New York Times: “Bomb Syria, Even if it is Illegal”

No, actually I’m not oversensationalizing or taking someone’s quote out of context. That is in fact the headline on a New York Times column:  “Bomb Syria, Even if it is Illegal.” Ian Hurd is the author, and he’s apparently some associate professor of political science at Northwestern University. The whole point of his article was to argue that there is no legal justification for a U.S. military intervention in Syria, but that Obama should intervene anyway. Here are a couple excerpts:

“There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, ‘This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.’ His use of the word ‘norm,’ instead of ‘law,’ is telling… But if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an ‘illegal but legitimate’ intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call ‘constructive noncompliance.’ In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter. Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.”

Can you imagine if someone had written this during the Bush administration regarding Iraq or Afghanistan? What in the world has changed since then, that now, even the bastion of the left, The New York Times, is arguing for any excuse imaginable to bomb a foreign country? I thought they were “anti-war.” They’re worse than Bush.

Of course, one thing that was missing from Professor Hurd’s article was the constitutionality of intervening in Syria. Hurd says we don’t need the United Nations’ approval to invade. I agree. I think they’re irrelevant and shouldn’t get involved in the internal affairs of individual nations. We shouldn’t be subservient to the one-world government body that is the United Nations.

We don’t need to concern ourselves with “international law,” because our own Constitution already forbids the President from acting like a King in initiating war with another country. Syria poses absolutely no imminent threat to the security of our own country. Even if it were the case that Assad was killing his own people, that is their business.

If the Obama administration is so concerned with such atrocities, then why aren’t we invading just about every other country in the world? Heck, we should invade our own country with way we slaughter unborn babies under the guise of “women’s rights.” Why is Syria so much worse than say North Korea, China or Sudan? They’re not. But bombing those countries doesn’t serve any political interests. Yet. Right now, the U.S. is concentrating all their resources on taking over the Middle East. And Syria is simply a stepping stone.