Any US strike on Syria will be a violation of international law because

[malaise]

It will not be sanctioned by the Syrian government, the UN Security Council, Russia or China.

It will be no different than Bush and Iraq.
All this ISIS crap is no different than Al Qaeda.

[tkmorris]

1. That law doesn't apply to the US

I know it sounds like I am being flippant, but I'm really not. The US could mount an air campaign against Syria tomorrow and absolutely no action would be taken against them legally. The US would offer some paper-thin legal justification, Russia et al would object MOST strenuously at the UN, and in the end none of it would matter in the slightest.

The US, for all practical intents and purposes, is above the law internationally. If we say it's legal, it is.

[malaise]

3. And you're right - the US operates as if it were above the law

and it owns the planet.

Never forget Hitler had the same view - for a while.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. In Hitler's case, there were other countries big enough to stop him

This time around, I don't know...

[HERVEPA]

29. Odious and stupid comparison

[CJCRANE]

2. It's just a big neocon mess.

Some Western countries and their allies have been building up this force for years and they thought no one would notice they're pulling the strings.

Despite our incurious media, the rest of the world has figured it out.

[malaise]

4. Well said

The rest of the world has figured it out

[OnyxCollie]

5. "So?" -Dick Cheney. nt

[indepat]

6. But doesn't the US have the exclusive franchise to strike suspected terraists anywhere, anytime, no

the collateral damage, no matter where in the world, no matter the niceties of international law? Didn't junior articulate this inalienable pre-emptive war precept and prerogative? 'course some might view the entire Bush initiative as a criminal enterprise.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. I commented yesterday that the propaganda is ramping up for this new war...

It began with breaking news of an American ISIS being killed. I predicted at that moment that the next thing they would say is that an American ISIS could board a plane and come home to attack us here. Then, the president came out and announced we would do what we had to do to protect Americans (sounding a lot like Israel).

Today, so far, it's an announcement by Assad that any strike on Syrian territory would be considered an act of war.

So, we're going back to war. Count on it. The only question is, when is that American ISIS coming home to sow chaos, death, and destruction?

[malaise]

10. an American ISIS being killed -Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

All BS all the time - the narrative is so old it's boring.
What's scary is how many people buy this crap over and over

[RKP5637]

28. It's a déjà vu all over again. Different names, places, but basically the SOS. MSM is

building it up and the MIC is counting the potential $$$$$'s. ... and investors are checking their portfolios for the best investments to reap profits.

[4139]

8. I believe Assad has given a 'qualified' approval...

He just wants advance notice when we strike Isis.

Because of assad's approval the president does not need either UN nor senate approval.... It's not war if the other side gives permission

[ChisolmTrailDem]

11. The president cannot act on Assad's approval lest he be seen to then be working with Assad. He will

not be notified.

[4139]

13. We are already providing targeting intelligence to Assad....

So he can target Isis.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

14. Not that I don't believe you but do you have a link for that? I hadn't heard that yet. nt

[4139]

15. I may be wrong; last night the State department denied the news reports.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

17. Of course they did ;) Thanks, 4139! nt

[Chan790]

40. I've heard the same things and doubt the US would confirm it if true.

It's very similar to the wink-wink-nudge-nudge non-consulting consultation that we are very likely giving Iran on the same front.

We don't need boots on the ground to fight ISIS...their enemies (unfriendly to us) Syria, Hezbollah and Iran are more than perfectly willing to do that as long as we coordinate operations in ways that allow them to maintain plausible denials to their own people that it is happening. Look at the bright side, to the likely eternal chagrin of Sen. John Sidney McCain, professional crazy war-hawk old coot, we won't be arming those unfriendly non-allies with things we'll end up seeing used against us in 20 years.

Sometimes, conflict makes strange bedfellows. You can be pretty sure too that some intel we're passing to them is intel that we're middle-manning to them from Israel, who has no real-strong desire to assist Hezbollah or Syria or Iran any more than minimally-necessary, but do have a real-strong desire to see IS annihilated before IS is on their doorstep. US middle-manning allows both sides of that transaction to deny that they're sending/receiving such cooperation knowingly. (All requisite wink-wink-nudge-nudges implied.)

