A highly familiar statement within anti-state philosophical circles is that “illegal” is not synonymous with “wrong”. That is, codification by the State that if you do activity A they claim the right to send men with guns your general direction is not equivalent to activity A being morally abhorrent. There’s also a flipside: “legal” is not synonymous with “right”. No amount of documentation saying otherwise can wipe out the offense in violating others, and just because those documents say you can do something without retribution does not suggest it is a good thing to do.
I say this in the context of a counter-response to the response here to people regarding the war in Libya, and U.S. involvement in it, as both wrong and illegal. In short, Angry Black Lady criticizes the “illegal” assertion from the opposition, pointing to this post about whether treaties override the War Powers Act. I can see where this would be an interesting discussion within mainstream political circles if they wanted to, being able to line up as “globalists” embracing the role of international bodies vs “nationalists” rejecting them.
Yet…what if you reject the operational assumption that both are working under?
To demonstrate what I mean by that question, consider who ABL provides as an example of skepticism towards the binding of international organizations: John Bolton, Bush’s UN Ambassador. This implies that if you don’t think the U.N. is binding then you’re on his side in saying U.S. global hegemony via military dominance is all that matters. The Bush Administration, after not convincing the U.N. on Gulf War II, acted accordingly in exercising that hegemony & going to war. They made a false claim (Iraq having WMDs), and civilians are still being killed for it.
The Obama administration — the “globalists”, in the mainstream left/right talk — thinks international organizations do matter…which led to the exercise of U.S. global hegemony in going to war. A false claim (bombing runs by a 3rd party can stop civilian deaths in an internal conflict) is being made, and not only are civilians being killed, but NATO has multiple times accidentally killed anti-Qadaffi fighters. Despite the globalist rubber stamps, the U.S. is still by far the backbone of this, because of that previously mentioned military dominance.
So I should give a shit who “authorized” anything in these cases because _______?