The United States has never cared much about international law. But most U.S. presidents had at least made an effort to pretend that they did. Based on President Donald Trump’s speech Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly, this is yet another American tradition that he’s discarding.
Trump’s overturning of this American norm came during his blusterous threats against North Korea:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.
To clarify the legal significance of Trump’s words, here’s a quick explanation of the rules that purportedly govern the U.S.’s use of force.
The U.S. was one of the original 26 signatories to the U.N. Charter in June 1945. The U.S. Constitution states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” The U.N. Charter is a treaty, so it therefore is the “supreme law” of the U.S.
Chapter I, Article 2 of the charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
However, Chapter VII, Article 51 says, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Moreover, prior to the establishment of the U.N., it was customary international law that nations had the right to attack others first in preemptive self-defense under narrow conditions. Those conditions were based on a formulation in an 1841 letter by then-U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster. According to Webster, an attack was only legitimate preemption if the need for it was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” and the attack itself was “limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.” This has generally been boiled down to two requirements: A threat must be clearly imminent, and any military action must be proportional to the threat.
The right to preemptive self-defense is still generally accepted today — despite the fact that, as Henry Shue and David Rodin, two prominent academic experts on international law, point out, “A literal reading of the Charter … appears to rule out the justified use of force prior to attack.”
So what does all this mean for Trump and the “Law of the Land”?
Certainly there’s an argument that Trump’s diatribe violated the U.N. Charter, given its prohibition against even the “threat … of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” (Political journalist Tim Shorrock, among others, pointed this out on Twitter.)
This is particularly true given the vagueness of Trump’s statement about the U.S. being “forced to defend itself or its allies.” This could mean anything from an actual first-strike nuclear attack by North Korea on the U.S. or South Korea, to Kim Jong-un making fun of the ratings for “Celebrity Apprentice.”
Throughout history, aggressive wars have almost always been justified with claims of self-defense — something that was extremely fresh in the minds of the U.N. Charter authors. Japan claimed it invaded Manchuria to defend itself from China and attacked Pearl Harbor to defend itself from the U.S. — though neither had attacked Japan. Nazi Germany purported to defend itself from the British when it invaded Denmark and Norway and generally said it was defending itself against international Bolshevism. Even the Holocaust was portrayed in German propaganda as self-defense.
So a president who wanted to be sure he was acting in accordance with the U.N. Charter would have said something like, “If North Korea attacks the U.S. or its allies, we are prepared to respond immediately with all necessary force until the U.N. can take charge of restoring peace and security.” Even former President George W. Bush, whose administration despised and subverted the U.N., was willing to mouth words like this. In his September 2002 speech to the General Assembly laying the groundwork for war with Iraq, Bush proclaimed, “My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account.”
On the other hand, if Trump administration lawyers could be bothered to address this question, they would certainly claim that Trump was making a legitimate, if strongly worded, statement of deterrence.
Where there can be little argument, however, is whether Trump was threatening to shatter the rules about preemptive war.
Jonathan Horowitz, a senior legal officer at the Open Society Foundations, points out that the required “proportionality and necessity are nowhere to be found” in Trump’s words.
Again, this is notably different from Bush’s case for the Iraq war. Faced with the fact that international law demanded that a threat be “imminent” to justify preemptive war, the Bush administration simply redefined the meaning of the word in its 2002 National Security Strategy. “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capacities and objectives of today’s adversaries,” the document read, in a world where weapons of mass destruction can be “used without warning.”
According to Marko Milanovic, associate professor at the University of Nottingham School of Law and vice president of the European Society of International Law, the Bush standards “are not accepted even by the closest U.S. allies, such as the U.K.” And, given that Trump has not made even Bush’s desultory nod at the standard of imminence, “he might not necessarily have in mind what the overwhelming majority of international lawyers or states would recognize as self-defense.”
