If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article…
The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.
And yet it’s only “likely”. No one ever knows what our laws are. It’s always a fucking guess. Did he break the law? I don’t know. Probably. I think? Who knows. Well, those guys seem to know. But do they really?? Sounds suspicious.
If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article…
And yet it’s only “likely”. No one ever knows what our laws are. It’s always a fucking guess. Did he break the law? I don’t know. Probably. I think? Who knows. Well, those guys seem to know. But do they really?? Sounds suspicious.
my comment was in reference to the US simps that always show up in replies.