A US bombing attack to "punish" Syria is illegal.

[delrem]

The legality/illegality of the decision isn't for the US to unilaterally make
A decision to bomb Syria isn't for the US to unilaterally make.
There are international norms that the US ought to respect.

Reading DU, a person might think this is some partisan playacting, the D's vs R's or some non-partisan middle, but it isn't a decision for the US to make strictly internally.

The US president spoke of morality, of the US role in enforcing the norms of some new world order, but after the recent horrific US war crimes in Iraq, which the US president absolved the previous admin for, the US has *no* moral authority whatsoever to do what the US president is planning to do, congressional approval or not.

It is fucking sickening to see the population of the US once again indulging in war fantasies.

[gopiscrap]

1. Yup I agree

[NuclearDem]

2. We've gotten to the point where we think we're so above the law

That we don't even think about it anymore.

[Ghost Dog]

59. Ignorance of the law

is no excuse, in regions where the rule of law prevails.

[morningfog]

3. This is what too many are glossing over. It will be a war crime.

Congressional approval or not, it is illegal. Unless under a NATO or UN sanction, or if we are attacked in the US, it will be a war crime. And Obama is hell bent on committing it.

[delrem]

6. It isn't a decision for NATO, or a "coalition of the willing", to make either. nt

[morningfog]

9. I agree.

[delrem]

19. yah, I was picking nits :)

[truedelphi]

4. Polling of the US public shows only 25% of Americans are interested

In another war.

I hope it stays that way.

[delrem]

10. Is that up from awhile ago?

I expect the propaganda to become very intense over the next week or two, so intense that it'll take a lot of spine to stand up against it.

All the more reason for those who want a return to sanity to get out on the streets and make their voices heard.

[MisterP]

5. they managed to do this over Libya: BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 became a Senatorial football,

sweeping aside the fact that it went against the Constitution, that they openly lied to get the war, and that we were helping AQ

but if the Dems can make fun of Uncle Lumpy for complaining about the Stingers, we can totally ignore the Stingers per se...

[delrem]

24. Sorry, I don't know what that means.

I'm slow. I require longhand, not froth.
What has this to to with " BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111" and "the Dems", and who is "we"?

[MisterP]

27. Benghazi is shorthand for the content-free bickering by the GOP (the accusation that Obama "did

something" or other during the Benghazi raid) that completely eclipsing the larger/actual issues surrounding our intervention in Libya

[delrem]

29. The world found out how far to trust a R2P protection racket by the US, over Libya.

[MisterP]

42. yeah...

oh! but, my original point was that everyone forgot that we attacked Libya--the Benghazi! nontroversy is a way to make the less-attentive take sides: the Republicans say it's the worst scandal ever (I recall there were polls on this: they also thought it was in Syria), and many Dems feel compelled to downplay the whole issue in response

[malaise]

7. 100% correct

Good post

[woo me with science]

8. Thank you. nt

[jimlup]

11. Absolutely agree...

It isn't pretty but it is the truth. International law and morality have not been high priority in to the US war makers of late.

[reformist2]

12. If 'globalism' means anything, it means international co-operation - esp. on issues of war/peace.

Big Business Republicans seem to be all for globalism when it comes to business, free trade and all that, but oddly silent about it when it comes to other matters. The disparity is bordering on multiple-personality disorder.

[swilton]

76. International norms

Not just the norms as defined by certain super (hyper) powers and followed when it serves their interests.

[totodeinhere]

13. K&R n/t

[cheapdate]

14. A few hundred people were killed with nerve gas. Meh.

[delrem]

25. You realize that you only speak for yourself.

[cheapdate]

64. Yes, not only do I "realize" that I speak only for myself,

but I've found it necessary to make that very same point (I speak for myself and myself alone. I'm no one's spokesperson) on many occasions.

[sabrina 1]

49. Over a million were killed in Iraq a considerable number by White Phosphorous, meh!

We are surely qualified to lecture the world about the morals of killing human beings. And the disgusting argument of which is the right way and which is the wrong way to kill them.

Thankfully the world is finally beginning to wake up from its slumber and point out our own war crimes for the first time.

Maybe we should be quiet for a while considering the exoneration of War Criminals right here in the US.

[pnwmom]

61. We weren't using white phosphorous on civilians in Iraq. n/t

[mike_c]

74. of course we did....