“The starting point shouldn’t be total destruction,” said Horowitz, pointing to norms governing proportionality. “We’re talking about a country that spans over 45,000 square miles with a population of 25 million.” Milanovic agreed, calling Trump “morally repugnant for treating the 25 million people of North Korea as something to be extinguished at will” and adding that “it is impossible to imagine an attack that North Korea could mount that would justify totally destroying the whole country.” So where Daniel Webster demanded that any preemptive military action be “kept clearly within” necessity, Trump casually committed to the obliteration of an entire nation based on some amorphous criteria known only to himself.
Top photo: U.S. President Donald Trump waits for a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Sept. 19, 2017.
Can we have a follow up article on the threats in the North Korean response to Trump’s UNGA speech.
While I believe your assertion to be true on a technical level, w/r/t the U.S. constitution and the implications of the law relating to the U.N. treaty, I believe that you’re casting the President’s words out of context. I find your article to be misleading and disingenuous in a number of different facets; however, I believe the most notable is that you fail to paint North Korea in the negative light that it deserves.
Throughout the line of succession in the dictatorial regime, they have continuously starved the citizens of their nation and projected threats of military action on a number of sovereign nations around the world. It’s clear that you side with a genocidal regime over the United States, and paint the perception that North Korea and it’s leadership are some type of victims. If NK wants to continue to develop nuclear armaments and continue to threaten nations across this world, they should fully be informed of the consequences of the actions that they are alluding to – which would surely be the end of their people.
I thought Donald Trump made a great speech to the UNGA. It was honest and you could see that he meant it. The parts about Iran & North Korea were probably inserted on advice received.
By the way, I think this article is making too much of Trump’s threat. The entire statement on North Korea should be read. This was just rhetoric threatening North Korea IF the US was forced to defend itself, meaning if North Korea actually attacked the US first.
Watch what Trump does on North Korea and not his rhetoric.
Would certainly like to see some Intercept pieces on actual war crimes by Bush, Obama & Hillary and of course those of the CIA. see counterpunch – The CIA: 70 Years of Organized Crime
Clinton Bush Obama and Trumps respective DOJs OLCs and DNI CIA NSA FBI have been both collectively and increasingly acting in violation both international and domestic laws. We have been in a perpetual state of emergency now for 16 years and Bob Mueller (who signed off on NSAs unconstitutional StellarWind providing cover for AG Gonzalez) interviewing Rod Rosenstein (the only guy that can fire him now cleanly) as part of an ongoing investigation into Jim Comeys (the four time perjurer, espionage act violator, GPS Fusion Dossier funder who just through his former boss AG Lynch under the AirBus on the tarmac) firing for his handling of Hillary Clintons email investigation which Jeff Sessions encouraged Chuck Grassley on as a US Senator
…that lived in the house that jack built. :-0
Idiot journalist has no idea what a treaty is. The UN has never been ratified as a treaty per the Constitution, and thus is not Supreme Law of the land and so his entire article is a POS liberal propaganda. Like usual, I wouldn’t expect a liberal to actually think.
International law is the same as domestic law. It’s not there to constrain the people in power, but to constrain the weak and the subjugated from obtaining power. This is why popular protests are shut down in the name of “the rule of law”, but somehow nobody from AIG or Wells Fargo or Equifax gets prosecuted. Ditto in religion: forgiveness for the priestly paedophiles, eternal damnation for the gays.
This is the very nature of what’s known as “leadership”. It’s why the Security Council exists: the nations on it might often be antagonistic between themselves, but they all share a common desire to keep a jackboot on certain necks. International law is, by far, the best way to do that, because it carries the sanctity of consensus rule but has none of the silly safeguards like public accountability. That’s why the TPP sought to enshrine things like intellectual property and environmental cost-benefit analyses into international law.
“To put an adversary at the choice of a nuclear war or a humiliating retreat, it would show the bankruptcy of our policy or a collective death wish for the world.” -John F. Kennedy
Jeff Sachs Warns “Nuclear War is a Real Threat” as Trump Threatens to “Totally Destroy” North Korea https://www.democracynow.org/2017/9/21/jeff_sachs_warns_nuclear_war_is
We want peace in Islamic world. What is happening in Myanmar why all American sensitive people can’t see,why they were getting syco after 9 .11.or was it drama .for your life you get mad and for others u get blind , then don’t pretend to be so nice people. Who is looking blood murdar violence and just sleeping how you can say you are coming to control this country that country. Now by social media American and other all the sensitive nation’s children are watching blood bodies in Myanmar .wow now your children also not feeling something .
I failed to mention…wonderful article!
Re..CNN and our media
What we deserve are seeing guests that can provide opposing views.
To gauge how intentionally myopic the “news” we’re presented with, consider how often any outlets have a representative of a country we are at odds with and let that person have time to state their country’s position.
If we see anyone, they are dissidents that are there to prop up the propaganda we are served.
Thank goodness that many know that whatever they are pushing has only a shred of truth, if any.
McMaster felt the need to present their side by going on CNN does make me laugh, though!
@ nfjtakfa..
CNN’s Cuomo told viewers they couldn’t look at leaked emails, only they could.
His bs is so weak!
I can’t watch those channels without screaming at them..so I don’t !
The point should be made that most Presidents since Truman have actually violated the UN Charter by attacking some nation and so violated the Supremacy clause. Nothing new here at all unfortunately. So far though, Trump has not, he just blustered, putting him in the same set as Carter and Ford … for now.
I hope you caught CNN the last half hour, Jon, as Chris Cuomo interviewed H.R. McMaster. A lengthy discussion of pre-emptive justifications took place, with Cuomo not only never pushing back – but even asserting international law recognizes legitimate reasons for such actions. I called my TV, “liar,” several times.
McMaster also implied the president’s pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.
Throw-out the TV, move to the country, eat a few peaches.
*thought Jon did a really outstanding, top knot job addressing the notion of ‘pre-emption’ and ‘international law’
I do like peaches, a lot. ;)
Awesome John Prine reference.
When you ridicule our President, you also ridicule the millions of Americans who voted for him.
It’s this also against international law?
From The Telegraph:
“Separately the Government is also talking to Amazon and Ebay about the sale of items on their websites could help terrorists launch attacks.
Official figures show that 54,000 different websites containing advice on bomb making, and committing attacks using trucks and knives, were posted online by supporters of the so-called Islamic State group between August last year and May this year.”
How about companies like eBay helping attacks on sovereign nations by providing bomb making material? Or does Jon, Jeremy and Glenn know on what side the bread is buttered?
Perhaps the reluctance of countries like North Korea to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons is in part driven by the fact that there seems to no longer be any constraint on America’s use of force to violate sovereign nations.
If you were a smaller country, what would you do? Especially when the US feels free to invade and even topple sovereign nations at will.
Part of the reason for forming the United Nations was to contain exactly this kind of behavior. But without the strictures of international law and the willingness to uphold the rule-of-law by the nations, especially the strongest, who make up the United Nations, what is left except “every man for themselves.”
It seems to me that the driving force behind the acquisition of nuclear weapons, to everyone’s detriment, is being in large part created by the ongoing behavior of the United States, beginning well before Mr. Trump.
This horrible outcome is in a sense a “rational” response to an insane situation when the “leader of the free world” can simply step in and stomp your sovereign nation at its whim.
If we would like a saner and safer world for everyone, perhaps addressing this would be a good start, no?
I know it’s not cool to be enthusiastic, but I find The Intercept a bloody good read.
Thanks for another very interesting article.
International law does not constrain the USA’s corruption.
It never has.
I hadn’t realized that annihilating 25 million people was against international law. This is yet another example of the UN’s agenda to undermine the sovereignty of the nation state by creating laws against everything. By appearing at the UN, Mr. Trump is submitting to their authority and should be arrested for treason against the United States. But unfortunately, unlike international law, US law is just a toothless piece of paper, not backed up by force.
A Dog’s Dream and Brief History of The World
Before the United Nations there was the League of Nations. *although Theodore Roosevelt had previously called for a League of Peace and Woodrow Wilson had pushed for the League of Nations, the U.S. was not a party.
