Administration speaks of international 'norms' being violated, instead of actual international 'law'

[bigtree]

_____________________

. . . because they intend to act on incomplete evidence and circumstantial evidence. Slippery stuff, that . . . Clear signal that the Obama administration doesn't view itself bound by anything legal-like in this situation; just what's informally accepted among those nations still willing to be seen with us.

We're to become a nation of 'norms' now. The new normal.


in John Kerry's statement today:

" . . . it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies. It matters because a lot of other countries, whose policy has challenged these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say."

"This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us."

and, from:


The INDYpundit ‏@TheINDYpundit 55m
@NSCPress Notice - "violation of international norms" and NOT "violation of international law:"

[bvar22]

1. Scary, scary rhetoric.

They are elevating themselves Above The Law.
Other cultures have had leaders who did this,
and followers who approved,
but it always ends badly.

[woo me with science]

5. +1 It's been scary for quite a while now...

all this elevation above the law...and the Constitution.

It just keeps getting worse and worse.

[bvar22]

10. "Because we SAID so, and its a SECRET, so you can't even ask"

....is steadily replacing our Government OF The People.

[1-Old-Man]

2. In essessence he said We must fight because our reputation is at stake

I would not accept that excuse from a child.

If a 12-year-old told you Little billy goes home every day and smacks his little sister around so it is my duty to go whip his ass so I'm not seen as a whimp you'd probably have a long and serious talk with the kid. But the Secretary of State goes on TV and says essentially the same thing and somehow its now all right. I call Bullshit on that nonsense.

[Wilms]

22. That's what I heard him say.

Juvenile, and thus considered likely to carry the day. Guess people are waking up.

[leftstreet]

3. 'brief them on the Administration's thinking'

also known as a Sales pitch !

[bigtree]

6. the product is military intervention, for a 'limited time'

. . . the head of our diplomatic wing is out making the case for war as we speak.

[leftstreet]

7. A great leader would make the case for peace instead

[Divernan]

14. O's no leader.Even his "special friend",the UK just told him to take his war and shove it.

I'm sure the state department will be burning up the interwebs this weekend bullying, bribing and blackmailing some of those old Coalition of the Billing countries to make statements of support. Maybe he'll demand they purchase some drones so they can "contribute" them back to him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0323-07.htm
Published on Saturday, March 22, 2003 by the Mirror/UK
Coalition of the Bribed, Bullied & Blind
by Paul Gilfeather

GEORGE Bush has made great play of the "coalition of the willing" - 30 countries who support his war on Iraq.

But who are they and what are their real motives? The Daily Mirror put Bush's allies under the microscope and found a coalition of the bribed, bullied - or those simply blind to the truth. It contains some of the poorest, newest and smallest countries on the planet.

This show of support has been stitched together by bullies in Washington dangling massive bribes in front of countries which depend on financial support from other nations.

And the desperate attempt by the US to make its present coalition resemble the alliance of 34 nations which contributed tens thousands of troops in the last Gulf War in 1991 is unraveling.

I still recall a great Saturday Night Live skit where Tina Fey announced that Norway's coalition troops were returning home, with a banner behind her reading: "Welcome back, Torsten!"

[elehhhhna]

4. like wearing a leisure suit and a white belt?

[gopiscrap]

8. yeah how about that

could be that they are on shaky ground?

[woo me with science]

9. K&R

[avaistheone1]

11. I think the U.S. has broken more than one international norm itself.

So who's counting?

[kath]

12. Not just " norms", the US has violated plenty of international LAWS.

But it's all okay when the US does it, don'cha know??

[NorthCarolina]

19. That's exactly what I was thinking as well.

Illegal wars, lies, torturing prisoners, punishing whistleblowers while simultaneously praising our war criminals and awarding them with get out of jail free cards. We do not possess the moral authority to qualify us as the world police, in fact the notion itself is laughable because it is so pathetic. Perhaps we should rebuild our own house first, before we head off to show another how it's done.

[Ocelot]

15. I've always respected Kerry but

This drum-beating has got to stop. He was dead wrong on Iraq and he's dead wrong here. Also I'm wondering...don't killer drones violate "international norms" as well (or are those internationally normal)?

[Divernan]

16. No other countries want to do it - MAYBE there's a reason!

The following is the most favored response on a HuffPo thread on this subject:

Obama said he is considering a "limited narrow act," and called a Syria chemical weapons attack a "challenge to the world," according to Reuters.
If it's a challenge to the world, why is the United States doing this alone?
The British Parliament voted no--there was not enough evidence to support British involvement. Shouldn't that give the United States pause?

Even the administration admits that this "limited narrow act" won't:

1.) Destroy Syria's chemical weapons or
2.) overthrow the Assad regime.
So what's the point? The only way to prevent chemical weapons from being used is to over throw Assad and to secure the weapons. Anything short of that, quite frankly, is point less.

A half-assed response is worse than no response.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

17. David Cameron's label was taboo.

[link:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/30/syria-david-cameron-chemical-weapons|

[on point]

18. Excellent point. Also Syria not a signer to chem warfare treaty

So perhaps not a legal violation? Perhaps someone can weigh in on that as they are a member of the UN and that does have some legal requirements

[woo me with science]

20. Kick.

[bigtree]

21. .