Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?
No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country’s soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as “intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again,” which is not self-defense.
Yea just beautiful Brian, then they land and people are killed and maimed. Nine civilians were killed by those beautiful bombs. Sociopath."We see these beautiful pictures at night from the decks of these two Navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean," he said. "I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: 'I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons,'" he said, alluding to the song "First We Take Manhattan."
"And they are beautiful pictures," Williams continued, "of fearsome armaments making what is, for them, a brief flight over this airfield."
Never mind that he BROKE international law to do it, right Fareed?CNN host Fareed Zakaria said Donald Trump “became president” Thursday night when he announced to the American people that he ordered an airstrike against Syrian President Bashar-al Assad’s military.
“I think Donald Trump became president of the United States,” Mr. Zakaria said Friday. “I think this was actually a big moment.”
“President Trump recognized that the president of the United States does have to act to enforce international norms,” he said. “For the first time really as president, he talked about international norms, international rules, about America’s role in enforcing justice in the world.
The President just bombed the government of a sovereign nation without congressional approval. He lacks the authority to do that. In addition, it was a violation of INTERNATIONAL law.
Apparently laws do not apply to the United States anymore.
We see these beautiful pictures at night from the decks of these two Navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean," he said. "I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen....
The U.S. strike may be legal under Article 51 of the UN charter, which says, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Under that rule, the U.S. could claim it was acting in "collective self-defense" against a dangerous state.
I heard Obama wasn't born in the US. Imagine that.
Jeebus, we had a bit of time where we were discussing this strike seriously and now we're back to the norm of 9/11 conspiracies and birtherism equivalents.
Also,
On April 3, the Saudi jets dropped the internationally-banned cluster bombs in Dhubab district of the same province, killing five people, including three women.
The Saudi war machine has already used cluster bombs across Yemen on multiple occasions despite the inherently indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions.
Various rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have on many occasions reported and criticized the use of cluster bombs by Riyadh’s military in Yemen.
That's your reply anytime somebody says that.....you have the interpretation issue....
I'm not sure what your point is. I was surprised by ivwshane saying "old news", and responded with the only similar thing I had heard lately. In my second paragraph (and perhaps I didn't make this obvious enough) I was referring to the actual news based on quotes from the Pentagon spokesman, and you're talking about conspiracy theories?
That's your reply anytime somebody says that.....you have the interpretation issue....
It's that people are getting into weird conspiracy things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
LoL. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia (who have lobbied America vigorously to remove Assad) is specifically targeting residential areas (using banned CLUSTER bombs) in Yemen. A clear violation of international law. No outrage found. On the contrary, we will do some bombing there ourselves.
Does blatant and obvious hypocrisy not matter any more? Can nobody see that the worst player in the entire Middle East might be Saudi Arabia and they are our closest ally in the region. From my perspective, Saudi money has been used to influence the power brokers in Washington to take actions that are contrary to American and Middle Eastern interests in favor of Saudi interests.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/08/517190/Saudi-warplanes-Yemen-Hajjah
Funny thing.
You picked a legal issue and I responded. There's a lot of hypocrisy and backbiting and I'm not arguing that it does not exist. For me that is irrelevant. This is now and situations change. What happened in 2013 on on the campaign is a wholly separate issue and I can go back to the last administration and point out promises not kept. That too is irrelevant.
But a claim if illegality has been made and there is a claim to be made for it. Naturally people may differ in interpretation, but that does not change the fact. MJ was brought up because there is less international leeway for US and state policies than for the strike. I don't really care about that now either, it was just way of bringing up the hazards of appealing to a body of law while some might ignore the other aspects. Again for now that's not important to me. For now I'm interested in the situation, not petty partisan politics.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Explain to me how your use of false equivalence was correct then. The wikipedia article gives some straightforward examples of what false equivalence means. I'm wondering how on earth you think your use of the term was anything like those.
Side note - I'm fairly sure this is the first time I've corrected someone here for using that particular term incorrectly.
So not a comment directly aimed at me then?
+3.+
362.4
+9830?=0-9[p;kl., hvygfdrsewaq6025+
56.3
BTW, this is my dog's opinion who typed and entered this while I was shopping.
I agree with all of this. Turning Syria into yet another hellhole of proxywars for generations to come... F' off allready.What is rankling about this is that America and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamist terrorists in Syria to attack Assad. The civilian casualty rate in Syria has been ramping down as the war was coming to an end and here are America and Saudi Arabia ramping that shit right back up. Simultaneously they are destroying Yemen and turning it into a hellhole. These are matters of objective fact and reality, they aren't even debatable. The rationalization for this abomination is absolutely pathetic. They don't even attempt to talk about long term goals and what they are going to replace the thing they are attacking with. They don't need to. Apparently nobody gives a f u c k. It is the most batshit insane foreign policy I have seen in my lifetime.
No its not[a stain]. It has been this way since inception of mankind, nothing new, its been going on forever. That doesnt mean that we are exempt from growing up though... but it has to start with uniting our leaders..It is a stain on America and it will be remembered for decades from now as people discuss what an evil empire America was. There isn't a single god damned thing that is the least bit moral or defensible about what America is doing in the Middle East.
This entire episode smells like Wag The Dog 2. Putin may have set this up knowing Trump would react. It makes Trump look strong vs Putin and takes heat off Russia/election/collusion investigation.
Remember Trump last week had a policy of hands off in Syria. Then he started watching TV. In the attack that killed 1400 people in 2013 Obama attempted to seek Congress for the legal authority to do what Trump just did. Also as others have noted Trump was against attacking Syria just last week. Conduction foreign policy based on emotion is a bad idea. However, Putin knows this guy is prone to that very thing.
The current AUMF applies to groups and affiliated groups responsible for 9/11. War Powers Act only allows for armed forces action if the US is attacked. Neither applies in this case.
What did it get us. The airport bombed is up and running today. No degradation of Assad's Air Force and no destruction of his chemical stockpile. All it did was show we can fire missiles.
LoL. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia (who have lobbied America vigorously to remove Assad) is specifically targeting residential areas (using banned CLUSTER bombs) in Yemen. A clear violation of international law. No outrage found. On the contrary, we will do some bombing there ourselves.
Does blatant and obvious hypocrisy not matter any more? Can nobody see that the worst player in the entire Middle East might be Saudi Arabia and they are our closest ally in the region. From my perspective, Saudi money has been used to influence the power brokers in Washington to take actions that are contrary to American and Middle Eastern interests in favor of Saudi interests.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/08/517190/Saudi-warplanes-Yemen-Hajjah