“During the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, when the League accused Italian soldiers of targeting Red Cross medical tents, Benito Mussolini responded that “the League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out.”[4]”
And so it was in the aftermath of WWII and the advent of nuclear weapons the Great Powers met to establish once and for all the mystic bonds of human organization and proclaim; it is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world
Let those who pant . .. pant for bliss.
Netanyahoo loved the speech and appreciated the blue tie nod to Israel.
It has become nauseating to see those ties and Trump’s was not just blue, it was the exact color on the Israeli flag.
That fabulous “ally” that also sees international law and the UN Charter and Resolutions to be not applicable.
Today Pence went after UNHRC for “welcoming the world’s worst violators of human rights..Cuba and Venezuela”!
Check a mirror Pence..what bizarre things they believe in their echo chamber fueled by ‘think tanks’ to twist truth to lies.
Floods, earthquakes, famine and in the U.S. poor education, a joke of healthcare, no infrastructure to handle sea rise or floods…
but hey, the 7 million on the brink of death in Yemin and the death and destruction we are up to our ears in debt to continue in more countries than I want to list…ya go after the DPRK because they won’t get on board with the new world order.
Let’s be honest, the “allies” we are allegedly protecting are countries we militarily occupy.
What next…I hate to think.
Today Pence went after UNHRC for “welcoming the world’s worst violators of human rights..Cuba and Venezuela”!
Check a mirror Pence.
Really? Comparing the States to Cuba and Venezuela. I’m no Trump fan but this is pure lunacy.
Look around the world and see the shear misery we have caused for countless millions. The black site detention centers, our young people if not physically dead, emotionally scarred for life, realizing we aren’t always the “good guys” we pretend to be.
So tell me of the sins of Cuba and don’t forget we have done all we can to cripple Venezuela since Chavez was calling for strikes years ago.
Do you think we are above shooting people in the streets, our own citizens..if so, you’re not paying attention.
So if Trump can insult Kim Jung Un with his “Rocket Man” soundbite, can other world leaders do the same thing? Racist crazy ass Trump? Like it or not, but insulting other world leaders is NOT the way to make progress.
It’s kind of hard to imagine the world after Trump’s presidency. What if Trump seems normal by then ?!?
Would it not have been more effective if he had pointed his had out and said, “Kim, you’re fired!”. Or he could have hollered out, “Kim! I’m going to sue you for a billion dollars!” Honestly, getting everyone laffing so hard they gasp for air would have reset the entire scenario and got the ratings up.
I think he’s just following the leader.
You know- how the ADL sponsors trips to Israel for American police, who then come back here and wantonly murder, harass, surveill, wiretap, or otherwise pursue critics of the ADL-LEO slander/defamation/murder-for hire schemes?
Yeah. That story would be interesting to read in the Intercept, Mr. Omidyar.
“At The Intercept, we believe in holding those in power accountable, and our mission couldn’t be more urgent right now.”
Here’s a good starting point: “How the ADL spying scandal morphed into the NSA-Israel data theft pipeline”
http://www.israellobby.org/ADL%2DCA/
Which is a ‘proportionate response’?
The US bombarded and burnt every town in North Korea, and murdered 20% of the population over a period of 3 years in early 1950s.
Would a proportionate response would be:
a) for North Korea to bombard and burn every town in the US and murder 20% of the US population,
–OR–
b) bombard and burn an area of ‘the same size’ of North Korea and murder ‘only’ an equal number to those killed in North Korea by the US and US allies?
“THE UNITED STATES has never cared much about international law. But most U.S. presidents had at least made an effort to pretend that they did. Based on President Donald Trump’s speech Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly, this is yet another American tradition that he’s discarding.” An “American tradition”? I’ll assume you’re making a bitterly ironic joke there. So, Trump is discarding the pretext? Big fuckin’ deal. The mask is finally off the lunatic nation. Do you really think the rest of the world was unaware of the USA’s eternal perfidy? Shortfingers is the perfect avatar for the US. The ugly, violent, ignorant, stupid, and criminal behavior that is “traditionally”masked by weasel words and lies is now laid before the whole planet by the angry clown.
