Mike Pompeo, when questioned today about Trump's threat to bomb cultural sites in Iran, maintained adamantly that the administration would not break the law. He was, however, careful not to mention bombing of cultural sites in his answer.
He could have replied quite simply that the administration would not bomb cultural sites, yet on several occasions he used the same language about not breaking the law and did not say explicitly that cultural sites would be off-limits.
There seem to be two possible explanations. One is that he is being careful not to contradict his boss explicitly, but that presupposes Trumps is too dense to see "not breaking the law" as meaning not bombing cultural sites. And while I have my doubts about Trump's claim of being a "very stable genius", I doubt that he couldn't make that connection.
That leaves the the alternative explanation; that the administration believes either it has found a legal justification for bombing cultural sites (much in the same was that Cheaney and Busy sought to find a legal justification for torturing detainees), or that it does not recognise the jurisdiction of a supranational legal system, and since there may not be any US laws precluding such action, they would thus deem it legal.
Missing from all the discussion of its legality, the central question must be what would it accomplish? The answer is nothing of any benefit militarily, but it would certainly inflame anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment