Posted on 09/04/2013 7:56:10 AM PDT by opentalk
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization, remarks that appear to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. backing.
He also suggested that a U.S. attack could lead to further turmoil in conflict-ravaged Syria, where the United Nations says over 100,000 people have been killed in the country's 2-1/2-year civil war.
Ban was speaking to reporters after President Barack Obama won the backing of two top Republicans in Congress in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
"The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter and/or when the Security Council approves of such action," Ban said. "That is a firm principle of the United Nations."
Obama said on Saturday he was "comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.reuters.com ...
I am against attacking Syria.
That being said, Screw the UN. We don’t have to ask you for permission.
” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization, remarks that appear to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. backing.”
I must have missed that in the constitution. I thought I read that congress has that authority.
Funny that this douchebag is still pretending to be relevant.
My gawd, even the UN - a pinnacle of ineptness, corruption, and stupidity - has turned on the Obamadork.
This is a true indication that on the scale of abilities, the dork lives in a subterranean level below the zero line.
Heh, I really love this.
When those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage, how can this happen in this modern world.
Well, it happened because a Government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.
“So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.
The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.
I do think that we have to act because if we don't we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity and those international norms begin to erode."
–President Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama, Junior
Took the words right out of my mouth.
According to the U.N. he is correct.
Meanwhile, back in America...
I keep hearing that the War Powers Act allows a U.S. President to do anything he wants militarily for any reason at all, for a certain number of days.
What say you, FReepers?
Now mind you, even if that were true, since he asked for Congress to approve, Congress could still say “NO APPROVAL”!
Then it would be up to Obama whether to go ahead or not.
Apparently when it comes to whatever Obama wants, Congress is too gutless.
Funnier by the minute!
Reagan’s biggest mistake.
I’m thinking the Vatican will see it similarly and conscientious objection could be in the works for those not wanting to be BO’s mercenaries, something they didn’t sign up for
Violence never solved anything.
Those of a certain persuasion, anyway
The War Powers Act gives the president 90 days to act without congress, but it requires an immediate threat. Doesn’t apply here.
I would like to see the squares you have to check to determine our sovereignty has been threatened, war powers act is so easily abused.
That's really not what the War Powers Act says, but that's the way it's been used since it was passed. The Act actually says the President cannot act without Congress' approval (except for limited cases such as an attack on US soil) but if he should somehow find himself embroiled in one, he has 30 (or is it 60?) days to get Congressional approval or he must withdraw forces as quickly as possible while not compromising the troops' safety.
Needless to say, it's been abused since day 1.
Yes, we should leave that sorry excuse for an organization asap.
We don’t have to ask you for permission.
Until we formally leave it and cancel the treaty, I am sorry to say that we DO. We ratified the treaty so it is the law and the charter is quite clear. IOW, if congress passes the authorization, we will be in violation of the treaty and our soldiers will be carrying out illegal orders.
GWII, it can be argued, was carried out iaw the previous resolutions of the security council regarding Iraq (GWI) - at least that was the justification used and nobody has called the US out on it.
You see, the leftists did know what they we taking about regarding UN Approval - they are simply choosing now to IGNORE it, just as they did with Libya and Kosovo.
I must have missed that in the constitution. I thought I read that congress has that authority.
Not according to Kerry! But I have align with the we need to stay out of it crowd, but FU U.N.
Article 6:
...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
...
UN Charter, Article 2:
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.
CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION - details the only acceptable way ...
We ratified it, and as long as we stay in it, we are bound by it ...
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.