Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

War

17 Judges at Hague Permit Genocide Proceedings Against Israel, Order Leaders to Limit Fatalities

By ,

Friday marked the decision of the highest court of the United Nations to permit the prosecution of a genocide case against Israel in relation to its military operations in Gaza.

The charges were filed by South Africa, who petitioned the court to order Israel to cease its military offensive in Gaza. In October 2023, the territory-based militant organization Hamas launched an attack against Israel, prompting Israel to declare war on Hamas.

At the Hague, seventeen judges of the International Court of Justice rendered their verdict.

Without mandating a cease-fire, the court also urged Israel to attempt to limit casualties and destruction during the offensive. Additionally, the 17 judges ordered six so-called provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza.

Senior NATO Official Drools Over Potential Hot War with Russia
An esteemed NATO official has advised Europeans to brace themselves for the possibility of a full-scale conflict with Russia within the following two decades.

By ,

Following a meeting of NATO defense chiefs in Brussels, Admiral Rob Bauer, chairman of the Military Committee, told reporters that governments must immediately begin preparations and that significant numbers of civilians will need to be mobilized.

“We have to realise it’s not a given that we are in peace. And that’s why we [Nato forces] are preparing for a conflict with Russia,”Baur declared.

“But the discussion is much wider. It is also the industrial base and also the people that have to understand they play a role.” he continued.

“It starts there, The realisation that not everything is planable and not everything is going to be hunky dory in the next 20 years.”

According to The Telegraph, Baur additionally lauded Sweden for advising its citizens to prepare for battle.

“We need to be readier across the whole spectrum,” Bauer proclaimed. “You have to have a system in place to find more people if it comes to war, whether it does or not. Then you talk mobilization, reservists or conscription.”

“You need to be able to fall back on an industrial base that is able to produce weapons and ammunition fast enough to be able to continue a conflict if you are in it.”

The 90,000-strong NATO military exercise Steadfast Defender 2024 is slated to commence the following week, constituting the most extensive endeavor since the conclusion of the Cold War.

 

The United States Launches an Additional Barrage of Missiles at Houthi Strongholds

By ,

Wednesday, additional waves of ship and submarine-launched missile strikes against Houthi-controlled areas were carried out by the U.S. military, according to U.S. Central Command. This marks the fourth consecutive day that the United States has directly targeted the group in Yemen, as the violence that erupted following the Israel-Hamas war continues to spread throughout the Middle East.

From the Red Sea, the strikes intercepted fourteen missiles regarded by the command to be a “imminent threat.”

Concerns regarding further escalation are falling on deaf ears.

The assaults occurred subsequent to a formal declaration made by the United States on Wednesday, which re-designated the Houthis as a globally designated terrorist organization. The formal designation entails sanctions intended to cut off the financial ties that bind violent extremist organizations.

“Forces conducted strikes on 14 Iran-backed Houthi missiles that were loaded to be fired in Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen,” Central Command said in a statement posted on X late Wednesday. “These missiles on launch rails presented an imminent threat to merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region and could have been fired at any time, prompting U.S. forces to exercise their inherent right and obligation to defend themselves.”

Notwithstanding the imposition of sanctions and military engagements—including a substantial operation executed on Friday by warships and aircraft of the United States and the United Kingdom that targeted over sixty locations throughout Yemen—the Houthis persist in their campaign of harassing commercial and military vessels.

On Wednesday, a one-way attack drone launched from a Houthi-controlled area in Yemen collided with the M/V Genco Picardy, which is owned and operated by the United States and flagged for the Marshall Islands, in the Gulf of Aden.

Additionally, the United States has issued a dire warning to Iran to cut off its arms supply to the Houthis. A U.S. operation on a dhow on Thursday seized components of ballistic missiles that the United States claimed Iran was transporting to Yemen.

All very convenient for the Military Industrial Complex, who analysts believe has long hungered for a full scale war with Iran.

Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, a spokesman for the Pentagon, stated on Wednesday that the United States would continue to employ military force to avert additional attacks.

“They are exploiting this situation to conduct attacks against the ships and vessels from more than 50 countries … around the world. And so we’re going to continue to work with our partners in the region to prevent those attacks or deter those attacks in the future,” Ryder said.

Multiple incidents have transpired since the joint operations on Friday. The Houthis fired an anti-ship cruise missile toward a U.S. Navy destroyer over the weekend, but was shot down.

Tuesday, in response, the U.S. struck four anti-ship ballistic missiles that were ostensibly prepared to launch and presented an imminent threat to merchant and U.S. Navy ships in the region.

Editorial: Joe Biden and the Rebranded Neocons
The decrepit pawn in the Whitehouse escalates our involvement in the Middle East without Congressional approval as the International Court of Justice prepares to hear case against Israel

By ,

Everything that we’ll cover in this piece, from the escalation to the trampling of the constitution, should come as no surprise, as anyone who’s been paying close attention to the situation in Gaza, for longer than just the last couple months, should have seen it coming from miles away.

In case you haven’t heard, the U.S. funded war between Israel and HAMAS is escalating. The Biden Administration, in partnership with the United Kingdom, has now bombed more than 16 sites in Yemen on the pretense that the Houthis, an Iran-backed militia, has been attacking and impeding Israeli and “Israel-connected” (aka American) ships in the Red Sea in retaliation for the aforementioned U.S. funded destruction of Gaza.

Regardless of your views on the bombing campaign that Biden initiated, there are a couple of indisputable points worth considering.

First, despite the fact that these attacks had been planned weeks in advance, they were carried out without congressional approval or debate. A number of representatives have made objections to the strikes on the grounds that they are illegal and unconstitutional.

It is worth noting, in case anyone was wondering, that it is a matter of debate whether the American President has the constitutional authority to order the use of military force without the proper congressional approval in this instance.

Secondly, even if you think Biden’s decision to bomb these targets without congressional approval was the right call, you cannot deny that his actions have now caused the war to escalate to include the use of American combat forces.

Now, instead of simply sending an endless stream of taxpayer dollars to another country on the other side of the world, we will potentially also soon be paying with the lives of our brothers, our sisters and our children in uniform.

 

Democrats and the Bush-Era Neocons, Reunited at Last

The title of this section is actually slightly misleading, as this unholy reunion of establishment Democrats and the political representatives of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) otherwise known as Neoconservatives, had actually occurred more than half a decade ago, in the immediate wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat by Donald Trump in 2016.

It was one of the most under-discussed things in progressive and liberal circles at the time. The Democrats, who were enjoying the limelight and clout awarded by a more polished President and a well oiled propaganda machine during the Obama Era, were in the process of assimilating the then radioactive and discredited neocons.

The reasoning was simple: both factions loathed Donald Trump as he posed an existential threat to them all. Democrats (and establishment Republicans as well) hated him because he was their biggest political enemy after years of uncontested uniparty-rule. The neocons loathed Trump because he sought to put an end to all wars and enact non-interventionist policy, essentially neutering the MIC.

In any other time, this budding union would have been looked on by Democrat voters with horror and dismay, however, the Trump Derangement Syndrome that had afflicted such huge swaths of the population at that time must also have been accompanied by some kind of amnesia. No one batted an eye once the same forces that were almost universally hated by the end of the Bush-era were now on the side of establishment Democrats.

Though it may have seemed like they were quietly getting the old band back together, the truth was that they never really parted ways.

One of the things that the security state and its representatives often do is prime the conditions for future wars while fighting current wars. Obama was still drone bombing civilians in the Middle East (including an average of 72 bombs dropped per day in 2016 alone) while the likes of Victoria Nuland were busy escalating tensions with Russia. A confrontation with Russia had been in the works for a long time at that point and it never would have happened if the neocons were actually reined-in during the Obama era.

Vladimir Putin was the new up and coming boogeyman for the denizens of the West to hate and fear, so developing an angle where Donald trump was an agent of the Kremlin served two purposes. This is how the Russia-Collusion hoax was born.

Soon, once disgraced neocons like Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland, Mike Rogers. Jamie Fly, etc. would grace left-wing media outlets like CNN and MSNBC, pontificating to us plebs about the dangers Donald Trump poses to Democracy.

Democrats frequently rationalize this alliance as a simple union of convenience: a pragmatic and transitory partnership imperative for the limited objective of obstructing Trump. However, that is a patent pretext and, to put it mildly, unpersuasive for a multitude of reasons. Long before anyone believed Donald Trump could accede to power, a reunification of Democrats and Neocons was taking place; this alliance is based on shared objectives, perspectives, and policies.

For instance, one of Dick Cheney’s foremost foreign policy advisers during the Bush administration was Victoria Nuland. Nuland, who was married to one of the most influential neocons, Robert Kagan, transitioned without difficulty from the Bush White House to the Obama State Department, then to the Clinton campaign’s chief foreign policy adviser, and now is second in command in Joe Biden’s State Department.

The ramifications of this reunion are significant and enduring. By a wide margin, neocons have caused considerably more harm to the United States and the world than any other single group. They were the masterminds behind the Iraq invasion and the accompanying deceit, the post-9/11 global torture regime, and the prevailing political atmosphere that stigmatized dissent.

Keep all of this in mind as we fast-forward to today.

 

Unconstitutional Escalation?

The United States had ceased bombing Yemen for roughly a year now, that is, until last Thursday when the Biden Administration decided it was going to bomb 16 different sites in that country.

To provide some critical backstory, there had been a somewhat informal ceasefire between the Houthis and the Saudis for the last year, which by the way was a war that had started under President Obama, who extensively helped the Saudis by decimating Yemen and creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history, until the recent bombardment and deprivation taking place in Gaza of course.

Regardless of the various excuses being bandied about, what Biden and the UK did was, by definition, an escalation. We weren’t bombing Yemen, and now we are.

The primary justification you’ll see for for this escalation, among others, is the often misrepresented War Powers Resolution (or Act) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550).

Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states:

“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.“

None of the three scenarios cited above indicate that the President can take unilateral offensive military action without the consent of Congress.

Former Michigan Congressman Justin Amash recently broke it down on X:

The first two (scenarios) allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress’s express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress’s approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.

It’s for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there’s an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account.

The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.

The belief that Presidents have no limitations on their power is one that came about during the Bush-Cheney era, particularly when they exploited 9-11 to usher in radical theories of executive power under Article Two of the Constitution.

You’ll see people argue that The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 which was passed shortly after 9/11 authorizes the President to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks, or harbored said persons or groups.

The argument seems to go back and forth endlessly. Putting aside the legal jargon, as I am not a law scholar, we can judge the merit of this authorization by it’s fruit.

This authorization was a neocons wet dream. It was first used to go after Al Qaeda and, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service published May 11, 2016, has since been used “37 times in connection with actions in 14 countries and on the high seas.” The countries that have been targeted via this authorization include Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

Remember when Obama and Hillary iced Gaddafi? The AUMF was cited in that instance as well.

It is not hard to see that the founders were opposed to the idea of a standing army at the ready to be used at the discretion of a President. The President is only commander-in-chief once there is a war declared by Congress. The arguments that Biden had the authority to attack Yemen is a neocon’s argument, as they were the ones who dreamt up the AUMF, well before 9-11, as the ultimate workaround to initiate endless wars.

The AUMF should be repealed.

Reposted from: The Post-Liberal

Members of Congress Admonish Biden’s Yemeni Airstrikes as Unconstitutional
The assaults on the Houthis have heightened concerns regarding potential American intervention in another regional conflict.

By ,

On Thursday evening, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a series of airstrikes in Yemen, which sparked international concern regarding the extent to which the strikes will contribute to the escalating regional risk of conflict. Congress has since expressed skepticism regarding Joe Biden’s legal authority to conduct the strikes.

RELATED – U.S. Forces Engage Houthis Targeting “Israel-Connected” Red Sea Vessels

In a statement, Biden said, “Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces—together with the United Kingdom and with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands—successfully conducted strikes against a number of targets in Yemen used by Houthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways.”

In retaliation for Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip, the Houthis of Yemen attacked and obstructed commercial vessels bound for or departing from Israeli locations in the Red Sea. Recent weeks have seen the near-total closure of the Israeli port of Eilat due to the attacks.

The Houthi blockade of Israeli commerce in the Red Sea may acquire renewed international legitimacy in light of Israel’s alleged proceedings before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, for genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The strikes in Yemen more directly implicated the United States in Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are supported by Iran, similar to the Houthis. In reference to the issue of presidential authority, Biden termed the strikes a “defensive action” and pledged additional measures to secure the Red Sea. Biden stated:

“I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary.”

Many have expressed concern as to whether or not Biden’s actions are indeed “protecting” Americans, as Americans abroad have been increasingly targeted by Islamic extremists since the bombardment of Gaza began, and as some believe that the U.S. could potentially stand trial next to Israel at the Hague for committing war crimes.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, members of Congress from both parties raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of the operation.

“It’s great to see the bipartisan opposition to this from the progressive left and populist right,” said Aída Chávez of Just Foreign Policy. “It’s appalling that instead of acting to stop Israeli war crimes, the Biden administration chose to further damage both our global reputation and our Constitutional system by launching a new unauthorized conflict against Yemen.”

A cadre of progressives initially commented on Biden’s actions, followed by Republican members of the Freedom Caucus like reps Thomas Massie and Matt Gaetz.

First, we saw Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. raise his concerns:

“The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle east conflict. That is Article I of the Constitution. I will stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House.”

“Section 2C of the War Powers Act is clear: POTUS may only introduce the U.S. into hostilities after Congressional authorization or in a national emergency when the U.S. is under imminent attack. Reporting is not a substitute. This is a retaliatory, offensive strike.”

Followed by Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.:

“.@POTUS is violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval. The American people are tired of endless war.”

These progressives were then supported by their republican counterparts like Rep Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, who said:

“Only Congress has the power to declare war. I have to give credit to @RepRoKhanna here for sticking to his principles, as very few are willing to make this statement while their party is in the White House.”

He was joined by Matt Gaetz:
“Ro is absolutely correct on this,”
As well as Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah.
“I totally agree with @RoKhanna. The Constitution matters, regardless of party affiliation.”
Additionally, Reps Marjorie Taylor Greene, Anna Paulina Luna, Sara Jacobs, Cori Bush, Summer Lee and Val Hoyle all expressed dismay that the strikes had not been authorized by Congress. Contrarily, and unsurprisingly, a number of members of Congress vehemently opposed the proposition. Particularly we saw Rinos and the new Liberal Neocons pushing back.