Would an attack on Syria meet your criteria for war crimes, or not?

[Dreamer Tatum]

If there is no Congressional or UN approval for attacking Syria, and we attack anyway, will that constitute a war crime in your opinion?

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Congress must approve, but not necessarily the UN, or it's a war crime.
	2 (40%)
	The UN must approve, by not necessarily Congress, or it's a war crime.
	0 (0%)
	Both Congress and the UN must approve, or it's a war crime.
	1 (20%)
	It wouldn't be a war crime, regardless of approval.
	1 (20%)
	It would be a "war crime" even with approval.
	0 (0%)
	Some other condition.
	1 (20%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Scuba]

1. Not enough information.

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. So someone posted that "war" is always criminal?

Strange logic... seems to dismiss all of written history.

[leftstreet]

4. I don't see an option for that

[DontTreadOnMe]

5. The selection for it "would be a war crime" (criminal) even with approval

Meaning no matter what, it is criminal.

I think this is a serious matter. The American public is in no mood to go to more war in the Middle East, that is clear.

But if ANY country is using chemical weapons on civilians, we can't stand by and just watch. It would be criminal to do nothing.
Absolute proof is needed. The UN seems to have it. When you have women and children found dead in the street with foaming mouths, and no bullet wounds... test can verify very easily is chemical weapons were used.

[leftstreet]

6. Isn't it specific to Syria?

Not 'all war always,' but criminal in Syria even with Congressional and UN approval

That's how I took it anyway

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. Yes, I took the polll with Syria specifically in mind.

I voted for Congressional approval as required.

I just pointed out that I find it strange, that is Congress approves a retaliation, someone here on DU wants to prosecute (I am guessing politician, or soldiers???) with war crimes????

I guess some people believe they are morally higher than our Judicial AND Legislative system.

[leftstreet]

11. Oh. Well it's an 'emotional' poll anyway

Technically a 'war crime' occurs only during conflict, and unless I've missed something the US/Syria aren't engaged

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. It would be, IMO, unconstitutional to proceed without Congressional approval.

But that's not a war crime.
It would be a violation of international law to attack without UN approval.
But that's not a war crime either.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I gave up on interventionist bullshit around 1967.

Haven't you all learned anything since then?

Absent an actual genocide: stay the fuck out of other people's business.

[cthulu2016]

8. No. It would constitute a war not a war crime

It could be an aggressive war, which would be a crime against humanity or something, but a war crime is, to me at least, a crime in the conduct of a war.

Launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at military or government targets seems not to be a war crime. We've done plenty of it without it ever being the most controversial part of whatever we're up to at the time.

But it is most assuredly war.

[atreides1]

10. 18 US Code 2441

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

[Raine1967]

12. I'm trying to understand your question.

I'm not trying to straw or red herring --

Are you asking if an attack on Syria would be a war crime? As opposed to what? The crimes that have happened WRT to chemical weapons?

Who is the attacker that you are thinking about in your question? Is it the United States? (I'm under the impression you are referring the USA when you say 'we'.)

You leave nothing that I can vote for or against in your poll.