proof of guilt is the winner now and Boris Bluster and Theresa Trump have suffered fatal self inflicted blows.
My remaining concern is that many more people will become totally disconnected with politics rather than getting angry about the level of lying and corruption both by Governments and the media. We cannot have a functioning democracy without being properly informed. Right now is the time to get active and to get rid of these self serving elites that claim to represent us and that we need to insist on greater scrutiny of our security and military agencies. If we allow the level of self rule now afforded organizations like the CIA we will become powerless pawns ready to be exploited and many at home and abroad will die in savage conflicts and calamities just like Yemen today and Libya yesterday. Shakespeare wrote “There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the affairs of their life is bound in shallows and miseries.”
Now is the time to create a peaceful world that is based on peace and social justice through truth and empathy. Get angry get active. Join a peace group or change a political Party, challenge the presstitutes.
The deceit hides in the forms of law, humanitarian concern and any other mask of acceptability in order to operate destruction through the minds of the deceived.
The deceit likewise mask behind the lures of victory, dominion and self specialness in order to capture the mind of the unwary and use them to choose their own destruction through false promise and fantasy gratification. Power that has no basis or substance in open relational communication seeks vengeance upon the life that it feels denied by, deprived of, excluded from or limited and constrained by by replicated these acts under a sense of self vindication. The inducements by which one seeks to possess it or align in its ‘protection’ operate the reversal by which such a false sense of self is asserted, defended in place of true. Thus it is possessed or captured by fear and in service of its own accepted self-definition, does likewise.
Drawing the curtain away from false witness or deceit in order to reveal the true, opens the choice that is hidden within the framing of the carrot or the stick.
The abandoning, breaking and redefining of law to support the act is the naked assertion of power and enforcement or defence of the claim by further acts of the support and allegiance of the agencies and institutions of state – including the people.
Allegiance is always deeper than one thinks, and often we may feed or energize the very thing we say we do not want by focussing in it – in its own terms. And so if we would be free of destructive outcomes, we have to address destructive thinking that otherwise operates as acceptable currency.
The use of the power of the word and mind in deceiving and acquiring assets and proxy forces by which to engineer outcomes depends on an unwatched mind, such that by simply reacting to what seems as if it is, one is made captive, often unknowingly, to a narrative identity that is then automatically defended as oneself.
Post truth politics uses manipulative intent – regardless the nature of the outcome – not least because the accepted self belief is of an unworthy, inadequate set of self-illusions that cannot understand the true mechanical nature of existence, and is dangerous to the proper operation of such a system properly administered by those fit to rule. It does so through narrative personae that fit and feed such an illusion as a hidden agenda in education, entertainment, Media, legal and financial systems – in fact in every arena of influence.
It is not that there is no true – so much as that the adulteration and corruption of the true becomes both the loss of the protection of the true and the lure into false thinking.
Hateful as it is to uncover deceit in place of trust, the true correction is the awakening of responsibility in ourself and not the reactions of the discharge of hatred. If we grow in self-honesty, we align under a true governance of self. If we do not have this, the law will not do it for us – and we will see it in terms of coercive power rather than the power that holds the balance points for creative endeavour – that is living our lives as a presence of appreciation that naturally generates cultural riches.
It is the sense of fear or shame in lack of life that drives a false sense of self presentation.
@Binra: “It is not true there ismno true”.
True.
Twaddle.
@Mikalina. No, deep philosophy. “It is not true there is no true” is a statement in Semantics and Ontology, to be precise. Also possibly in Epistemology. And probably in Ethics as well.
“The truth rarely if ever convinces its opponents; it simply outlives them” — Max Planck, physicist. Because Truth comes from the Mind of God the Creator, the Ever Lasting, and is inbuilt in His Creation. Mortals who say “We create our own reality” are in a state of sin — as shown by their wicked deeds.
While not god dependent I agree that there are truths and relative truths. Otherwise the proposition that there are no truths cannot be true as it relies on there being at least one truth to be verifiable.
@James Scott. Like one of Russel’s self-referal conundrums? There can be no truth only if the statement, “There are no truths” is itself a truth.
