# Domestic law, international law, Syria, and us **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432 "2013-08-28T19:34:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/81 "2013-08-30T13:12:41Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Terror War AUMF sez: > > Syria is full of Al Qaeda. Bomb everything and call it a day. Easy peasy. But to do that, the president would have to say that he has determined that this is necessary “…in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Should he do that? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/82 "2013-08-30T16:13:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But to do that, the president would have to say that he has determined that this is necessary “…in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” > > Should he do that? It would depend on how broad a president would read the language. It could be argued that: 1. Chemical weapons are very, very bad. 2. A state that possesses them in the midst of a civil war doesn’t have adequate control. 3. Without adequate control Al-Qaeda could get them 4. Chemical weapon attack on New York QED 1. Use of force is authorized. As a side note, the one congresslady who voted against the AUF on September 12, 2001 said that the language was so broad as to authorize all attacks on anyone into the future. Maybe she was right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/83 "2013-08-30T16:47:59Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It would depend on how broad a president would read the language. It could be argued that: > > 1. Chemical weapons are very, very bad. > 2. A state that possesses them in the midst of a civil war doesn’t have adequate control. > 3. Without adequate control Al-Qaeda could get them > 4. Chemical weapon attack on New York > > QED > > 1. Use of force is authorized. Will this increase or decrease the amount of control that nation has on its very, very bad CWs? ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/84 "2013-08-30T16:52:37Z")
So that ‘international law’ thing, all those ‘UN Resolutions’ and shit. Hey, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/85 "2013-08-30T17:35:59Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Terror War AUMF sez: > > Syria is full of Al Qaeda. Bomb everything and call it a day. Easy peasy. Syria isn’t haboring them, they’re trying to kill them. To intervene under the AUMF, we’d need permission from Syrian Govt and then target al Qaeda, not Assad. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/86 "2013-08-31T13:57:07Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Syria isn’t haboring them, they’re trying to kill them. To intervene under the AUMF, we’d need permission from Syrian Govt and then target al Qaeda, not Assad. Where does it say we need permission from Syria? We didn’t have permission from Pakistan to take out ObL. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/87 "2013-08-31T14:28:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where does it say we need permission from Syria? We didn’t have permission from Pakistan to take out ObL. That operation was not legal in that it violated Pakistan’s sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/88 "2013-08-31T15:02:39Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > That operation was not legal in that it violated Pakistan’s sovereignty. That’s not what you said, or at least not how I read what you posted. You said that to intervene under the AUMF, we needed a country’s permission. I read that to mean that there was specific wording in the AUMF which you were referring to. But if you’re just invoking a generic “it’s illegal” statement concerning international law, then I’ll just have to say it never stopped us before. Who is going to arrest us? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/89 "2013-08-31T15:42:33Z")
Gotcha. It’s legal under domestic law, but it still needs to be legal under international law, as the OP suggests. But yea, who cares I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432/90 "2013-08-31T21:47:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > . . . But if you’re just invoking a generic “it’s illegal” statement concerning international law, then I’ll just have to say it never stopped us before. Who is going to arrest us? The Mexican-American War was pretty obviously illegal. Does that mean we have to give California back? If a nation has to give its consent to be invaded for an invasion to be legal, I suggest that there will be remarkably few legal invasions in world history, past or future. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-law-international-law-syria-and-us/667432.md?page=4)