By Ben Cohen
(Cross posted in the Huffington Post)
Nobody seems to have noticed that Hillary Clinton has broken international law by threatening Iran with 'obliteration.'
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview with ABC. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Why are alarm bells not ringing?
In chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter, it 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.
The U.N Charter was signed in San Francisco in 1945 by the United
States along with 50 other countries. Each country is bound by its
articles, and the treaty prevails over all other treaties (including
'special' relationships with other nations). In other words, regardless
of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally
bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. This is also enshrined in the constitution. Article IV Clause II states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
It is incredible that public debate regarding Hillary Clinton's
threat to annihilate Iran centers around campaign strategy rather than
international law. I have been scouring the mainstream media to find
anything criticizing Clinton's remarks for their illegality, but can
find nothing other than comments like 'Clinton's tough talk on Iran'
(taken from ABC News)
While most Democrats have kept quiet, Obama rightly denounced
Clinton's remarks saying, "It's not the language we need right now, and
I think it's language reflective of George Bush."
Obama is right of course (although he had his own moment with Pakistan), but still falling a few thousand miles short of calling it what it is.
"That is not a word gaffe," writes Robert Scheer. "It is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale."
Attacking Obama while pulling the entire Democratic Party down with
her is one thing, but threatening to commit nuclear holocaust on
another country is another matter all together. These outrageous
remarks should not only be denounced, but punished appropriately by her
party. If an Iranian public figure had stated the intention to launch a
nuclear war on America, the United States would demand international
condemnation or possibly launch another preemptive war.
Such reckless comments should not be tolerated by the Democratic
Party, and if it took itself seriously, Clinton would no longer be a
part of it.
Luckily for her, they don't.