If they were as you describe, they wouldn’t be beheading people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is actually true.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Somewhat ninja’ed, but yeah, pretty much all that.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
Between your insults, I didn’t see your questions. They are wedged in there though.
Here they are:
You don’t need to “beg”. Asking nicely for my views would do. Begging comes off as condescending.
“[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 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.
“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.
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.
What does any of that have to do with international law?
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)?
Again, none of this has anything to international law, or what you asserted earlier which started this exchange.
(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:
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.
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.