Hey, we were “exceptional” until Trump’s stupidity made us accountable for what we were already doing. That’s plainly treason.
Didn’t he also admit to breaking international law when he bragged about firing rockets in Syria? Did he dare mention the MOAB in Afghanistan?
This is the buffoon who thinks the US doesn’t get its way. If he studied a little bit of history, he would understand the bully that we were/are/and will be. That, after all, is worth all of the 22% we pay, far in excess of most member nations.
Who was responsible for the laughter re Maduro at the “faithfully implementing (or whatever the word was) socialist policies?”
Did you see the story on socialist Norway’s sovereign fund? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/norway-wealth-fund-says-reached-1-trillion-in-value
Could anything be more offensive than a Miller/Trump production?
I cannot see where you’re getting this one at all. “if it is forced to defend itself or its allies” sounds pretty clearly like a statement about self-defense to me.
In the larger context, the U.S. has good reason to give a warning. The precedent of Pearl Harbor involved a totalitarian Asian country that managed to convince itself it could just quickly attack the U.S., take it down a notch, and then go about business as usual. Had Japan understood, fully, that attacking the U.S. would lead to a relentless war with a larger foe, it might have held off and avoided all the unpleasantness of war. (True, they might be working concentration camp prisoners to death in Burma to this day, but that’s a shaggy what-if) The North Koreans do deserve a clear and unambiguous indication of what will lead to war and what won’t before it happens. (Just ask Saddam Hussein…)
It’s non obvious at all. In US-speak, “defense” could mean preemptive defense against an imagined/fabricated future threat. It’s not like what I’m saying is only theoretical.
Forced to defend…
From what?
They (NK) of course, don’t want war; they have always wanted to defend themselves against the imperial US. Maybe now more than ever.
Trump refuses to allow them to keep nukes and NK won’t give them up.
The US has to accept their right to nuclear, unfortunately.
So, you’re going to compare Japan before and during WW2 and the modern North Koreans? Really? Them gooks are all alike, for you anyway. That bit of massive ahistorical imbecility (the whole screed) is really something, even for you.
There is nothing called “International Law”. If any “Law” is not enforceable under threat of penalty then it’s not a Law in the strict definition.
There are basically treaties and agreements to which countries and other entities sign off, either after agreeing, or under threat, or after being duped.
USA, or for that matter any country, has the sovereign right to wage war or make peace with other countries and then live with the consequences. It will not be breaking any Law as such, except that it could break its own domestic laws.
International Law, if someone wants to publish, is best when printed out on Kleenex for what’s it worth. TI will soon become suitable for the same medium of publication if it posts such articles as this.
I’m pretty sure international law mattered quite a bit to those who were tried at Nuremberg, and if justice exists in the world at all, current war criminals will eventually be tried for their crimes as well.
Nuremberg, I thought that was a clear sign that we respected the rule of law.
This country will need to be brought to their knees before we have respect for anything we at one time did.
One major fact has been missed by everyone ?quoted by and commenting on this article.
Unique among all countries of the world, North Korea is, in fact and under international law, currently in a state of war against South Korea and the U.S.
How easily we forget, since the active fighting stopped almost seven decades ago. The original Congressional authorization for the use of military force is still in effect even though not in active use aside from military exercises.
The topic of preemptive action is definitively moot and Trump is not constrained in any legal way from military action of any kind and at any time under his sole choice as commander in chief of the armed forces which are currently authorized for all wartime activities.
This fact, more than all others combined, is why all military options are “still on the table,” as White House and Pentagon staffers have been saying over and over again in recent weeks. The bombing can start again at any time, and no American or international law stops them from using nukes against North Korean military or civilian targets.
This is why the situation is as serious as it is, not just because Kim might have a few nukes of his own in his back pocket, soon to be loaded onto missiles. American nukes are already locked and loaded, no law can stop them and Trump is on that trigger.
Get it now? ;]
I do now that ya mentioned it. I hadn’t thought about it that way. Damn.
