Leading Papers Incite 'Supreme International Crime'
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):
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.
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."
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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):
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.
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."
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:
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.
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:
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.
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):
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.
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."
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.