Legal precedent to establish safe-zones? Or is it just "brown privilege"


Written by John (the other John).

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court spells out various acts of aggression that have been criminalized (to include attacking another nation without legal justification, attacking a civilian population, attacking undefended structures, etc…). In theory, any leader/soldier violating these principles would be subject to prosecution for a war crime, with the punishment including a possible life sentence in prison or capital punishment.

How this is relevant today is that Turkish President Terdogan without legal justification unilaterally attacked an undefended sovereign nation and harmed a civilian population, with the goal of displacing the locals so they could seize land to allegedly create a “safe-zone”. (History details for us how the Turks historically created short-term buffer-zones thru Asia Minor, mainland Greece, going up to the Gates of Vienna; to date, these “temporary” safe-zones range in the age of about 500 years old). With this horrific act of attacking a civilian population to create this safe-zone, Leftists globally are angry at Trump for removing other parents’ military kids from danger (yet noticeably the Leftists never seem to send their own kids to the military; instead, they send their kids to elite Universities learning to be “masters of the universe” and to send other people’s kids to war, whilst they are partying and smoking pot all day; and of course labeling anyone with alternative views as “racist”).

But this act by Turkey in October 2019 is not without precedent in the modern era. Turkey has previously committed such an act for a safe-zone in Cyprus in 1974, and tried to create a new nation known as “Northern Cyprus” or “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (this faux-nation is not recognized globally). After 45 years, Turkey’s short-term buffer-zone in Cyprus is showing no signs of ending. The result of which is that despite these otherwise illegal acts by Turkey, they not only proceed without consequence, but they are also rewarded with (among other things) military aide and NATO membership. By doing so, this essentially creates a legal precedent for allowing (and rewarding) such acts.

That being said, this precedent lays the foundation for both Europe and the U.S. to invade foreign nations (Northern Africa by Europe, and Mexico by the U.S.) to form buffer-zones (perhaps 20 miles deep) to separate the foreign local population from our borders. (For Europe, the buffer-zone would separate the foreign locals from the southern Mediterranean Sea; for the U.S., the buffer-zone would separate the foreign locals from the U.S./Mexico border). By doing so, this would eliminate or drastically decrease illegal entry of people, drugs, and weapons.

So being that the legal precedent has been established that this act goes without consequence, and the emotional-precedent by Leftists is that of acceptance (as evidenced by them not throwing a hysterical temper-tantrum over these acts by Turkey), then we can make the presumption that the Left would be equally accepting of this if Trump and/or Europe would do the same.

To say otherwise would insinuate that Leftists are lunatics and/or hypocrites; we know that is untrue!
And we also know that there is no such thing as “brown privilege”; right?

Legal precedent to establish safe-zones? Or is it just "brown privilege" Legal precedent to establish safe-zones? Or is it just "brown privilege" Reviewed by PostDiscus on November 26, 2019 Rating: 5

No comments:

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Home Ads

ads 728x90 B
Powered by Blogger.