For me, this statement highlights the problem with language orientated semantic ontology. “It is not true there is no true” is declaritive of an absolute true: that is unfalsifiable under all circumstances. This is false: “It is both true and not true that there is no true ” is an improvement …but it is also a recursive tautology: and can be disregarded as “unfalsifiable”. Western philosophy hits a wall and bounces back into semantics: and quite frankly, gets lost there.
Eastern philosophy is anti-philosophical for this reason. Dzogchen and Zen cut through the language barrier to …
…birdsong and a spiders web in the sun …
…a phenomenalogical experience that can neither be affirmed or denied.
Y gwir yn erbyn y byd The truth against the world.
@Kathy. Especially against the deceitful world of worldly people.
True.
Sorry. I just realized this could have come across as trite When I was just in agreement but tired and hadn’t realized what I had done there.
This US, UK,and French breach of the UN Charter could have been much worse. Trump discussed three military options then “Finally, the most aggressive proposal might have included bombing Russian air defenses in Syria, in order to “cripple the regime’s military capabilities without touching [President Bashar] Assad’s political machinery.”
The latter option, which would have been three times as powerful as the one eventually carried out by the US, the UK and France, was reportedly particularly favored by Trump, pressing his team to consider strikes on Russian and Iranian targets in Syria. The US president was willing to go that far to “get at the Assad regime’s military equipment.”
Defense Secretary Mattis, a retired Marine general who gained notoriety during the 2004 siege of Fallujah in Iraq, took a more reasonable stance on the strikes. He argued that hitting Russian or Iranian targets could trigger a dangerous response from Moscow and Tehran, sources told the newspaper.https://www.rt.com/usa/424266-trump-russia-targets-strike/
Notice lots of Sun Tzu quotes surrounding the Syrian crisis, however, Sun Tzu surely never calculated the criminal insanity of Trump, Haley and Bolton into his logical strategies of war. It took ‘mad dog’ Mattis to bring some sanity to bear. Mattis quote, “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
Mattis, like all Yanks, has a gift for gaudy patter-when the victim du jour is a disarmed Iraq, Grenada or the slums of Panama City. Falluja was a massacre, the typical display of US ‘martial valour’. Up against Russia or China, sans nukes on either side, they’ll be wailing for their ‘Moms’ in no time.
Is impeachment a tool of the UK parliamentary system ? Or what is available at the disposal of the citizens of the UK to reign back such criminal activity on the part of their government as they have broken international law to say nothing of their own laws possibly .
summitflyer, Wish there was something we could do, maybe throw her out at the next election. As for legal action
This was tried against the war criminal Blair..…”Britain’s High Court has blocked an attempt by an Iraqi ex-general to prosecute former Prime Minister Tony Blair for invading Iraq in 2003.
General Abdulwaheed Shannan Al Rabbat’s case centred on the concept that a “crime of aggression” would be recognised under English law. But the High Court said that while the concept exists under international law, it does not exist in domestic law at present”. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/uk-court-blocks-iraqi-general-bid-prosecute-blair-170731161620916.html
assuming elections are not rigged
Go ask Ed Balls if his vote was rigged in 2015……and ask David Dimbleby if he knew in advance about it…
Sorry i don’t know either of those chaps well enough to chat with them. perhaps you could tell us about rigged votes.
Relying on the class and elite favouring jurisprudence of the UK to deliver justice to anyone but the rulers of society is self-delusion at its worst. The example of the loathsome Tory Arbuthnot,and her vile ‘judgment’ against Assange, including the swinish arrogance of her contemptuous dismissal of the findings of the UN Committee on Arbitrary Detention, a legal body each of which members have more legal expertise in their little fingers than she in her whole carcass is utterly typical.
But you forget the Eleventh Commandment.
11. I am a Tory there will be no Gods before me. (Or was that sods)
“Citizens” of the UK – that is, the Queen’s subjects – could push their representatives through referenda perhaps to hold a vote of no confidence in Theresa May’s leadership and her cabinet. A two-thirds majority in favour of “no confidence” may be enough to enable the Queen to dismiss Theresa May’s government and a new general election would have to be held. But I must admit that I don’t live in the UK so I don’t know how the public there could start that ball rolling.
