(The article mentions “The UN called on authorities to specifically ensure federal and local police were clearly identifiable“, which would be very good, but nobody really cares about what UN says.)
The US is not special, extrajudicial killings happen all over the world, when was your UN replacement that will fix the world when this started in philippines in 2016? Syria? What will your replacement do, send troops? Sanction? The UN does that.
Ever heard of the term belling the cat? http://read.gov/aesop/003.html
Mutually assured destruction sounds nice in movies but in reality, it stopped the mighty japanese empire. Some look at nukes as a way to sacrifice millions to save billions. Some think even a nuke power like the US will not continue to escalate after a nuclear war because of political red tape or MAD,the US or Russia for examples might surrender and accept loss instead of riskiny a global nuclear war.
If China starts invading asia for example, the UN can be used to sanction or even coordinate a resistance effort both diplomatic and kinetic before it gets out of control.
Unless you are japanese that empire will not have treated you nicely. "The man in the high castle" shows how it might have been under japanese rule. No thanks.
How that could possible work?
UN talks to Italy and Japan saying: hey guys, we know you already killed a lot of people (especially you Japan, Nanjing Massacre), and we know you are Germany allies, but please, do nothing while we crush the Germany, and then we will liberate all the territories you have already acquired, but you just deescalate your aggression.
What would be the reason for Italy and Japan to listen the "UN"?
Oh, BTW, League of Nations existed prior to WW2, and Germany, Italy and Japan were it's members.
> If China starts invading asia for example, the UN can
China has veto. UN can't do anything against China.