The only way around that is to parse the meaning of "civilian" until it has no real meaning any longer. We declared everyone trapped inside Fallujah to be "insurgents" based solely on their being trapped there, then we burned the hell out of them with willy pete. Since the Iraqi military had already been defeated and disbanded, the only light between those dead people and "civilians" was the label "insurgents," which means, quite simply, "civilians struggling under occupation." Even when most of them were holed up in their homes.

[cheapdate]

67. That's a problem, it seems.

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

You would argue that only those with a perfect past can make moral judgments. You propose that until perfect justice exists for past crimes, a person (or a country) should ignore evil or injustice. The US killed people in Iraq therefore the US cannot take a position on the large-scale use of nerve agents.

If these are the rules, the result is that no one may do anything about injustice or evil anywhere, because, let's face it, no one is perfect and no one's hands are spotless. Bashar al-Assad can do as he will with impunity because no one has the moral authority to judge him.

I recognize that history is important, but I believe that the question over the use of nerve agents in Syria and what the proper response should be (assuming that the Syrian government was responsible) should be decided in the present, not in the past. The answer depends on the present situation and the present lives of the people affected.

I won't defend using phosphorus filled mortar shells to set people on fire, but nerve agents are in an entirely different league. Phosphorus burns on contact with air and gives off a thick, white smoke. Coincidentally, I've worked closely around both phosphorus and nerve agents. There's really very little comparison between the two. If some phosphorus gets released, it's an inconvenience to get some water on it so you can keep working. Nerve agents are in a different league. The precautions for even being in the vicinity of where there are nerve agents are extreme. If nerve agents are released, it's more than just an inconvenience.

[pnwmom]

55. Four hundred children. This doesn't include adults. nt

[mimi85]

60. The pictures of

those little kids laying in rows with their sweet faces even in death are nauseating. I seriously wonder if some people are born without a conscience. Otherwise, how can they sleep at night. What a damn mess! The pics reminded me of Newtown - of course they were shredded so no pics of those little ones. Well, on that sorry note, I'm off to bed. Hope I don't have nightmares.

Whatever you feel about this situation, have a peaceful holiday weekend. We really don't know how fortunate we are.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. There, there, there.

Obama will do something to make all of you mad next week. I'm certain of it.

Question: if 90% of Americans are against the strikes, how can "the population of the US" be "once again indulging in war fantasies"?

[delrem]

20. Hmmm. You underscore my point, Bolo Boffin. nt

[Chaco Dundee]

16. yes

No truer words have been spoken

[Flatulo]

17. Just heard not 5 minutes ago it was 80% against strikes. Not sure how this constitutes bloodlust.

Still, I guess we'll find out how responsive our gov't is to the 'will of the people'. I think we can infer the answer.

Expect to hear some soothing words about the dangers of ruling by referendum.

[delrem]

22. "war fantasies" isn't the same phrase as "bloodlust".

In fact on DU the most vivid war fantasies are cloaked in a pretense of nurture, of caring deeply for the Syrian people, and in collective hallucinations (supported by war propaganda) of mythic proportions. To say that the folk lost in such delusions of grandeur are full of bloodlust is wrong, but it's correct to say that they're victim of war fantasies.

Regardless of the 'will of the (US) people', bombing Syria isn't their decision to make.
Your *internal* politics and focus on the "how responsive our gov't is to the 'will of the people'" is a side-issue. Whatever US citizens convince themselves of, in the midst of blazing party politics and tortured English, is not the issue. The issue is that bombing Syria will be a war-crime, pure and simple, and it'll be added to the continuous tally of war-crimes perpetrated by the US war machine.

[DeSwiss]

18. US: ''What are international norms?''

- And how much do they cost? Cause we can't create another deficit problem by buying too many of these ''norm'' things.

K&R

[jazzimov]

21. Uh, NO.

It IS our decision to make, or else we make a mockery of all the rules that we "claim" to adhere to.

What we have to be sure of is that we recognize this situation as a different one from what we have encountered in the past.

This is NOT Iraq.

[delrem]

23. Show where those "rules that we (US) "claim" to adhere to" are written in international law.

[joshcryer]

30. A unilateral strike alone would not be legal.

Unilaterally invading Syria, deposing the dictator, instituting safe zones, etc, might be (under Resolution 1674). But that would be an insane undertaking and I don't know of anyone who supports that approach.

[delrem]

31. wow. what a take on it....

Sorry, I having nothing to say in answer to that... extension.

[joshcryer]

33. Just trying to think of ways around it.

I don't think you can act anywhere without the UN without violating its charters and rules, except in this very narrow truly peace keeping type of mission.

Obviously air strikes would not fall under that type of mission at all, therefore the UN is required.