Precedents exist in Australia (from 1932 when the New South Wales Governor dismissed NSW Premier Jack Lang, and from 1975 when the Governor General dismissed PM Gough Whitlam) for the Queen to sack Theresa May and appoint a caretaker government that would have to hold new elections.
https://www.quora.com/Could-a-British-Monarch-sack-the-Prime-Minister
The May regime have very effectively destroyed any remaining shreds of democracy we had left over from idiot Cameron’s reign. This has all been intentional from 2010 to date, very thoroughly dismantled with the MSM on board from the off. I no longer have much hope, am considering how to leave, I have adult children here. The ignorance and greed of Tory voters is astonishing.
Yes, with regretful despair I have to agree that all hope is disappearing. My life has been spent, seemingly ineffectually, fighting against tyranny. But the tyranny today is like a tsunami, threatening to engulf us. The MSM is diabolical, our ineffective demos and rallies are pathetic and even more morally repugnant, all eyes are averted from the barbaric attack by Israel, on the Palestinians.
If you dare to look at Palestine or dare to mention the horror of the Palestinians’ eternal torment, then you are clearly an ‘antisemite’, and will soon be locked up for it.
That rot is not one sided: remember the Blairites? Same in other Western nations. Still, it is not 100%; some politicians managed to stay off that Crack but get stopped by the MSM. Eastern Europe seems to have some immunity…
The contextual discussions must arise around true underlying motives for intervention and the cover stories used to provide plausible deniability.
The US is known to use a variety of NGOs to channel warmongering materials to chosen rebels, thereby stimulating civil uprisings and wars. Legitimate governments must either step aside or put down the rebellions. As a result, lives can be lost. Hundreds of thousands in some cases….
The US also is the only judge in history to have been rehabilitated from a former life as a genocidal murderer (Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam etc etc). Assigning fitness to judge to that sovereign entity is open to interpretation but will generally be regarded as beyond the pale….
Long term goals of interventions predominantly concern exploitation of assets, notably minerals, raw materials for narcotics and new supplies for human trafficking. Only such strategies see a return on investment for warmongers, if not for underwriting taxpayers. There are no cases recently where benign intervention led to the intervening nations remaining on the sidelines as democracy established itself….
Therefore, there is currently no precedent for appropriate intervention by Western Axis Powers and hence no justification for unilateral action….
This is exactly right. What is more, it was known to be right already in the 1960’s. Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky, to name only two, have been arguing just this for several decades.
If it is a truth not generally known or accepted today, then that just testifies to the amazing success of American and British domestic propaganda–by which I mean the public (and private) institutions of education, journalism, and the media in both countries.
The UK and US are both seeking to exercise eventual control over web-based communication–the “internet”–for a reason, after all. In current form it is the single freest and most democratic avenue of political knowledge in the world. “Fake news” is the justification for what otherwise would seem (and in fact is) an essentially fascist project of citizen thought-control.
The USA does not have a ‘former’ life as a genocidal murderer. It still is a genocidal murderer and has been since long before 1776.
It seems that May and probably her co-conspirators, Trump and Macron have committed a war crime by launching an illegal military attack on Syria without any form of international legal authority, like a UN resolution, and have done so merely on the basis of wild allegations without any proof to support them and sourced exclusively from the anti-Assad rebels.
In a democracy can one simply allow a handful of politicians to attack a foreign sovereign state, which isn’t carrying out acts of military aggression against the UK, just because they ‘feel like it’ because they are outraged by some event in Syria, without any real evidence that the event actually even happened? What if the rebels ‘staged’ the attack in order to tip the balance of the conflict in their favour? As they are losing, is that really such a outlandish thought? The losing Islamist rebels are in a desperate state militarily and would stop at nothing to avoid total defeat and being routed by Assad’s forces. Yet, for some bizarre reason the UK government goes to war against Syria based on their trusting the rebel’s story 100% and their can be no other explanation that the images they provided are ‘real.’
What democracy?
Parliament had no say – but the previous times when they did – they mostly conformed and complied.
You will get a vote one day, but politicians do not hold power except they align under and serve it.
This is the issue is it not?
That politicians and most everyone else aligns under the power of fear and so appease to mitigate penalty and win favour. This is not what we imagine or set out to do – so much as uncover in our world and our self.
