Chomsky: An Attack On Syria Without UN Support Is A War Crime

foxnews.com ^ | September 02, 2013

[Tailgunner Joe]

Professor Noam Chomsky says even with congressional approval, an attack on Syria without UN support is a war crime.

“As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world,” Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.

[DoughtyOne]

PeeWee Herman is on notice. “No big tent for you!”

[Paladin2]

Left meets right.

[dfwgator]

Ok, Calypso Louis, Grayson, now Chomsky, we’ve officially hit the trifecta.

But despite my opposition to the bombing...Screw the UN, just the same.

[LeoWindhorse]

being Noam Chomsky is a war crime

Old Noam is overdue for his close encounter with a speeding bus

[faithhopecharity]

and the UN would magically transform this ‘war crime’ into a sanctified thing of great Beauty, or what?

no, the UN is not holy nor does it have Divine powers. Rather, it is like a new, debased Midas...who turns everything it touches into sh*t

[SpaceBar]

I gotta agree with the old quantitative linquist slash marxist on this one.

[Texas Eagle]

Ruh-roh. When you've lost Gnome Chumpsky, you got troubles.

Good thing for Soetoro Saul Alinksy is dead.

Somebody should ping George Soros and see what he thinks of all this. Is he happy with what his money is buying?

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Darksheare]

“Reading Noam Chomsky is like passing a bladder stone. A lot of angst, a lot of wiggling, pulsing anguish, and in the end producing nothing useful to anyone.”

[hummingbird]

Send all UN personnel packing and get Trump to build another tower.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Chomsky: An Attack On UN Without Syrian Support Is A War Crime

[CT]

Now don't go making me feel sorry for the Rodeo Clown.

Slapped myself! There. All better.

[CT]

That Chomsky is alive is testimony that conservatism isn’t a violent ideology. If he were on the other side of Bill Ayers, he may have been bombed.

[familyop]

Yep, the voice of the anti-American left is getting around these days.

[Revolting cat!]

Chumpsky is our boy, ain’t he?!

[nathanbedford]

Chomsky says, "aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime" which is, of course, nothing more than a tautology. In the quotation (in which emphasis was supplied) it is not surprising that Chomsky, the linguist, plays a word game. "Aggression" with UN authorization would also be a war crime.

If he meant to say that military action without UN authorization would be a war crime, that is to deny the sovereignty of the United States and to defy the United States Constitution which vests the power to declare war with the Congress, the responsibility to pay for the war with Congress, and the power to conduct the war with the president. The Constitution does not bring the United Nations into the process and to do so distorts the Constitution. Those powers vested as they are in the Article I and Article II branches of the American government are vested solely in these branches and it is unconstitutional to divest any portion of them and put it in any other entity such as United Nations, especially an entity which is not even American.

[nvscanman]

Chomsky is a moron. The US does not and never has needed
the permission of the UN or ANY OTHER GROUP besides Congress to take military action.
The ONLY group that can legally authorize this country to
go to war is Congress....and they have abstained from doing their duty for many many years now.

[Billthedrill]

Hmm, well, I suppose if a President were to get UN sanction and international support, then it would be OK, right? Good to see Chomsky defending Bush, I didn't know he had it in him.

The old git would probably take a swing at me for suggesting it, though. But I do agree that if 0bama starts lobbing missiles into Syria with no more formality than he has already taken precious golfing time to follow, then he is certainly in contravention to the Constitution and, for whatever it is worth, international law as well. That his current actions show his earlier sanctimony against Bush's policies to be the expedient hypocrisy that they were is sweet but purely incidental. This is war, people are going to die, and I'd like to think it were over something more significant than empty posturing.

[Veto!]

I like these left meets right moments. If we have enough of them, smart political operators might figure out how to blend the two into one party that could win elections and represent smart, thinking people who are fed up with media-hyped destruction of our country.

But think of the infighting. Too bad.