# US bombing in Syria - how is it justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246 "2014-09-11T23:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**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:** [September 25, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/101 "2014-09-25T13:32:11Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > IMHO, If ISIS were a typical, half-way secular or nationalist or even, a moderate form of Islam, no one would think of it as worth bombing or corralling. The beheadings and reports of religious based atrocities, extreme treatment of all prisoners, etc. etc. are what turned the ‘world’ against ISIS. If they were as you describe, they wouldn’t be beheading people. > [@](#): > > What seems counterintuitive is the attraction these atrocious acts seems to have for second or third generation Arabs/Muslims in other countries, trying to return to the area to join…ISIS says, themselves, that the beheading videos are ‘recruiting’ propaganda… I don’t really understand why. It doesn’t, doesn’t it. I guess there is always going to be some small subset of any group that will be attracted to that sort of propaganda. We’re probably talking about \< 0.01% of the 2nd and 3rd generation kids. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/102 "2014-09-25T14:06:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > ISIS is not a sovereign state and has no capability to wage war against the US. Syria is the internationally recognized government with sovereignty over the land called “Syria”. If we want to bomb Syria, we are doing so against international law. Why do you think no other Wester Democracy is joining us in this effort? Obama has even stated that ISIS is not an imminent threat to the US. It was the Bush Doctrine that said we didn’t need to be under imminent threat in order to wage war. I’m surprised to see so many people here support that doctrine just because it’s Obama doing it. It is kind of sticky, I admit. But, the Taliban’s Afghanistan wasn’t really a state either- they acquired a lot of territory through conquest and controlled it by force, just like ISIS, and when Bush Jr. attacked them, it was generally accepted as an appropriate response. Now, we were going after the people who attacked us on 9/11, along with the guys who ‘harbored’ them. But again, ISIS is attacking our allies, destabilizing the region and carving out their own state from land they conquer. To say we’re bombing Syria is a little inaccurate- Syria is in a multi-party civil war and has lost control of large regions of their country. In our own Civil War, the South was treated as a separate nation and attacked as such. ISIS territory developed differently, but all the same it is under their control and not Assad’s. Do we need the UN to recognize them before we blow them up? Anyway, while ISIS may not be an immanent threat to the US, the other group we bombed there, Khorasan or whatever it is, was claimed to be- we’ll have to evaluate the truth of those claims later, but there ya go. And speaking for me personally, I don’t think it is a matter of “Obama’s doing it” that causes me to support it. Frankly, I only support it on the condition that Congress raise the revenue to pay for it, but otherwise, yes. But I also approved of Bush Jr. attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan- at the time, it seemed like we were going after our assailants. Left unchecked, ISIS is going to perpetrate incredible atrocities, besides threatening our interests along with regional/world stability. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/103 "2014-09-25T16:25:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > These two statements are simply made out of whole cloth. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and I question whether you’ve read the thread at all. I’ve cited the relevant international law on this situation. I regret that you find my opinion agreeing with your result offensive. You’ve cited the “Caroline affair” and the UN Articles. The Caroline affair is not international law, it is an incident. The UN Articles are. They do not grant general permission to bomb deep in sovereign territory. And if Syria wants to complain about being bombed and treat it as an act of war, they can. I pointed out that they probably wouldn’t. Just as the constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war, Congress has, by the War Powers Act, unconstitutionally in my personal opinion, ceded it to the President. Obama’s televised speech isn’t Congressional approval. Not that any President since FDR has asked for a declaration of war. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Uh, so what? Again, I’m responding to the question of what is the international legal justification for the U.S. attacking ISIL, not whether its a good thing or not. And it would not be legal to bomb Syria over its objection. Syria hasn’t given permission, and their objections are weak to non-existent. If Syria wanted to, they could protest to whomever they wanted that it was an act of war, including the UN and Syria’s allies, including Russia. Their level of complainedness here is very slight. But they would be well within their rights to declare war against the US and its allies and it not be determined to be an aggressive war. I’ve an undergraduate degree in political science with the major areas of study being international relations (and also political philosophy and a degree in law which isn’t relevant here). The suggestion you’ve made that it is certainly “legal” is in my opinion highly suspect. The actions of nations are rarely ruled on by international tribunals as either legal or illegal, and the US never submits to the jurisdiction of the International Court at the Hague to make such determinations