The term ‘deep state’ may also apply to deeply set habits of thought, belief and reaction.
‘Consensus’ as to what is going on may very well be a collective fear given power by acting as if it is true.
Recognizing that in part, sets off the attempt to generate ‘consensus’ artificially – that is to harness the power of unconscious fears, hates and shames. And so the will to power becomes an unwitting tool of denied life in doing the very things it accuses in the other. And nothing the ‘other’ does or says will but provide further ammunition and reinforcement for distrust and enmity, excepting disregard to the baiting and an extension of worth to the capacity that resides in everyone to recognize and accept it for themselves. But this is in the realm of freedom to choose and not a manipulative carrot and stick.
When a madman threatens havoc, and is holed up or under siege, there is the attempt to talk them down from whatever scenario they are believing they are in, by opening a channel of communication in which some measure of trust can grow. The other way will kill the madman but also the hostages. In some sense the world is being held hostage by an insane investment in ‘fear of losing’. It is known that the more you have, the more you fear to lose it – unless of course you have it all on trust and do not assign it a personal sense of worth – that can then be taken back.
Twaddle part 2.
Yes, the UK/US/France thought it might be a splendid idea to bomb Syria. Why not? After all ‘we’ are the good guys and they are unspeakably wicked and evil, this much is axiomatic, and moreover we just ‘felt like it’. There is nothing quite like the thrill of dropping fragmentation bombs, agent orange or depleted uranium on unarmed civilians. (And that can be extended to mowing down Palestianians by the Heroes of the IDF, such Brave boys). So having an insatiable craving to bomb someone is apparently okay? Welcome to the post-modern world of moral relativism and unrestricted nihilism. Mass Murder!? Fine, after all morality is a purely subjective state of mind. ‘God is Dead’ (Nietzsche); but that of course opens the Pandora’s Box of ethical relativism. In Dostoyevsky’s masterpiece the conversation between Ivan the westernised liberal and Alosha his brother priest in ‘The Brothers Karmazov’ Ivan put forward the liberal atheist case the God was indeed dead, to which Alosha replied ”If God is dead, everything is permitted.” no absolute laws, no morality, no common decency, indeed no civilisation worthy of the name. Such is the end of goal of the liberal ideology. An updated version of Attila the Hun.
‘Exceptionalism’ means that the USA, or its ruling elites to be precise, are exceptions to ALL rules, of fact, decency, morality and humanity. The US elites, being the heirs of the Judaic conceit of the ‘Chosen People’ (an honour the British once bestowed upon themselves, even to the lunatic extent of creating a ‘British-Israelite’ theory that saw the English as a ‘lost tribe of Israel’)are ‘Gods Upon the Earth’, who can either do as they please (the Cheney tendency)there being no after-life so no punishment (a Talmudic concept as well)or, the coming faction, are religious fundamentalist Life-haters, happy to destroy the planet ecologically because their ‘God’ said they could, and because, in any case, they intend bringing about the End Times, and they will be ‘Raptured’ elsewhere.
Exceptionalism was also a doctrine of the Nazi ideologue, Carl Schmitt, where the Fuhrer was the ‘Exceptional’ one, and could do as he wished, without limit or impediment. Schmitt’s ideology was cited as a precedent by the creators of Bush II’s ‘War of Terror’ doctrines that allowed rendition, torture, indefinite detention without trial and the drone missile assassination and mass terror campaign that continues to today. Needless to say, International Law has no place in this ideology that posits eternal conflict between the Exceptionals and all their omnipresent ‘enemies’, without and within. And Schmitt was influenced by the Jewish Exceptional intellectual Leo Strauss, the Godfather of the almost exclusively Jewish ‘neo-conservatives’ the driving force behind US aggression and genocide in the service of Israel since at least 9/11. The concept of eternal conflict between the Chosen Ones of one’s own group, and the rest of humanity, fits perfectly with Judaic religious dogma, too, particularly the Talmudic Rabbinical tendencies seen in Orthodox and Ultra-orthodox manifestations like the Kahanists, the ‘settler’ Judaic Taliban and the religious political parties like Shas. And that religious conception of eternal hatred and enmity between the Jews and the goyim is the very ideological and psychological bed-rock of Zionism, particularly of the Likudnick/Jabotinsky type now totally dominant in Israel.
