Posted on 08/28/2013 7:53:51 AM PDT by xzins
The Obama administration is right to be caution about US intervention in Syria. For the US to launch a military strike without UN Security Council sanction would constitute an illegal 'act of war' against a sovereign state. (The Kosovo precedent cannot make an illegal act legal).
Awkwardly, reality is rather different: There has been absolutely no evidence published to support the allegation that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces were responsible for this latest, or any other gas attack in Syria.
Unwelcome as it may be to certain European and regional governments, who have been cheerleading the case for American intervention, neither the Russians nor the Chinese, both of whom are well represented on the ground in Syria, have believed either the earlier US finding of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian security forces or indeed this latest allegation.
On the contrary, Russia previously has given evidence to the UN Security Council to show it has seen opposition forces that have used sarin gas against civilians (echoing the conclusion of Carla del Ponte, the former international prosecutor and current UN commissioner on Syria). And Russian officials state that the latest use of gas was delivered by a homemade missile, fired from a position known to be under opposition control.
Wars are always treacherous in their facts, and for the US to launch a military strike without Security Council sanction (which it will not get) would constitute an illegal “act of war” against a sovereign state – and a crime. (The Kosovo precedent cannot change an illegal act into a legal one).
But more substantially, what might be the outcome of, let us say, a cruise missile fired at a military target in Syria: a rhetorical strike, as it were, rather than a major military intervention?
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
If Obama starts this, I don’t EVER want to heard another Democrat whine about the “Gulf of Tonkin” nor any of Bush’s “illegal wars” ever again....
LBJ, a democrat, was president that set up the Gulf of Tonkin.
“US is signatory to the UN Charter which gives to the UN the responsibility to verify and enforce violations of international law regarding war. That was what made Bosnia illegal, but didn’t stop us there or in Iraq.”
Treaties have the force of federal law and do not trump the Constitution. What made Bosnia illegal was the lack of a Congressional Declaration of War, not anything the UN did/does.
Get your head straight.
I know but they keep bring that up as if it was an Republican.
They wish to pretend Vietnam was an Republican war(Nixon) while Lincoln and all Civil Rights were the ideas of Democrats..
It’s part of their topsy tirvy viewpoint of American History
My head is on straight. I’m addressing the international arena and their agreement that both of those wars were “illegal”.
Now, in terms of the US Constitution, those wars were not fought with declarations of war. Bosnia never even received congressional authorization, iirc. Iraq, on the other hand, did.
Had Iraq been merely a reprisal rather than a 10 year adventure, I would have agreed that the “letter of authorization” would match the constitutional “Letter of Reprisal.”
“I’m addressing the international arena and their agreement that both of those wars were “illegal”.”
As I am as well. Acting in the “international arena” doesn’t free American politicians from the constraints of the Constitution, unless we allow it.
And no, the UN doesn’t have the responsibility for investigating and assigning responsibility under the Constitution. Only Congress may:
“...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...”
Note the words “define” and “punish”. In addition, as I have already pointed out, the UN Treaty does not trump the Constitution.
That’s all well and good, but I’m saying that the UN critters said our attacks were illegal based on their rules.
Were they illegal? Only if you use their rules.
“That’s all well and good, but I’m saying that the UN critters said our attacks were illegal based on their rules.”
The UN says a lot of things. Remember, the UN majority is made up of totalitarian dictatorships. These nations have no legitimacy to rule over their own countries, let alone us. All nations ignore or embrace the UN as suits them. This is an historical fact.
Using their rules, what do you conclude?
My oath is to the Constitution of the United States.
Your original statement that I sought to correct was, “[the]UN [has] the responsibility to verify and enforce violations of international law regarding war.” based on the UN Charter.
This I did providing very specific examples and you dismissed the Constitution as, “All well and good.” There’s not much else to say after that.
Maybe the better question for you is, why do you believe the UN Charter trumps the US Constitution? Provide specific examples, please.
The discussion isn’t about us. It’s about them.
But that’s ok. This discussion really isn’t important anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.