[Fred Sanders]

9. You are correct. Obama is wise not to seek Congressional approval, they will give him a blank check.

Obama does not want a blank check for war, they will the want him to fill it in.

Better to stick with precedent and keep this most vital of Presidential powers, chief of world police, to himself.
I do believe that Assad sees the enemy of his enemy as his friend, and vis versa for Obama and a few other nations, strange bedfellows in these strange times.....but there is nothing new under the Sun.

[pampango]

12. Agreed. Syria is sovereign territory just like Ukraine.

International law prohibits foreign intervention by plane, truck, tank, artillery, soldier or any other means without authorization by the UN Security Council.

[GOLGO 13]

16. International law? That's for the little countries

to worry about.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Malaise....will you also agree that Russian annexation of Crimea is against internaitonal law....

because it wasn't sanctioned by the Ukrainian government or the UN?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

[riseabove]

20. I will agree with you, but how does that apply to what the U.S. is doing, have we stooped to

Putin's level?

Yikes.

[sabrina 1]

24. Explain the law that covers this? Airc, Crimeans, and looking at what is happening

to the rest of the region were absolutely correct in their decision, voted overwhelmingly NOT to become slaves to the IMF. Too bad the rest of that region didn't move more quickly to protect THEMSELVES from the Brutal, criminal 'govt' in Kiev who are now slaughtering them in an effort to FORCE them to accept slavery to the IMF.

Amazing how some on the Left would deny people the right to decide their own futures especially when it is CLEAR that had Crimeans NOT seen the writing on the wall, they too would be under assault from the criminal gov of Kiev. Who are now led by one of Wall St's choices. His Govt collapsed already, 'our guy Yatze' has quit, it was all too much even for HIM. Nuland's guy, that is. The Chocolate King was actually the preference of Wall St, the IMF, the World Bank so poor Yatze the puppet was sidelined, as was predictable. He served his miserable purpose then got kicked to the side.

Now the Kiev Govt is threatening the Parliament there, the ones they USED to claim 'legitimacy', calling them 'supporters of Yanukovich'. Lol, the CHOCOLATE KING was a 'supporter of Yanukovich'. An opportunist who now has blood on his hands.

Good for Crimea, at least they got out just in time before their lives were threatened also.

It is SHAMEFUL what Kiev is doing to its own people. All Putin has to do is stand back and let them do it. And the world has decided who is the greatest threat to the lives of innocent people there. Those are no Putin's bombs, those are the Chocolate King's bombs killing old people, grandmothers, moms, the most vulnerable and aligned with the Neo Nazis too. Who now won't give up THEIR guns.

Hopefully the US is not behind these war crimes in Ukr. We have enough blood on our hands thanks to Bush/Cheney.

[Baclava]

19. Giddyup! Get them thar spurs shined up...We're goin' cowboy!

yee-haw

[bullwinkle428]

21. Chris Hayes mentioned hearing the possibility of striking both

Assad/gov't.-related targets ALONG WITH ISIS-related targets in Syria at the same time. This would bring us back to the absolutely insane 1980s when we were arming both sides of the Iran/Iraq war!!

[sabrina 1]

22. We are a rogue state, we don't pay attention to other countries' sovereignty. Remember

we are at 'war with the whole world and that gives us the right to kill people everywhere'. Who is going to stop us?

Even the Brits finally backed away from funding what was probably ISIS in Syria last year.

ISIS = The Illegal Invasion of Iraq Fallout.

WE are responsible for everything that happened after we destabilized that region of the world.

But that was the PLAN? Have people forgotten the neocons' declarations about 'turning the ME into a glass parking lot'? We on the Left of course totally opposed those policies.

Now we're hearing the same old propaganda again, complete with scary videos of 'militants', all dressed up in nice, made-in-China uniforms. It never fooled us then, hopefully it won't now.

[FiveGoodMen]

27. We don't even respect our OWN rules

Our very own King ... sorry ... President reserves the right to kill anyone, anywhere, any time, and for any reason (since he won't tell US what it was about).

And his right-to-kill-at-whim applies to us as well as to citizens of other countries.

