Printable View
As a wise man once said, "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Screw the UN. We've sat on our asses for too long. Let's take control of Assad's chemical weapons, destroy his air defense and air force, and restrict the movement of armor and artillery.
I think that's far, far more than the US/Britain/France are willing to do.
100% agreed. We're likely to see - if anything - just some cruise missiles, possibly a few bombing sorties and some stepped-up weapons shipments. They might even skip the missiles and bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
From what I've read, most of the Syrian military bases have been evacuated, so I'm not even sure how much damage those cruise missiles will do. At least construction workers will be happy.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-...g-to-be,33662/ Serious Onion is serious? :bulb:
I doubt that cruise missile strikes on fixed targets are likely to significantly degrade their ground operational capability - armor, artillery, infantry. But I do think that many 'infrastructure' and command and control sites can hurt the regime in other ways. I'm thinking air defense radars and missile installations, runways and hangars, communications, equipment/fuel depots, leadership (e.g. military/intelligence headquarters, Assad's various palaces), etc. Total loss of life is likely to be relatively low, as is the damage to the Assad regime's ability to prosecute a successful war against the rebels. That would require a far more intrusive air campaign that is highly unlikely to actually occur. It would, however, further degrade Assad's capabilities in a conventional war (potentially paving the way for future interventions?) and be a significant blow to their egos. Don't know how much that's worth, but it might be worthwhile if just to honor the explicit US threat to attack if Assad uses chemical weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I honestly don't see the US et al doing anything substantive to change the war. It's frustrating to me, but I do recognize the dilemma policymakers are in, and it's easy for me to advocate for a much more significant military intervention when I'm not the person who will have to deal with the consequences.
Meh, I wonder if Joe Biden will call for the impeachment of the President if he takes action against Syria without congressional approval like he threatened against another President if that one took action against Iran without congressional approval...
Does that include weapons inspectors and their conclusions? What's the point of UN Security Council resolutions if they're basically ignored? If the UN is considered a toothless and maligned political body....do they play a role in "International Law" at all? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Cameron's comments included 'waiting for UN inspections to conclude' before making a decision, and Parliament nixed the idea of an allied coalition intervention (but at least they returned from their vacations for an emergency session --- something US congress isn't likely to do, even though some are asserting that no military intervention would be "legal" without their prior approval). :rolleyes:
My question: When politicians say they expect events to "abide by International Laws" (not just norms) what does that actually mean, especially if it excludes the UN, on the intervention side? After it's been agreed that a regime using chemical weapons on their own civilians is breaking Geneva conventions or International Laws....what comes in-between that....and being tried for War Crimes at the Hague?
Which SC resolutions are being ignored?
As for the legal angle, countries tend to grasp at any straw they can find. Virtually no jurist would agree that an attack against Syria would be legal. Having said that, international legality isn't always the best standard for judging international actions.
Initial security council resolutions said (basically) that chemical weapons were used, in violation of "International Law"...but stopped short of naming Assad, or making any recommendations. The inference was that UN inspectors could collect enough scientific data, and Intelligence agencies could collect corroborating (or conflicting) data....and form a comprehensive and clearer picture of the situation that would benefit the decision-makers. Right?
Anyway, I'm not asking how countries manage to call military interventions 'legitimate', even if they're not technically 'legal'. That's politics. I'm asking who (which agencies) determines what we generally call "International Law"? They apparently outline a number of violations....so where are the corresponding "International Laws" that outline interventions? :confused:
There were no such resolutions. You're confusing informal statements by individual countries with formal resolutions authorized by the SC. The UN inspector thing is a total gimmick; they don't even have a mandate to assign guilt (their mission is to figure out whether chemical weapons were used).
There's customary international law and treaty international law. The former is created on the basis of practice. The latter requires countries to sign off on specific treaties/conventions (including the UN Charter). There's no legal support for attacking someone without SC approval except in self-defense from either angle.
Edit: highly likely the attack will commence before the weekend ends.
Any action won't include the UK. Apparently intelligence that Iraq has WMD > Footage showing the after effects of Syria not just having but actually using WMD for some people. Partisan ****s :rolleyes:
International law is basically the law of the sandbox; the strongest always is right in the absence of an independent arbiter. Which in my mind means that any claim that somebody is acting in accordance with or in violation of international law in cases where there is no unanimous SC resolution is blowing smoke out of his ass. Is a military strike against international law if the SC doesn't say so? I very much doubt that could be answered with a solid yes. People who talk about International Law too often forget that we still lack a World Government.
As for intervention in Syria; I am against it. The fact that Assad is a murderous asshole shouldn't make us blind to the fact it is outright against our own interests that the Syrian rebels come to power. We can't win by putting our dog in this fight.
Hazir, you're conflating being supported by international law and being punished for violating it. The great powers do have a major role in creating IL, but they also violate it quite frequently. Your problem is with them not getting punished for those violations (a legitimate argument).
