SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
One of the nation's most vitriolic and mind-numbingly dangerous war hawks John R. Bolton. (Photo: Associated Press)
After the New York Times printed John Bolton's "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" (3/26/15; FAIR Blog, 3/26/15), following the Washington Post publishing Joshua Muravchik's "War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option" (
After the New York Times printed John Bolton's "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" (3/26/15; FAIR Blog, 3/26/15), following the Washington Post publishing Joshua Muravchik's "War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option" (3/13/15), veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry made an excellent point (Consortium News, 3/28/15):
Â
If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the US government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about "aggression," "criminality," "madness" and "behavior not fitting the 21st century."
But when the newspapers are American - the New York Times and the Washington Post - and the target country is Iran, no one in the US government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles - these incitements to murder and violation of international law - are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.
Â
Advocating for war is not like advocating for most other policies because, as peace activist David Swanson points out, war is a crime. It was outlawed in 1928 by the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and 55 other nations "condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."
Â
Kellogg-Briand was the basis for the "crimes against peace" indictment at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leaders, several of whom were hanged for "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression." At Nuremberg, chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared:
Â
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Â
The spirit of Kellogg-Briand was embodied in the formation of the United Nations, whose charter commits its signers to renouncing war and the threat of war:
Â
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.
Â
So to advocate for war, as the Washington Post and New York Times op-ed pages have done, is to incite a crime-"the supreme international crime," as Jackson noted. How would we react if leading papers were to run articles suggesting that genocide was the best solution to an international conflict-or that lynching is the answer to domestic problems? Calling for an unprovoked military attack against another nation is in the same category of argument.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
After the New York Times printed John Bolton's "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" (3/26/15; FAIR Blog, 3/26/15), following the Washington Post publishing Joshua Muravchik's "War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option" (3/13/15), veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry made an excellent point (Consortium News, 3/28/15):
Â
If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the US government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about "aggression," "criminality," "madness" and "behavior not fitting the 21st century."
But when the newspapers are American - the New York Times and the Washington Post - and the target country is Iran, no one in the US government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles - these incitements to murder and violation of international law - are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.
Â
Advocating for war is not like advocating for most other policies because, as peace activist David Swanson points out, war is a crime. It was outlawed in 1928 by the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and 55 other nations "condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."
Â
Kellogg-Briand was the basis for the "crimes against peace" indictment at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leaders, several of whom were hanged for "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression." At Nuremberg, chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared:
Â
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Â
The spirit of Kellogg-Briand was embodied in the formation of the United Nations, whose charter commits its signers to renouncing war and the threat of war:
Â
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.
Â
So to advocate for war, as the Washington Post and New York Times op-ed pages have done, is to incite a crime-"the supreme international crime," as Jackson noted. How would we react if leading papers were to run articles suggesting that genocide was the best solution to an international conflict-or that lynching is the answer to domestic problems? Calling for an unprovoked military attack against another nation is in the same category of argument.
After the New York Times printed John Bolton's "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" (3/26/15; FAIR Blog, 3/26/15), following the Washington Post publishing Joshua Muravchik's "War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option" (3/13/15), veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry made an excellent point (Consortium News, 3/28/15):
Â
If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the US government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about "aggression," "criminality," "madness" and "behavior not fitting the 21st century."
But when the newspapers are American - the New York Times and the Washington Post - and the target country is Iran, no one in the US government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles - these incitements to murder and violation of international law - are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.
Â
Advocating for war is not like advocating for most other policies because, as peace activist David Swanson points out, war is a crime. It was outlawed in 1928 by the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and 55 other nations "condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."
Â
Kellogg-Briand was the basis for the "crimes against peace" indictment at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leaders, several of whom were hanged for "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression." At Nuremberg, chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared:
Â
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Â
The spirit of Kellogg-Briand was embodied in the formation of the United Nations, whose charter commits its signers to renouncing war and the threat of war:
Â
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.
Â
So to advocate for war, as the Washington Post and New York Times op-ed pages have done, is to incite a crime-"the supreme international crime," as Jackson noted. How would we react if leading papers were to run articles suggesting that genocide was the best solution to an international conflict-or that lynching is the answer to domestic problems? Calling for an unprovoked military attack against another nation is in the same category of argument.