August 29, 2013
It demonstrated its chops during the invasion of Iraq when propaganda hack, Judith Miller, faithfully telegraphed neocon lies and fabrications, thus lending momentary credence to the argument for invading a country seriously enfeebled by more than a decade of medieval sanctions.
The Times “backed NATO’s killing machine in Libya,” writes Stephen Lendman. “It sanitized mass killing, destruction, and human misery. Now it’s waging war on Syria and Iran. It vilifies regimes Washington opposes. It defends sabotage and targeted assassinations… The New York Times supports Washington’s permanent war policy. Its agenda suppresses truth and full disclosure.”
Now, in addition to paving over truth with the sort of rank lies peddled by the neocon operative Miller and other establishment propaganda specialists in and out of government, the Times advocates Obama violate the Constitution and ignore international law, thus offhandedly excusing serious criminality under a thin and hypocritical veneer of redefined morality.
“There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria,” writes Ian Hurd, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern. “But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law.”
Hurd argues that there “is no doubt that Mr. Assad’s government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war,” a war Hurd fails to put in the appropriate context – the war in Syria is a civil war between al-Qaeda and other fanatical jihadists supported by the CIA and the government of Syria
Instead, Hurd raises the specter of the Rwandan genocide and the supposed Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, the latter also largely a propaganda operation contrived by the United States and NATO. According to Hurd, the war crimes perpetuated by NATO in the former Yugoslavia, including the use of depleted uranium, were “illegal but legitimate” because they addressed a government declared larger crime, a crime invented by the Clinton administration and NATO’s war ministers.
Hurd and other apologists for organized mass murder would have us accept the obvious fabrication (as U.S. intelligence now hints) and illogical conclusion that al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people at precisely the same time the United States and its war partners were fishing for an excuse to attack.
Mr. Hurd offers the “illegal but legitimate” argument, a basic contradiction, as the only course of action. He calls for “constructive noncompliance,” in other words rejection of the international law on one hand and the Constitution on the other.
If the United States, now guilty of numerous illegal wars since the end of the Second World War (and the slaughter of millions), “accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path,” a path terminating in even more murder and criminality, Hurd states.
The New York Times has reached a new level and is apparently striving to rival the well-oiled propaganda machines of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.