Skip to Content

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

Here we go again:

The US corporate media are particularly craven, not even mentioning doubts about the veracity of reports attributing the attack to Syrian air force planes -- the leading one being why Assad would have resorted to use of chemical weapons (which he supposedly got rid of) and why Russia, which has enormous influence over Assad given its critical role in propping up his government militarily, would have permitted him to use them (if he even still had some to use), given that his military is already defeating the rebel forces arrayed against him. Such a move, which only opens the door to a larger US role in the Syrian civil war, defies logic. The New York Times, in a report by David Sanger, which was illustrated on line with a short video clip of Tomahawks being launched from a ship in the dark, began:

In launching a military strike just 77 days into his administration, President Trump has the opportunity, but hardly a guarantee, to change the perception of disarray in his administration.

Sanger concluded the piece by writing:

The question now is whether [Trump's] new, untested team — divided in their own definitions of how and when to use American power — can turn the intervention in Syria into something more than a symbolic show of force.

At no point in Sanger's article was the issue of the attack's blatant illegality mentioned. Nor was the issue raised regarding lack of evidence concerning who was actually responsible for the Sarin attack that the cruise attacks were supposed to be in retaliation for -- something any real journalist, as opposed to rank Pentagon propagandist, would at least mention, if not investigate. In contrast, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose country was asked by Trump, along with others in Europe, to back the US attack, called for an investigation first into who was behind the Sarin attack in Idlib. He said, in response to a question from a Globe and Mail reporter about whether "some kind of military action" might be needed:

"There are continuing questions...about who is responsible for these horrible attacks against civilians, and that's why I'm impressing on the United Nations Security Council to pass a strong resolution that allows the international community to determine first of all who was responsible for these attacks and how we will move forward."

On Friday, the Times finally ran an article by Charles Savage, one of the few real reporters working at that newspaper, discussing the legality of Trump's order to attack Syria. Savage makes it fairly clear that the attack violates international law, and that it probably also violates the US Constitution by not having the backing of a war powers authorization by Congress.

story | by Dr. Radut