When A Government Declares A Verdict Before An Investigation, It’s Because There’s A Preexisting Agenda

When A Government Declares A Verdict Before An Investigation, It’s Because There’s A Preexisting Agenda, by Caitlan Johnstone.

Hours after an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria, long before any investigation into the matter could have possibly even begun much less been completed, the US State Department declared that “the Assad regime must be held accountable” and Russia “ultimately bears responsibility” for it. Anyone who questioned such proclamations was branded a delusional conspiracy theorist.

Days after an alleged poisoning of an ex-spy in Salisbury, the UK’s Foreign Office was telling reporters that the Kremlin would be held responsible. Anyone who questioned such proclamations was branded a delusional conspiracy theorist. Weeks later, we learned that laboratory forensics had still determined no such culpability, and crime scene forensics were all over the map positing many contradictory theories about what happened and how. …

There is no valid excuse for refusing to allow a full neutral investigation to run its course before plunging into world-threatening escalations with a nuclear superpower. By refusing to do so, the western power establishment is already admitting that it is lying to us.

In a post-Iraq invasion world, it is our duty to demand copious amounts of evidence from our governments before consenting to any dangerous military agendas, whether for hot war or cold.