[delrem]

34. Truly peacekeeping is total war? What kind of mindfuck is that?

[joshcryer]

35. That's how the UN defines it.

Read the resolution.

[delrem]

37. No it isn't. I suggest you converse with someone else, who speaks your language.

bye

[joshcryer]

38. No need to be insulting.

See ya.

[delrem]

40. that wasn't insulting, it was fact.

[joshcryer]

43. I doubt you even read the resolution I linked.

I'd completely forgotten about our exchange the other day where you lacked any substantiative insight and were just nasty to me, so sorry for engaging to you on accident again. I'll know better next time.

[delrem]

45. I don't speak Orwell War=Peace. Speak with a compatriot.

You waste time.

[joshcryer]

58. I don't believe that.

I am merely talking about the confines of international law, of which you are clearly ignorant.

[sabrina 1]

52. No country that is not only responsible for War Crimes but for the exoneration

of its own monstrous war criminals, responsible for more than a MILLION dead human beings, men, women and children has zero right to insert themselves into what ought to be done about potential war crimes anywhere else.

If we are suddenly so compassionate about the wrongful deaths of other human beings, we need to get started here and provide some justice for the families and loved ones of all those people we slaughtered and tortured, by showing the world we MEAN IT when we dare to say 'we cannot tolerate these crimes'. WE not only tolerate them, we exonerate.

Let someone with no blood on their own hands and genuine concern for the people there, do this job. We do not have the moral authority or the credibility to do it.

British Parliamentarians were vocal in pointing out this hypocrisy during the debate this week. The world is sickened by our wars and even more so by the gall we have to ignore our own war criminals, to exonerate them, then to have to nerve to exalt ourselves as the 'compassionate, anti-war crimes' policemen of the world. It truly is sickening.

[kentuck]

26. It is "illegal"...

The War Powers Act does not give the President the right to go to bomb another country to "punish" them. It gives him the power to retaliate if we have been attacked, which obviously we have not.

He had no choice but to go to Congress if he wants it to be "legal".

[delrem]

28. I totally disagree with that last.

A country has a right to defend. It cannot unilaterally grant itself the right to attack a country which isn't attacking it. That's just fact. (whatever juju the US wants to work out with congress.)

[kentuck]

47. "Legal" is legal as defined by our laws.

If the Congress says it is legal, it is legal in the technical sense. By international law standards or the standards of other nations, you may be right. However, those are not the rules by which we operate.

[delrem]

51. US laws don't cut it in an international arena, where the object is the bombing of another country.

[dipsydoodle]

62. US laws don't cut outside the US period

and the US constitution has no bearing or meaning outside of the US

Same applies to other countries too.

[mike_c]

69. actually, they are, or at least they're supposed to be....

Signed treaties have the force of U.S. law, and we're signatories to the U.N. Charter, which outlaws wars of aggression.

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

[DirkGently]

32. This is what Cheney means by "American exceptionalism."

It's just code for, "We make the rules; we don't abide by them."

[paulrandfu]

36. As much as it pains me to see children gassed

the US needs to quit being the world cop, solving other countries problems with military strikes hasn't exactly worked out for us in the past.

[delrem]

39. If the US isn't lying through it's ass again.... anyhow, such a strike is illegal plain and simple.

Oh yah: since when has the US solved other countries problems with military strikes?
During the period of the dirty wars? Iraq? Vietnam?
The whole idea is bullshit through and through.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I agree it's illegal. Unilateralism should have died when Bush left office n/t

[The Straight Story]

44. So what? So is using chemical weapons. What will anyone do about it if we act

when they won't do anything about Syria gassing people.

THIS is what Obama was talking about, you lose legitimacy when you fail to do anything.

[delrem]

48. Bad argument. Won't reply.

[MNBrewer]

65. We didn't punish our own war criminals

in fact, we grant them immunity. How does that give the US "legitimacy" in this realm?

[Jefferson23]

46. It is a warranted action to the powers that be and that is all that matters, fact.

I am relieved Obama is putting this before a vote in Congress, and I don't care what motivated
him to punt. I am hoping they vote no, if not, he'll do it.

The fact that a high percentage of Americans wanted him to involve the Congress is an
indication they're paying attention, more than the elites realized. Many Americans
have no idea it is an illegal act, regardless of congress participating in the decision.

[delrem]

50. define "warranted", define "powers that be".

I fundamentally disagree with the notion being put forward, that the US has some "right" to absolute power over the world. That the US can deliver military punishment at its whim. Such a notion is NOT written in international law, nor is it written in the US constitution. In fact, the opposite is the case.