on its actions. At best you have an argument that it is “legal”. The fact is the world hegemon, currently the United States of American, does what the POTUS’ office orders and the rest of us comment about it. Personally I approve of the action as justified, but it is of questionable legality except for the fact that Syria’s complaints about it seem to be insincere and that it really approves. That would make it unquestionably legal. But that doesn’t amount to a determination, it’s an opinion. There are legal bodies like the two chambers of the UN and the International Court at the Hague that could lend weight to legality, but as mentioned, The Hague has no jurisdiction unless the US agrees with an adversary party to such jurisdiction, the US will never agree, and no other party has suggested an agreement to go to Court. The UN has yet to rule, and Congress will have its members issue statements on TV shows. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/104 "2014-09-25T16:49:36Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I regret that you find my opinion agreeing with your result offensive. It isn’t offensive, its just totally wrong. But at least you state it is your opinion, because it sure has nothing to do with facts. > [@](#): > > You’ve cited the “Caroline affair” and the UN Articles. The Caroline affair is not international law, it is an incident. The Caroline Affair is the basis for customary international law on the subject of self-defense. Customary international law, as I’m sure you are aware, is recognized by virtually all nations, international bodies, scholars, and even dilettantes as one of the primary sources of international law. Arguing that the Caroline Affair has no standing in international law is as silly as arguing that Marbury v. Madison has no standing in U.S. law, because that decision is neither incorporated into the Constitution nor was it passed by Congress. It’s a thoroughly silly position to take. > [@](#): > > They do not grant general permission to bomb deep in sovereign territory. Oh, I didn’t realize the UN Charter had a section about bombing deep in soveriegn territory. For that matter, I didn’t realize it had provisions providing geographical limitations on where bombing may permissably occur! Could you cite this part of the Charter, so that both the Secretary General of the UN (whom I quoted earlier) and I can learn more about this? > [@](#): > > And if Syria wants to complain about being bombed and treat it as an act of war, they can. This is actually true. > [@](#): > > Just as the constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war, Congress has, by the War Powers Act, unconstitutionally in my personal opinion, ceded it to the President. Obama’s televised speech isn’t Congressional approval. Not that any President since FDR has asked for a declaration of war. Just as the Constitution, what? Seems like you were going to make a comparison but stopped short. In any case, the Article I power to declare war (or not) has no relevance to international law. > [@](#): > > And it would not be legal to bomb Syria over its objection. Then why did the UN Secretary General make his statement which endorsed the attacks on ISIL? If the US were flagrantly violating the UN Charter and international law, you think he would have said something by now. > [@](#): > > I’ve an undergraduate degree in political science with the major areas of study being international relations (and also political philosophy and a degree in law which isn’t relevant here). Well, huzzah. I have a masters degree in the history of international relations and lots of experience in national security affairs. Shall we pull out the ruler to measure each other’s resumes? The fact is that you’re alleging that international laws prohibit bombing a sovereign country (which they don’t, since the UN Charter and customary international law all protect the right of nations to take self-defense measures against other countries), you’re alleging that bombing is somehow a little more illegal without a declaration of war (which is just pure nonsense, but it is curious how it’s just a smidgen more illegal, rather than a bunch more illegal), and that for some reason bombing “deep” in another country is even more illegal (when there’s no international principle at all on this). As any source will tell you, the basis for self defense (whether individual or collective) in international law has nothing to do with declarations of war or how far a bomber can travel – it has to do with imminence, necessity, and proportionality. It is simply not possible to deny that those are the measures of self-defense in international law – it’s as basic a principle as stating that the US government is divided into three branches. You’re just totally wrong - there’s no other way to say it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/105 "2014-09-25T17:59:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re just totally wrong - there’s no other way to say it. Well, you are mostly wrong. The Secretary General has zero power to approve military actions. Zero. None. The Secretary General is at best a mediator who may speak out: > **[Secretary-General of the United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations)** > > The secretary-general of the United Nations (UNSG or UNSECGEN) is the chief administrative officer of the United Nations and head of the United Nations Secretariat, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations. > The role of the secretary-general and of the secretariat is laid out by Chapter XV (Articles 97 to 101) of the United Nations Charter. However, the office's qualifications, selection process and tenure are open to interpretation; they have been established by custom. > The secr... We all understand that that you think I have got everything “totally” wrong. It is unfortunate that you believe that the Secretary General has the power to approve military action. The SG has no such power. And it is stunningly wrong that you think that the SG has such powers. