The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, gave a short press briefing last week repeating the usual Orwellian talking points about why the U.S. needs to uphold international law by committing aggression, "the supreme international crime", against Syria. What struck me about it was one of the questions asked:
[I]s there any way the Security Council can be relevant, in this, on this issue?
Think about that.
I recently posted "An Example of How Presstitutes Are Rewarded for Manufacturing Consent for US Policy". This is a further example of what I was talking about.
The assumption underlying the question is that the only relevance of the Security Council is in its serving to further U.S. policy. If it doesn't serve this purpose, then it is irrelevant.
So when the Security Council refuses to authorize the U.S. to use military force against the government of a country it has repeatedly declared must be removed from power, then it is by definition "irrelevant".
The kind of reporter allowed into press conferences like this is the kind who accept assumptions like this.
Never mind that, under international law, the only two conditions in which the use of force are ever legal are if it is a) in self-defense against armed aggression or b) authorized by the Security Council. Nope! Irrelevant! The Law comes from Washington. The Law is whatever Washington says it is. And whatever Washington does is by definition legal.