[RKP5637]

34. Reminds me of WWII, people abducted during the night, never seen again. ... hmmm, transparency? n/t

[RKP5637]

33. Basically what goes around comes around. We're in a MIC perpetual motion machine, and each time

around tremendous profits are made. We create all of our own problems.

[Lurks Often]

23. International law is followed when it is convenient for the country involved

and that isn't going to change anytime soon and it isn't just the United States either.


The United Nations Security Council is as much of a joke as the League of Nations was.

[stevenleser]

25. It's very different than Bush and Iraq. Two weeks before Iraq we had confirmation there were no WMD

via the UN Weapons inspectors on site inspections of every possible WMD site.

With ISIS, we have acknowledgement from every country in the region that ISIS is a problem including Syria.

So no, not the same. Is it technically still against international law? Yes. But in terms of comparison, it's like the difference between 2nd degree assault and 1st degree murder.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/syria-offers-to-help-fight-isis-but-warns-against-unilateral-air-strikes

[HERVEPA]

30. Stop making sense

Don't you know that the U.S. is Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Pol Pot combined.
The isolationist crap on here drives me crazy.
And yes, I know the Iraq war previously was wrong.

[stevenleser]

32. Yeah I've got this problem that I prefer facts & analysis to conspiratorial & nationalistic ravings

Some folks just can't get out of the way of their anti-US negative nationalism.

[sabrina 1]

31. ISIS IS the Iraq Invasion extended. It was predicted that the destabilization of Iraq and Syria

and all of the ME, (according to Ledeen that was the plan, to 'destabilize the entire region') using FEAR and PR Corporations like the Rendon Group eg, to 'sell the war/fear' to do so, would result in exactly what is happening. Perhaps you weren't around back then.

This is nothing more than the continuation of the neocon war criminals', still not in jail where they belong, dream. Same old propaganda, we fund them, in Libya and in Syria, or perhaps we let our 'proxies', as Hillary calls the 'boots on the ground' from our allied Dictatorships in the region, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia do the actual transfer of funds, in order to destabilize Syria, one of the SEVEN COUNTRIES on the Neocon list. Assad has been fighting these 'rebels' as we called them. Now it appears it all got out of control and we find ourselves in a position of trying to decide whether to HELP the guy we are trying to topple, or help the 'rebels' by staying away from it, or maybe try to do both.

Either way, WAR is the ANSWER, isn't it? More bombs, more contracts for the MIC.

All of it is part of the original PNAC plan for the ME and anyone who went along with it is responsible for all of it.

Just defund them, or tell our friends over there who are helping with the funding, that they need to stop funding on their own or our behalf. And leave the rest up to the regional countries who actually LIVE there.

Why are we there btw? We have problems right here at home and no money to resolve them. We can't afford to be there. We failed, period, maybe on purpose, to 'end terror' with bombs. We created more terror, which was certainly in line with the neocon dream. Start prosecuting the criminals, stop spending money on failed policies, and stop killing people in foreign countries and hopefully they will have no reason to hate us. They certainly aren't attacking Iceland eg.

[malaise]

35. 100% correct

We created more terror, which was certainly in line with the neocon dream.

Start prosecuting the criminals, stop spending money on failed policies, and stop killing people in foreign countries and hopefully they will have no reason to hate us.

That simple

[HERVEPA]

37. Not that simple

Answer this please. Do you have any problem with what ISIS is doing?

[malaise]

39. Who is ISIS?

I don't know what they're doing - I have only heard what the West says they are doing?
I once heard about Al Qaeda in Iraq and that was all lies. Forgive me for not trusting much these days.

Look if the people of the Middle East choose to oppose Western Invaders - cool. I'd support anyone in the West defending their region from outsiders.

I do have severe problems with the US and Western role in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Physician heal thyself! No country that treats its minorities the way America treats African-American should speak to anyone else about human rights, freedom or democracy.

I'm fed up - sorry - enough of the fugging hypocrisy.

[Blue_Tires]

36. Someone should tell the Israelis that they're breaking international law:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486

[malaise]

38. But who has the moral authority to do so

When they're all breaking international law