The UN Security Council veto is a restraining mechanism for members too fond of wars, US academic Luciana Bohne remarks, adding that the United States apparently feels entitled to a license to kill.

On September 23, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power claimed that the Russian veto was putting the Security Council's legitimacy at risk, referring to the fact that Moscow had vetoed almost four security resolutions on Syria.

"Understandably, the US rabid dogs of war are straining at the chain to which international law constrains them. How dare Russia oppose US plans for regime change in Syria and impede a further blood bath to achieve it? An indefatigable humanitarian warmonger, Power resents Russia's opposition to a resolution to bomb the hell out of 'atrocities' in Syria, without specifying that the main 'atrocity' in her government's eyes is President Assad," Luciana Bohne, a professor of literature and film at Edinboro University in Pennsylvania, remarked with a touch of irony.

In her article for CounterPunch, the academic pointed out that Russia's veto power has become literally a thorn in Washington's side.

Bohne underscored that Moscow has once again prevented the so-called US "humanitarianism" that could only lead to an increase in the death toll in Syria.

The academic cited the apparently infuriated US Ambassador to the UN who said that "it's a Darwinian universe here" and that Russia's veto power jeopardizes the Security Council's credibility as an international security arbiter.

Power apparently forgot that while the UN was formed in order "to prevent the scourge of war," the Security Council's task is to resolve disputes, authorizing a military option only if there is no way out.

Needless to say, the Security Council cannot be used as a tool of the US' regime change policy, the academic noted.

"The veto is a restraining mechanism for members too fond of wars. Besides, nowhere in the Charter does it say that a single member should take it upon itself to go on humanitarian crusades for unilaterally perceived and selectively declared atrocities or genocides, but this option is what the US is beginning to argue for-an option that would permit the removal of the veto in cases of Right to Protect (R2P), the US policy which materialized out of the NATO assault on Yugoslavia," Bohne reminded.

The US academic emphasized that then leader of the USSR Joseph Stalin accepted the proposal to participate in the United Nations with a condition that each of the five permanent members of the Security Council would be granted veto power.

"[Stalin's] great concern was prevention of war, which, he argued, could only be achieved through unity and unanimity among the Big Three," Bohne noted.

She also referred to the fact that "the UN Charter is a treaty signed by the US in the name of the people of the United States and is, therefore, the law of the land, as per the US Constitution," adding that Samantha Power's teleprompters had apparently forgotten to inform her about it.

"But what does this lot of inept, ignorant, amoral, public relations careerist frauds care about the Constitution or about truth and justice and a harmonious world? They are drunk with the wine of desolation. Lies and injustice are for them signs of superior intelligence — a joke on the credulous mob. Injustice is a source of strength and happiness, and the privilege of the strong. As the Empire crumbles, only might makes right," the US academic underscored.

It is worth mentioning that according to UN records, the Russian Federation has used its veto power only 13 times, while the US has used its veto in the Security Council 79 times. Washington's allies Britain and France have used their right to veto the Security Council's measures, 29 and 16 times respectively.