And I think you're being wildly optimistic about what an intervention will accomplish. It's certainly not going to lead to Assad's overthrow.
I think I am not; international law as far as I am concerned is (with the possible exception of intra-national law in the EU) nothing more than a bunch of rules that don't mean very much if there's nobody with a both legitimate and legal big stick around to enforce them. I don't see anybody in that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am also not wildly optimistic about the results of an intervention. I think though that any intervention can only weaken the regime. And I'd rather not throw away these old shoes before we know if the new shoes won't be a lot worse.
Whether a law exists and whether it's regularly enforced are not the same thing. There are laws against jay-walking in the US, but those laws are very rarely enforced. It doesn't mean that it's legal to jay-walk.
The more this drags on, the lower the possibility of Assad being replaced by someone reasonable. The more people die, the more radicalized and sectarian the Syrian population will become.
That's what I've been asking you to explain! :confused: UN inspections can't assign guilt, I get that. There's a difference between treaties and 'customary practices', I get that too. But why do nations' leaders/politicians keep using the term "Law" or "legal" when there's such an ambiguous or subjective definition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's why I'm confused about the terminology. Why did France say Assad's regime should be held legally and morally accountable? If the legal outline for attacking someone comes from SC....except in cases of self-defense....it seems a manipulation of "self-defense" to justify attacks and bypass the UN. Another example of muddy terminology.Quote:
There's no legal support for attacking someone without SC approval except in self-defense from either angle.
Sorry if I was nit-picking, but words and language matter, especially in the space between politics and policy, and military strikes. I won't bother to extend the tangent into what's been done to mangle and confuse the term WAR -- War on Terrorism, War Powers, Acts of War, etc. but that bothers me, too. :(
They might want him to be tried at the ICC for war crimes some time in the future?
If that's the goal, would western military intervention lead to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
No, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.
Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around this in real time. News reports make it sound like a military strike is a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of timing and/or going it alone without an allied coalition, international (or possibly US congressional) approval?
Too many conflicting "goals" being bandied about. While the Humanitarian reason sounds good, it's also a hypocritical cherry-picking that makes me skeptical (regarding outrage over chemical weapons use that went unchallenged in Viet Nam, the 80's, and many times since).
Where's the chess game analysis of three moves ahead....and how unintended consequences could lead the entire region to literally explode? Where's the butt honest debate about "national interests" that seems like code for warning Iran or Pakistan about their nuclear weapons...or is it really about protecting the 'image' of the US as a military superpower, retaining influence over the region, and/or trying to 'prove' something to Russia ahead of the G-8? :bulb:
"War fatigue is no reason to back away from our responsibility", says Sec of State Kerry. Really? Why is it always a US "responsibility" to intervene across the globe....when we're barely out of Iraq and still engaged in Afghanistan? The US has a military presence, with military bases all over the world, and at some point it's either unsustainable or just stupid.
:cry:
Because legality has a lot of meaning at the domestic level in Western countries. Western leaders try to gain domestic legitimacy by cloaking their international actions in terms the public will understand. Also, it's less bad to make a bad legal argument for some international action than to make no argument at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
See above. What Hollande is saying is that Syria should be held morally accountable for what it did, but morality is an ambiguous term, while the French public will understand the concept of legality.Quote:
That's why I'm confused about the terminology. Why did France say Assad's regime should be held legally and morally accountable? If the legal outline for attacking someone comes from SC....except in cases of self-defense....it seems a manipulation of "self-defense" to justify attacks and bypass the UN. Another example of muddy terminology.
The most convincing legal argument I've heard on this topic is that by punishing Syria for using WMD, the US might start to bring about an enforcement mechanism in customary international law for those violating the chemical/biological use convention. That doesn't change the legality of the current US actions though.
Thanks for making the attempt to explain, Loki. :)
IMO, Legality shouldn't just be a "concept", with vague or ambiguous definitions like Morality. That's a misuse of, and disservice to, what Law or Legal technically means. It bothers me that western nations claim to honor the "Rule of Law" as a bedrock of democracy, but conflate the terminology for domestic vs international issues. Leaders might be using terms the public will understand, to gain legitimacy and support, but a synonym is "political propaganda".
Our world's nations and political "agencies" don't reach consensus on terminology, either. As Hazir said, we don't have a "world government". Anyway, no need to continue the rhetorical tangent ;) Let's get back to the immediacy of Syria.....
Don't forget that our domestic legal system is also one that's based on custom. Many things are legal or illegal based on precedents, not changes in underlying laws.
The law that never is enforced has ceased being a law. Keeping an expired law on the books is actually undermining the legitimacy of other laws still being enforced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As for the replacement of Assad, we have long left behind the point where he could be replaced by a reasonable alternative. As things stand now, we can't win anything by getting embroiled in a civil war.
