Obama on violation of international law

Via Robert Naiman, this was Barack Obama's response to Colombia's flagrant violation of international law in its attack on a FARC camp within Ecuador:

"The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors."

Note the deployment of the Israeli-favored "targeted killing" terminology (used to describe an attack that killed 24 people, no less).  Naiman looks at Hillary Clinton's statement as well and judges it to be worse, though in my opinion the differences aren't much more than cosmetic; Hillary's statement is just focused differently (on Hugo Chavez).  On the critical points, they do the same thing: give Colombia's right-wing government a pass, and dismiss international law as a triviality that needn't be applied to US allies.  And in neither case is there the slightest hint that they'd deviate from the last Democratic administration's abominable Colombia policy.

I'm still waiting for that change I can believe in.

(A simple way to find out if Hillbama really believe in the principle they're espousing would be to ask them if it would be acceptable for Cuba to execute "targeted killings" of exiled Cuban terrorists living in the United States.  After all, if a country has suffered for more than four decades at the hand of brutal terrorists, it can apparently strike back within another country without fear of US reprisal or condemnation—even from the "opposition" candidates.)

Comments

[SteveB]

What's the legal (according to international law) response to a guerilla army that takes refuge in a neighboring country? The US did this with the Contra bases on Honduras, and I don't think the Nicaraguans invaded Honduras in response, but maybe they should have?

[John Caruso]

The legal issues look pretty involved, but Nicaragua did what a law-abiding nation should do in such a circumstance: go to the ICJ.