|
|
|
The Mexico Ledger - Mexico, MO
A blog 'for independent minds'
B. Hussein Obama–War Criminal
email print
Comment
About this blog
Opinion page editor Rick Holmes and other writers blog about national politics and issues. Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of policy, news and opinion. This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion ...
X
Political Views
Opinion page editor Rick Holmes and other writers blog about national politics and issues. Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of policy, news and opinion. This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion section of the MetroWest Daily News in Framingham, Mass. As such, our focus starts there and spreads to include Massachusetts, the nation and the world. Since successful blogs create communities of readers and writers, we hope the \x34& Co.\x34 will also come to include you.
Recent Posts
June 16, 2014 11:10 a.m.
June 16, 2014 11:10 a.m.
June 15, 2014 5:10 p.m.
June 13, 2014 5:10 p.m.
June 13, 2014 5:10 p.m.
By Rob Meltzer
Aug. 30, 2013 11:06 a.m.



If you aren’t interested in reading the five volume Compendium of War Law that is the standard bible on this topic,  and if you finally realize that maybe Joel Brinkley is not the authority on this subject, I recommend a short, one volume work y Michael Byrnes called War Law. There is no doubt that if  B.Hussein Obama launches a unilateral attack on another UN country, then he is committing a war crime. As the Compendium notes, Obama would then be subject to indictment in any UN member state in which he could be located. By way of example, he shows up for a G 20 summit, he is subject to indictment in that country.

Post Iraq in 2003 (and largely based upon a speech in the Senate by then-Senator B. Hussein Obama), the doctrine of a unilateral strike with regard to “national interest” is not oblique.  A country may use force even when not attacked when “the very survival of the state would be at stake.” You’ll find that language on page 125 of War Law. For example, when S. Hussein announced he was creating nuclear weapons to use against Israel, Israel was within its rights to use unilateral force. But the requirement not only is one of “very survival of the state” and “imminence” are not enough. The evidence that the use of such weapons as a matter of state policy must be beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, not only must Assad be using chemical weapons, but he must also be admitting to using such weapons and he must be threatening to use these weapons against the United States, imminently, and in a manner in which “the very survival of the state would be at stake” a proposition with which Obama agreed in 2006.

It doesn’t matter whether Assad used chemical weapons. It only matters whether he was using them against the United States and in a manner in which there was no time for other options. As was noted on the BBC this morning, the British rep at the Security Counsel is now obligated to veto any UN resolution authorizing force. This is over. The UN won’t be doing anything. We’re not at threat. And I’ve love to see Obama stand trial in Spain for this farce.

Recent Posts

    latest blogs

    • Community
    • National