The US failed in Iraq on all levels, it showed itself to be a country without moral center, without a moral compass. That isn't an excuse for the US failing again and again and again, however self-indulgent, self-satisfied and self-righteous the population.

[Jefferson23]

53. I explained how it is done here in the US, and it is a fact..just as I stated. There exists

no actual special privilege under international law for the US, but that does not matter.

Why I highlighted the high percentage of Americans who want this to go to a vote before
the Congress is b/c this is an excellent indication the citizens are paying attention. Americans
are now and have been raised on exceptionalism...most have no idea this is illegal. But they're
learning, unfortunately, we have learned the hard way.

I find it quite encouraging.

[delrem]

54. I find it to be discouraging that the US is playing out the same charade once again.

There's no indication of any learning curve at all.

eta: I also find it discouraging that my posts got lots of recs and made it to the top of the front page, then was suddenly removed so it's now way way below the fold. I think that sucks.

[Jefferson23]

56. Why would those running the government change? They're not there to learn, but act.

The more the citizens are aware the more likely they'll have a government that represents their
best interests...we'll get there.


I don't think your thread can get to the bottom of the page unless no one is posting in it...if that's
what you meant.

[delrem]

57. I speak of the american population.

I'd say "good luck on getting there" except that doesn't do it. The Iraq war crimes were real. Hundreds of thousands, in fact millions of people were destroyed or totally devastated and the country is still fighting its way through hell. For what? For a few days of glorying in "shock and awe"? And nothing learned. Nothing learned from before, nothing learned from after. I just hate to see how these countries suffer from empty US hubris.

re. the vanishing of my OP from the top of the front page. I dunno. First time I ever had an OP recognized that way. Perhaps it's normal. I'll watch how other OPs fare - e.g. Cha's.

eta: I see Cha's OP went thru' the same sequence. OK, I feel less picked on

[Jefferson23]

63. The American population is not giving blind consent this time and keep in mind

Americans are exposed to a great deal of propaganda through the MSM here.
But even with that, they're not jumping on board, and I hope it stays that way.

There is no question that US hegemony is the culprit of much harm around the world.

You offered an interesting OP, DU responded in kind, some sink to the bottom of the
page with no responses. I know this, happens to me often, lol.

Stay well.

[randome]

66. Syria is 1 of 5 countries that has refused to be a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Enough is enough. They should be forced to step in line in some way. Maybe bombing them is not the right way to go about it but something needs to be done.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

68. The USA is one of the few countries that has NOT signed...

..The International Treaty Against Land Mines,
or joined the International Criminal Court.

Enough is enough!
The US should be forced to step in line in some way.

[kenny blankenship]

81. And the only one to ever drop atomic bombs on an enemy - on civilians in fact

Twice.

[indepat]

70. But it is the prerogative of the decider to decide if, when, and where a third-world country is

to be bombed back into the stone age. It is incredible how many elected officials and members of the MSM hold this worldview which runs counter to all international law, credibility, and humanity.

[KurtNYC]

71. Only 9% are induldging in war fantasies on this one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

[AsahinaKimi]

72. Maybe its time

we Retired our WORLD Cop badge..

1950 – 1953 Korean War
1964 - 1975: Vietnam. .
1965-1973: Cambodia.
1965: Dominican Republic.
1983: Grenada.
1986: Libya.
1989: Panama.
1991: Kuwait/Iraq.
1992-1995: Somalia. .
1994: Haiti.
1995: Bosnia.
1999: Kosovo.
2001: Afghanistan.
2003: Iraq.
2011: Libya.

[99th_Monkey]

73. From your lips to Goddess' ears. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

75. No "War For Profit."

Follow the money.

[lumpy]

77. Re. Legality of bombing attack. Source please.

[woo me with science]

78. kick

[woo me with science]

79. kick

[delrem]

80. Hey, thanks for kicking my post!

I'm trying hard to parse the president's speech tonight, because it's full of contradictions, errors of fact and omission of fact and over-emphasis on what is essentially "classified evidence", except as the President and VP and SoS and former-SoS-anointed-for-2016 see fit to say it, using high-pitched emotional images supplementing an identical run-up-to-Iraq propaganda campaign.

I have no doubt in my mind that Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA are aiming for regime change in Syria, because the contradiction in supposing that they're not is so high-res clear, to be laughable.

I suppose that campaign, and the propaganda required to explain and justify it, will continue unabated. In spite of food-fights like on the front page of DU, today.

eta: amended to delete an unintended "not"