Sorry I do not agree. Perhaps that’s because I am not thinking of the right God. The reality is the God myth is continually pulled out to excuse violence. The Takfiris want to kill all Christians and Alawites and rape and prostitute their daughters. The Christians call Assad a monster and evoke devilish motives to his regime as they did with Gadaffi. Christian leaders go off to pray for success in slaughtering their enemies. George Bush and Tony Blair are classic Christian war criminals.
I also think you mix up Neoliberal thinking or lack of thinking with the original Liberal philosophy. The two are closer to opposites than complimentary.
I recommend this discussion between Chris Hedges and John Ralston Saul on Neoliberalism.
https://youtu.be/kXUJEWNHweE
Correct me if I’m wrong….the legal foundation of the UK’s unwritten constitution is possession. The Crown is the sovereign PROPRIETOR. But TAKING possession means a RIGHT OF CONQUEST has been invoked. That means the legal justification for these regime change operations and humanitarian military interventions is based on a feudal residue. Perhaps that is why sometimes 2018 feels like 1066, and we have made no progress whatsoever.
All Hail Assad…bin the Tories and bin the SNP
There is no rule of law in Britain anymore so why should the regard for international law be any different?
Britain is now a plutocratic, anarcho-tyrannical kakistocracy.
Close….but it’s a lot worse than that. The UK is a constitutional monarchy.
@James Graham. Even worse, a constitutional Monarchy without a Constitution, and controlled by Anglo-Zio-Capitalists; in other words, what Hilaire Belloc called a Servile State. As Belloc says, the money men who backed Cromwell eventually made the of Crown their salaried servitor.
“In the place of a powerful Crown disposing of re-
venues far greater than that of any subject, you had
a Crown at its wit’s end for money, and dominated
by subjects some of whom were its equals in wealth,
and who could, especially through the action of Par-
liament (which they now controlled), do much what
they willed with Government.
In other words, by the first third of the seventeenth
century, by 1630-40, the economic revolution was
finally accomplished, and the new economic reality
thrusting itself upon the old traditions of England
was a powerful oligarchy of large owners overshadow-
ing an impoverished and dwindled monarchy.”
— Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State
Update. The Commons has become so deranged from reality it’s address has been changed to The Commons Ward, Broadmoor. Nobody said you had to be sane to know the truth. They’re on BBC just now. I have never heard such a pack of lies in all my life.
Left as well as Right, even though there is — At Last! — some sort of honest socialist heading the Labour party. But even Corbyn feels obliged to mouth some of the Lies (for protective colouring?) thus abandoning most of the Moral High Ground that he has so painfully won.
Throughout all the headlines have you heard one iota from Corbyn that these chemical attacks may be staged? I haven’t. As far as can be gleaned from whatever Corbyn says I.e he simply questions the legality of bomb strikes and thus ignores the obvious. And to me that suggests he is a limited hangout and in fact is not anti establishment.
Arguing over the legalities of bomb strikes gives cover for May et al to the true or at least the more plausible story that the West engineered this chemical attack.
This is a time for Corbyn to enlighten the British public as to the dubious ways it’s State operates, alas he has failed miserably. Limited hangout or worse still controlled opposition is what Corbyn is.
I dare not switch on the news, it costs too much to replace the remotes.
Commons as muck.
Yes, indeed the UK is a banana monarchy. A non-elected Head of State, A non-elected Second Chamber (The House of Lords), An unwritten constitution (which means no constitution, or an infinitely malleable one) and an electoral system based upon first-past-the-post, which results in minority governments which have been in power since 1945. And this is held up as the exemplar of a modern democracy. A ‘regular country’ in the Bimbo Haley’s words
I prefer ‘kakastocracy’ to emphasise that the ruling thugs are nothing if not shits.
I had a deeply disturbing experience over the last few days….. I sent an article from the Saker to a woman I knew in the US. The reply was frightening, venomous, with a small part here: I was “disrespectful to the Republican party, disrespectful of the president, and anti-American.” I pointed out I was displaying a critical analytical approach.
The “culture wars” in the US will, I think, tear that country apart, perhaps through another civil war.