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/106 "2014-09-25T18:08:17Z")
I didn’t say the SG approves military action. Let’s keep the debate on what I am saying, rather than you inventing positions and assigning them to me, in the same manner as you’re making up international law as you go along. Here’s the fact: that UN Charter explicitly protects the use of force against other countries in both individual and collective self-defense. End of story, it is just that simple. To further bolster that plain reading of the text, the SG endorsed the attacks on ISIL within Syria. If those were a clear violation of the UN Charter or international law, as you bizarrely allege, one would think that the SG would have made even some cautious statements urging the parties to adhere to the law or avoid the use of force. Which Ban has done on many, many other occasions. I’m saying that the SG is the dog that didn’t bark, further showing that you simply have the law wrong. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/107 "2014-09-25T21:40:57Z")
You have no idea what you are talking about. The SG does not get to “endorse” military action as one of his powers or roles. That is the job of the security counsel. He isn’t prohibited from doing so in the same way that a Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco isn’t prohibited from doing so. The fact that you want to “bolster” the claim that there is a clear legality indicates you don’t know what you are talking about, and that you even agree with me on the necessity of the bombing but that there is no clear legalilty. I don’t disagree with the use of force here, but to call it legal, much less clearly legal is wishful thinking. That isn’t the way international law works. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/108 "2014-09-25T21:45:50Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I think you mean it’s the US’s version, and I haven’t really looked at another source. AFAIK, Iran isn’t denying it was asked if it wanted to participate, nor are the other countries. Be kind of silly for the US to lie about that, and pointless too, since it would be easier for us just not to even bother asking. No, I meant what I said. I’ve seen nothing except Iran’s _assertion_ that they were asked to participate and that they declined. Conversely, I haven’t seen US acknowledgement that they asked Iran to participate. All indications I’ve seen is that the US and Iran discussed some ISIL related issues during some sideline talks during the nuclear negotiations. The extent of the US approach was to “deconflict” with Iran and Syria, and to discuss any NON-MILITARY related efforts in common against ISIL. Iran’s purported approach was to dangle vague areas where they would be willing to cooperate/not-interfere in exchange for concessions related to their nuclear ambitions. That was not going to happen. Kerry simply saying that Iran “has a role to play” is stating the blatantly obvious and was standard diplomacy, but it was NOT offering Iran a seat at the coalition’s table. > [@](#): > > I think it was totally true, until I see something indicating that any country asked disagrees. As for permission, it wasn’t about permission…we stated we were going to do this, and asked if other countries wanted to participate. Permission never came into it, so not sure where you are going with that. Before the airstrikes, Syria was openly stating that any military action taken within their borders would be seen as an act of aggression without prior permission and coordination. There’s not a whole lot of daylight between Syria’s and Iran’s positions on these matters. Their bluff was called when the US “compromised” by informing them that we were going to bomb non-regime targets in Syria and it would be a bad day for anyone trying to challenge the coalition forces. That was the “deconflict” approach in action. > [@](#): > > Well, during the first Iraqi war there were nations predominantly Sunni and Shia involved, so it’s not that much of a stretch. Granted, Iran wasn’t involved, but that has more to do with their relationship with the US and with their other neighbors than sectarian religion, per se…and vice versa. I don’t know how the coalition Obama et al are putting together would have reacted if Iran had chosen to join, to be honest, but there were several countries that weren’t exactly bosom buddies that joined the US in the first gulf war, so it’s plausible that it could have happened. Iran chose not to, probably for it’s own good reasons, but this isn’t a subtle or not so subtle demonstration to Iran, and has really nothing to do with them…at least from OUR perspective. They mileage probably does vary, and they see everything in terms of a threat to themselves (and that everything that happens in the region revolves around them), so… That was a long time ago. But when I mentioned the “Sunni Arab” members of the coalition not being keen with Iran’s supposed involvement, I didn’t intend to suggest that their reluctance was entirely sectarian in nature - their are plenty of reasons for their reluctance _in addition to_ the usual sectarian ones. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/109 "2014-09-25T21:49:09Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > It’s damn near impossible to tell what is really going on between the Iranians and the Americans. Are they secretly coordinating, as some sources claim? Or are they plotting against one another even now, using the ISIS crisis for their own ends? > > Most likely, it’s a little bit of both. > > On the one hand, the Americans made sure _not_ to invite the Iranians to that pre-strike buddy-buddy bonding conference in Paris. So there’s a nice hard slap right in the face, to get things started. But ah, on the other hand, Kerry has said Iran has “a role to play” in fighting ISIS; Khameini has claimed that “the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs requested Iran’s help in a recent meeting with Iran’s deputy foreign minister”; [and](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/09/president_obama_s_real_allies_against_isis_america_s_coalition_against_the.html)… > > A local source - mentioned [here](http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/relations-defeating-militants.html) - says that “State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke admitted on Friday that Washington discussed the Iraq situation with Iranian representatives on the margins of the conference about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The two sides talked about the threat ISIL poses.” > > I think what we’re seeing, and will see even more of, is two separate anti-ISIS coalitions, one led by the U.S. and another led by Iran. The U.S. one includes, primarily, states - such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc., etc. The Iranian one includes, primarily, non-state actors such as Iraq’s Shi’ite militias. > > At least two of these - the Asaeb Ahlul-Haq and the Kata’ib Hizballah, both of which consider Khameini their numero uno _marjah_ - have already started sending fighters into Syria, “[to combat Sunni jihadists there alongside the Lebanese Hizballah and Assad’s forces](http://www.rferl.org/content/iraq-islamic-state-iran-coalition/26590629.html).” > > From [here](http://www.rferl.org/content/iraq-islamic-state-iran-coalition/26590629.html): Somewhat ninja’ed, but yeah, pretty much all that. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/110 "2014-09-26T03:04:01Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The SG does not get to “endorse” military action as one of his powers or roles. You’re inserting words that I never said. Can’t you make one post without a straw man? I didn’t say a SG endorsement was a “power” that makes something legal - you just pulled that idea out of thin air. What I said was that if the bombing was illegal, why would the SG endorse it? I beg you to answer two questions: First, what is your cite for your assertion that lack of a declaration of war makes military action somewhat more illegal? Second, what does Article 51 mean to you, particularly the right to collective self-defense, if it doesn’t mean that a country can bomb another country without a UN authorization? I would also like to know why you think bombing “deep” in another country is more unacceptable from a legal perspective, but let’s first focus on my two questions. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/111 "2014-09-26T06:39:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re inserting words that I never said. Can’t you make one post without a straw man? I didn’t say a SG endorsement was a “power” that makes something legal - you just pulled that idea out of thin air. What I said was that if the bombing was illegal, why would the SG endorse it? You are certainly entitled to your own view of what your words mean. The audience that hears them is also entitled to their view of what they mean. You seem to be backtracking and now saying that his endorsement doesn’t mean anything, or perhaps much. He is one politician who has no power to make a determination. His endorsement is what it is. He is not a judge or arbiter in any respect. Perhaps a moderator or mediator, but in those capacities, and he has other capacities, he isn’t really allowed an opinion. His other capacities allow him an opinion. But he isn’t a Court. He is an influential person with whom neither of us disagree on this matter. And the fact that we don’t disagree he has a right to say so, but he has not decision making power makes your assertion that I am “totally wrong” mostly bullshit, unless you too are wrong on this matter, which you decline to admit. What you and I both have is an opinion, not a determination. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/112 "2014-09-26T07:23:48Z")
Obama called ISIS a “network of death” at the UN. Awesome bluntness there. The first Democratic President since Kennedy to tell it like it is about the evil of our enemies. He also said that those who joined ISIL should “leave the battlefield while you can”. Cowboy language! Who are you and what have you done with the President I never liked? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/113 "2014-09-26T14:16:07Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You are certainly entitled to your own view of what your words mean. The audience that hears them is also entitled to their view of what they mean. You seem to be backtracking and now saying that his endorsement doesn’t mean anything, or perhaps much. He is one politician who has no power to make a determination. His endorsement is what it is. He is not a judge or arbiter in any respect. Perhaps a moderator or mediator, but in those capacities, and he has other capacities, he isn’t really allowed an opinion. His other capacities allow him an opinion. But he isn’t a Court. He is an influential person with whom neither of us disagree on this matter. And the fact that we don’t disagree he has a right to say so, but he has not decision making power makes your assertion that I am “totally wrong” mostly bullshit, unless you too are wrong on this matter, which you decline to admit. What you and I both have is an opinion, not a determination. Those are a whole lot of words when you could have simply said, “I don’t have any cites, support, or responses to the two questions you asked.” Way to keep trying to avoid discussing your own silly claims! That whole “attacks are slightly more illegal without a declaration of war” thing is a classic, though! ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/114 "2014-09-26T16:01:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > No, Syria has fallen apart for lots of reasons other than the US. > > You’ll notice the US wasn’t behind the '82 revolution crushed with the Hama massacre. > > Note, I’m not suggesting getting involved in it but Americans have this absurd tendency to blame themselves for every bad thing that happens across the world or claim credit for every good thing that happens. The thing is the US is already involved in it and has been for some time. Without US support, and support of US allies often facilitated by the US, Assad would have crushed the small rebellion easily. The conflict wouldn’t even have reached the point that it could be called a rebellion. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/115 "2014-09-26T17:09:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Those are a whole lot of words when you could have simply said, “I don’t have any cites, support, or responses to the two questions you asked.” Way to keep trying to avoid discussing your own silly claims! > > That whole “attacks are slightly more illegal without a declaration of war” thing is a classic, though! Between your insults, I didn’t see your questions. They are wedged in there though. Here they are: > [@Ravenman](#): > > I beg you to answer two questions: First, what is your cite for your assertion that lack of a declaration of war makes military action somewhat more illegal? Second, what does Article 51 mean to you, particularly the right to collective self-defense, if it doesn’t mean that a country can bomb another country without a UN authorization? You don’t need to “beg”. Asking nicely for my views would do. Begging comes off as condescending. 1. “[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” That means that the US may not take military action, except emergency defensive measures, without the specific approval of Congress. Obama’s could just as easily have given his speech before the assembled chambers and asked for war or the right to reprisal. He did not. He could be impeached for it. Even idiot W asked for authority in Iraq. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_ResolutionThere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_ResolutionThere) have been dozens of times Presidents have done similar acts to Obama’s, and the Congress has done nothing. I think that wrong. Had I been a member of Congress, I would have voted against W doing something in Iraq, but for Obama attacking ISIS. Were I in Congress, understanding the chambers duties are different, I would be compelled to vote for impeachment against Obama for violating the constitution in attacking ISIS. I would have voted for impeachment against Bush for lying us into the Iraq conflict. I’m one of the most partisan members of this board on the side of Democrats, but the Constitution as I see it in good faith is more important to me than that. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, the US servicemen fought back as best they could that day. That was legal. What followed by FDR was a request for a declaration of war before Congress, which was granted. (By the way, FDR was on cocaine at the time used by doctors to open his sinuses. Still legally used in surgeries that way in the US.) In my view, any non-emergency use of force by the US is illegal under US laws, and if the president is in on it (not some crazed maniac acting on his own), it is impeachable. All US actions involving force not authorized by Congress are illegal. 2. “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” That is not authorizing language, it is language on how to construe the charter, putting a presumption on self-defense, and requiring reporting to the security counsel. It requires the Security Council to take up the matter and to maintain or restore international peace and security. ISIS has been going on a while. The Security Council has had plenty of time to make a decision or face gridlock. The countries being attacked by ISIS all have their own rules, which I don’t care about. They can fight back without condemnation from me. But the US has rules and a constitution which I am sworn to uphold, and so is everyone in the government. We all have our failings, but this is on the front burner for the whole nation to see and the whole world. We pontificate about the rule of law, because it is important. But when it comes to our most important source of law, the constitution, we ignore it, setting an example of corruption for everyone. ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/116 "2014-09-26T19:18:30Z")
Are you starting from the assumption that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Because it clearly authorizes the president to act without consent of Congress-- at least for a limited period of time. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/117 "2014-09-26T19:22:32Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > 1. “[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” That means that the US may not take military action, except emergency defensive measures, without the specific approval of Congress. Obama’s could just as easily have given his speech before the assembled chambers and asked for war or the right to reprisal. He did not. He could be impeached for it. Even idiot W asked for authority in Iraq. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_ResolutionThere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_ResolutionThere) have been dozens of times Presidents have done similar acts to Obama’s, and the Congress has done nothing. I think that wrong. Had I been a member of Congress, I would have voted against W doing something in Iraq, but for Obama attacking ISIS. Were I in Congress, understanding the chambers duties are different, I would be compelled to vote for impeachment against Obama for violating the constitution in attacking ISIS. I would have voted for impeachment against Bush for lying us into the Iraq conflict. I’m one of the most partisan members of this board on the side of Democrats, but the Constitution as I see it in good faith is more important to me than that. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, the US servicemen fought back as best they could that day. That was legal. What followed by FDR was a request for a declaration of war before Congress, which was granted. (By the way, FDR was on cocaine at the time used by doctors to open his sinuses. Still legally used in surgeries that way in the US.) In my view, any non-emergency use of force by the US is illegal under US laws, and if the president is in on it (not some crazed maniac acting on his own), it is impeachable. All US actions involving force not authorized by Congress are illegal. What does any of that have to do with international law? > [@](#): > > That is not authorizing language, it is language on how to construe the charter, putting a presumption on self-defense, and requiring reporting to the security counsel. It requires the Security Council to take up the matter and to maintain or restore international peace and security. ISIS has been going on a while. The Security Council has had plenty of time to make a decision or face gridlock. Are you saying that states lose the right to self-defense if the UNSC doesn’t authorize something within some undefined period of time? Because I think it is perfectly clear that individual and collective self-defense is an inherent right of any state, which cannot be abridged if the UNSC fails to act. That’s pretty much the plain reading of that provision. So are you backing off your earlier assertion that it is illegal for a country to attack another country (as I pointed out repeatedly, that is not true, specifically because of this provision)? > [@](#): > > But the US has rules and a constitution which I am sworn to uphold, and so is everyone in the government. We all have our failings, but this is on the front burner for the whole nation to see and the whole world. We pontificate about the rule of law, because it is important. But when it comes to our most important source of law, the constitution, we ignore it, setting an example of corruption for everyone. Again, none of this has anything to international law, or what you asserted earlier which started this exchange. ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/118 "2014-09-26T20:37:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Are you starting from the assumption that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? **Because it clearly authorizes the president to act without consent of Congress-- at least for a limited period of time**. (bolding mine) This is something I’m not clear on and I’ve seen it stated many times - the bolded part of your quote. The President still has to act within the scope of the War Powers Act and doesn’t get a “blank check” to do anything he wants, right? I still think he has to be acting in self-defense of the US border/territory/persons (or with a declaration or statute authorizing force). Only self-defense could conceivably apply, and I’m not sure that applies with ISIS. ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/119 "2014-09-26T21:15:15Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > (bolding mine) > > This is something I’m not clear on and I’ve seen it stated many times - the bolded part of your quote. The President still has to act within the scope of the War Powers Act and doesn’t get a “blank check” to do anything he wants, right? I still think he has to be acting in self-defense of the US border/territory/persons (or with a declaration or statute authorizing force). Only self-defense could conceivably apply, and I’m not sure that applies with ISIS. You could be right in this particular case, but I was responding to a much more general assertion about the powers of the president by **TSS**. Here’s the actual text that applies: > [@](#): > > (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation > The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to > (1) a declaration of war, > (2) specific statutory authorization, or > (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. I think one could easily argue that ISIL has killed Americans and has expressly said it would attack US targets. So the War Powers Resolution could easily provide cover, especially when the president knows Congress isn’t going to do anything about it anyway. But Obama is relying on the 2001 AUMF to go after ISIL, remember. The argument being that they are simply al-Qaeda rebranded. ---
**Author:** ![Pigeater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@Pigeater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pigeater)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/120 "2014-09-26T21:57:11Z")
ISIS terrorists are allowed to operate, live, train, work, and operate oil wells and refineries in Syria. All this happens with the knowledge and blessing of the government and people of Syria. ISIS have beheaded 3 Westerners publicly, not to mention the fact they have killed thousands of Christians and Kurds. That is not 10’s, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS. So I say we kill them all dig a mass grave push them in…fill it with pig manure and let God sort them out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246.md?page=7)