What laws of war? We do what we want!: Obama Admits US Bombing Attacks in Syria Pay Little Heed to P

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-laws-of-war-We-do-wh-by-Dave-Lindorff-Bombing_Murder-By-Drone_Obama-Dead-Children-Drones_Obama-Is-Worse-Than-Bush-141002-831.html



US drone strike in Syria. Under laxer rules, it kills 12 civilians

What laws of war? We do what we want!: Obama Admits US Bombing Attacks in Syria Pay Little Heed to Protecting Civilians
By Dave Lindorff
OpEdNews Op Eds 10/2/2014 at 08:11:27

In a perverse way, maybe it's progress that the US is now admitting that it doesn't really care about how many civilians it kills in its efforts to "decapitate" a few suspected terrorist leaders.

Still, it's disturbing in the extreme to see this admission reported without comment in the US corporate media, which treats the information like just another announcement about how the latest war is being fought -- say what kind of ammunition is being fired by the Reaper drones being sent into Syria, or what kinds of bombs the F-16s are dropping.

~snip~

Isikoff goes on to write that "Hayden added that U.S. military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Syria, 'like all U.S. military operations, are being conducted consistently with the laws of armed conflict, proportionality and distinction'"

Left unsaid is that those same laws of armed conflict -- we are here really referring to the Geneva Conventions, treaties concerning the legal conduct of war that were negotiated by and signed into law by the United States and most other countries of the world -- make invading another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the invader a war crime of the highest order...

[PeoViejo]

1. Rules of War relating to armed conflict between Armies

have different rules than conflict between irregular forces like ISIS.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. apparently the US just ..redefined....imminent threat

the USA definition, as John Oliver pointed out last week, completely runs counter to the standard meaning of imminent.

"

According to a Justice Dept. memo, an "imminent threat does not require the United States to have clear evidence that that a specific attack on U.S. persons or interests will take place in the immediate future"

btw...note the word..."interests".
And note how many times it is used in standard WH speech.." our interests here and abroad" being a common use.

Yet, never clearly defined.
But WE know, don't we?