How dare you bring up facts in this NK pity party. Shame. Shame.
Pre-emptive war excuses in the linked 2002 National Security Strategy (Bush Doctrine in writing) include this final insanity: any perceived enemy not living up to the US’ subjective bullshit view of “basic human values,” or just hating on the USA enough. The world learned to fear empire’s rationalizations long before Trump came along. Iraq was invaded and destroyed with WMD evidence the GWB administration fabricated.
When all the reasons listed in that 2002 document are read without tinted lenses – one can easily conclude empire would be justified attacking itself for most of them. And you have to admit, in a whole lot of subconscious/schizophrenic ways – that could explain Trump.
The author forgets that Americans have been properly indoctrinated and therefore realize that non-American lives have no value. It would be like exterminating 25 million ants.
Did any nation stand up in public for North-Korea, Iran, Cuba or Venezuela?
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea…”
Read just after the first “but”. The “threat” was conditional. Looks to me like he’s saying “If NK attacks, we will defend”. Seems to me to be right in line with international law. It was NK that said it would “..incinerate the United States”, was it not. Go look that up in your international law.
I’m no pal of Trumps, but I know how to read.
Jason, did you ask your Open Society Foundation friend if he thought that the Societies’ sponsored regime change in a fragile democracy like Ukraine, in total breach of the countries’ sovereignty, was “proportional and necessary”?
Same with Syria and it resultant 100’sk dead, millions of displaced and destroyed world heritage sites?
Did the Open Society first seek UNSC approval? Or did I miss something?
This billionaire paid faux progressive site is such a joke.
Also please ask your friend if Open Society is a country we never heard of, that was under attack from Ukraine and Syria.
…sorry meant Jon
..sorry meant Jon
It doesnt matter. Trusting elected humans to act interest of the people they represent has proven to be a huge farce. There is a solution to this. Enter A.I. the be all end all to human failure.
https://www.rt.com/usa/401957-ww3-ai-musk-strike/
And if we survive that, we can write the next sequel T4.
I watched part of it. It was embarrassing. I would call Trump America’s Yeltsin, but Yeltsin had an excuse in that he was reputedly drunk most of the time.
Trump also went after Iran where America has committed numerous crimes in the past. Most of the people at the UN have to know America’s history in Iran. I wonder if it was as embarrassing for them to listen to as it was for me.
Oh well. Donald J. Trump, America’s Yeltsin.
That is probably the most apt description available.
Come on, this nation that we are still at war with is terrorizing Japan and South Korea. It is running a missile test range over Japan before that it torpedoed a South Korean ship, regularly shelled South Korea and kidnapped Japanese
WRONG!!! The U.S. is terrorizing North Korea; North Korea is merely reacting, albeit not in the best way.
WRONG!! Artillery shells are not “mere reactions”. Kidnapping civilians is not a “reaction”. Sinking So. Korean ships is not a “reaction”. A “reaction” is to go to the UN and complain.
If you were living in Japan, you’d have a different view of the “missile range”, I assure you.
I’d love to see Russia and China doing major military exercises on the U.S. border, then see the reactions of people like you. Asshole Americans think they have the right to be anywhere in the world and do anything they want. You Ugly Americans are so clueless it’s a wonder you can see 10 feet in front of you.
What are you, some brainwashed Stalinist millennial??
That’s a complete non-sequitur.
I’m not sure you know what non-sequitur means.
Trump comes out of that culture where you bully people and that shows you are mature.
as Miller comes out of the same, only he was the one hiding behind the bullies
Now comes the MSM N.Korean “defectors” interviews with hideous accounts and gruesome details..which feeds the trolls and sock puppet Nicky Haley..with her hyperbolic rants.
Imagine N. Korean practicing military War games off the coast of California?
No Trump didn’t start it, the war games have been going on for years..but the American public is made to feel superior while remaining ignorant.
Yes, besides the bit about Iran, this was the most petulant part of the speech.. He sounded bellicose in a petulant, bullying teleprompter tone and just got worse..Another Classic Stephen Miller speech..