Because none of us have a better short metaphor for what international "law" actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical WeaponsAttack |
Infowars akaDarya
August 30, 2013 -Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack - Militants tell APreporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident
Syrian rebels in theDamascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist DaleGavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incidentwhich western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing thatthe casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandlingchemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerousinterviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and theirfamilies….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via theSaudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible forcarrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.
Rebels told Gavlakthat they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons oreven told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initiallysupposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/19935
I find it amusing to see Barack Obama and John Kerry being racist Bushitlers and flouting the UN Security Council. HOW DARE THEY. There's a million people marching against this in Berlin and London, right?
I somewhat admire Obama's new stance of trying to get Congressional authorization to make a military strike. Then again, he's not articulating a policy about when we should be getting authorization for such a strike. When is a military intervention so big it requires authorization? Also, a lot of time is now being wasted that is giving Assad an undoubtable strategic advantage.
One can't help but wonder if part of Obama wants the Syria vote to fail in Congress so that he can establish a new, less interventionist standard for future presidents who will have to confront a Democratic base pining for the "good old days" when Barack Obama got a vote for every mid- to upper-tier military strike.
So with Jihadis from all over the Middle-East, including some the US fought in Iraq and probably Afghanistan too, flocking into Syria to fight against the Syrian government -which is propped with costly support from Iran and supported by Hezbollah boots on the ground - a very cynical take on this civil war might find a benefit to the West in a protracted and bloody conflict. Certainly the harm to civillians is appalling, but neither combatant side is a freind to the West now, nor is the victor likely to be a freind to the West going forward. Leaving aside the potential for the war to spread to neighboring allies like Turkey, Jordan or Israel, how horrible is it to contemplate such a thing as beneficial?
And at Dread - Obama's in a pickle. Clearly he doesn't want to get involved in the war in pretty much any way but after Assad called his bluff he feels like he has too. So if Congress says no, what's a president to do? And if you're right, and he is looking to establish some kind of precedent where Congress goes back to tying the war-making hands of the Executive, this is a good way to do it. A win win I think....
You're missing another angle: we're creating another generation of jihadis. It's one thing to have a few thousand roving jihadis and quite another when the civil war creates hundreds of thousands of new jihadis.
My problem with that is we already have the War Powers resolution, which authorizes the president to use military force for 60 days before needing to go to Congress. And here we now have Congress authorizing the President to use force for...60 days. Is this exercise really going to change anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I think I prefer the precedent where we don't give dictatorships two weeks notice to move their chemical weapons and other strategic assets. :(
The reason for getting Congressional support is that if something goes wrong, Congress shares the blame. On the one hand, it's pretty self-interested. On the other hand, it makes sure that the US is able to do what needs to be done without politics getting too strongly in the way.
The War Powers Act is only legit for imminent national threats and/or self-defense. That's so POTUS, as Commander in Chief, can order Acts of War in an emergency, prior to congress convening to authorize a Declaration of War. At least that's how I understand its original intent. Am I wrong? :noob:
That's not to say there hasn't been an expansionary creep of that (especially after 9/11) with a fudging of the term "War", that isn't/can't be directed at a particular nation-state in the "War on Terrorism". Isn't that how Bush/Obama administrations were able to use the CIA for covert missions and drone attacks?
It allows the president to engage in military action that doesn't involve "combat-ready" troops over a period of less than 90 days. Even if the president does send "combat-ready" troops, he only has to notify Congress, not obtain its permission. Only after 90 days does Congress have the ability to abort the mission by refusing to fund it (which it would rarely do in practice).
I notice you didn't use the term "War" anywhere in that post. :p
There's a paradoxical dilemma here, with Obama/Kerry/Hagel saying this is not War. Not in the 'traditional' sense of War. But Joint Chief Dempsey said this would be an Act of War, the UNSC head honcho basically agreed....and many in congress see it the same way. War. Technically, constitutionally, only congress can declare, approve, or fund War. Correct?
War has various legal implications that everyone tries to avoid. I can't really think of any declarations of war from any country since WWII, though I suppose there might have been 1 or 2.
Did the US officially declare Viet Nam a War, since the draft was instituted? (I don't really remember the details.) Anyway, don't you think it's about time we reined in the definitions and "legal" implications of War...since we've already been engaged in two simultaneously, that's dragged on for over ten years? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The US hasn't declared war since WWII.
Technically speaking, we're not involved in any wars right now. We're on the side of the government in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think that's a symptom of a larger, more complicated problem that we should tackle. Veterans from Korea and Viet Nam would definitely say they fought in Wars. Any soldier deployed from Desert Storm to today would say the same thing...as does the DoD, VA, VFW, and Arlington cemetery. No one's fooled by the terminology gymnastics, or technical loopholes. We've been at War or in War, several times since WWII. After 9/11, we 'declared' a War on Terrorism....a perpetual state of War...in perpetuity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, it's a "problem" that you weren't aware of until now and certainly not an issue that needs urgent addressing.