Five Questions

Dennis Loo | September 5, 2013

When did it become appropriate to hold a vote about whether or not we should commit the “supreme international crime”?[1]

Are the Syrian civilians who will surely be killed by U.S. bombs any less dead because Congress gave the green light for those bombs to be used?

Since Obama has declared that he will not regard a "no" vote from Congress as preventing him from launching a war of aggression upon Syria, what purpose does his asking for Congress’ “permission” serve?

Will you as an American feel better if Congress goes through the motions of debating whether or not they and we should go along with the commission of war crimes?

If you voted for Obama because he promised to bring “change, ” to restore the rule of law and due process, and because he said he opposed the war on Iraq, then how does O-bomb-a sound to you now?

1U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, stated that “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (Wikipedia). 

Dennis Loo is a member of the Steering Committee of World Can't Wait. This article originally appeared on


World Can't Wait mobilizes people living in the United States to stand up and stop war on the world, repression and torture carried out by the US government. We take action, regardless of which political party holds power, to expose the crimes of our government, from war crimes to systematic mass incarceration, and to put humanity and the planet first.