Trump is picking on the fat kid. The goal of every mature, right-wing American man is to be a bully, demonstrating your ability to choose who is a person and who is The Worthy Victim to be put in their place. American right-wing culture, not just Trump, created this.
It’s some consolation to me, maybe foolish, that he at least acknowledged the U.N. exists. Whether or not American conservatism has ever respected international law is beyond me, but would be an interesting and maybe life-saving thing to know.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the 5 veto wielding members [and their friends] are above International law for all time. If, as the US/UK decided to do when invading Iraq in 2003 ignore UNSC rules, there is nothing the other members can do about it. Any Resolution against their [US/UK] actions is immediately vetoed by them and consigned to the memory hole. The US attitude of might is right is impossibe to counter without an equally belligerent response.http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf Since it is obvious the US neither respects International agreements [Iran deal] or International law it is a rogue state to which other states or coalitions of states need to arm themselves to the hilt.
I fully agree. The Security Council should be abolished, and the General Assembly should be given the powers that the Security Council now has. The Security Council is completely illegitimate. Doing this would immediately fix the Israel problem, for starters.
Once again Donald Trump is proving what he and the Republican Party strand for……
President Nicolas Maduro’s calling Trump our modern-day Hitler after this speech was correct. (I said before his election that, in addition to his other faults like being a racist and a sexist, Trump had Hitler-like qualities.) The U.N. and other countries should treat Trump as if he were Hitler. The problem is that the U.S. has far more military might than any other country.
I’m in no way a Trump supporter, but I think all this Trump-is-Hitler talk borders on the hysterical. Unlike Hitler, who advocated exterminating the Jews, Trump has only spoken about deporting illegals.
Also, his retarded rhetoric aside, Trump is not to be feared because of how different he is from past U.S. presidents, but by how much he has in common with them. His actions represent a continuation of Clinton, Bush and Obama.
Your suggestion that other countries treat Trump like Hitler is based on a misconceptualization.
Having Hitler-like qualities is not the same as being Hitler. Trump’s Hitler-like qualities that I saw before the election were regarding the way that he tries to convince people when speaking in public. But threatening another country with nuclear or even massive conventional attack is also Hitler-like, and demands a strong international response.
“Your suggestion that other countries treat Trump like Hitler is based on a misconceptualization”
Not really. Trump’s denial of the Global Warming Holocaust and his dismantling of environmental restrictions threatens far more people than died at the hands of Hitler.
Besides, Trump’s most loyal followers are white supremacists and Nazis, and of course, weapons manufacturers. Heil Shitler!
Being first and foremost a radical environmentalist and deep ecologist, I fully agree. But this entire society is the problem, not a particular president. Obama had a pro-fossil fuel policy euphemistically called “all of the above,” and embarked on a wolf extermination campaign in order to keep a Montana Democratic senator in power. Every president since Reagan has been extremely anti-environment, Trump is just the logical progression.
Denying something and being the principal cause of it are two different things. Hitler CAUSED the Holocaust. He didn’t deny the Holocaust. And even if Trump is a “Global Warming Holocaust” denier, that doesn’t mean he is the principal architect of global warming. We are all contributing to global warming. Yes, that includes you–I assume you still use electricity, drive a car, and buy petroleum-based products. If you do, then you are contributing to the Holocaust.
And lastly, so what if Trump’s most loyal supporters are white supremacists and Nazis? They don’t reflect the majority. Most Trump voters were simply people who were fed up with job outsourcing and illegal immigration. That doesn’t make them white supremacists and Nazis.
And with regard to weapons manufacturers, they love Trump, I’m sure–just as they loved Obama and Bush.
A little reality should go a long way.
Trump should, however, be isolated.
You mean that same Maduro that’s bankrupting his own country and having protesters shot in the streets?? That guy??? That’s the one whose word you’ll trust????
He isn’t the only one to notice Trump’s Hitler-like qualities. Don’t be so obtuse.
Yeah I’m not the schmuck who decided to use Maduro to make a moral point…