[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Despite Mainstream Panic, US Consumer Price Inflation Tumbles To Lowest In Over 4 Years

Big Pharma Whistleblower Found Dead After Confirming Ivermectin Cures Cancer

Store nothing in plastic

Black Nurse Claims She Kills White Patients on Facebook

BOOM…😂😂😂

Eric Church - Drink In My Hand

Lower Bloood Pressure

Dozens of Afrikaners arrive to Dulles with refugee status, sparking outrage

"Absurd Conspiracy": French Media Rushes To Quash Claims Macron, Merz & Starmer Caught Hiding Cocaine On Kiev-Bound Train

Mark Dice: Blsck Fatigue

How to Get Enough Polyphenols for Life Extension

Celgene charges $1,000 for cancer drug that costs 25 cents to make

DERELICTION OF DUTY: Chief Justice John Roberts Admits Its His Job to Rein in the Judicial Insurrectionand Hes Not Doing It

SHOCKING Share of Adults ADMIT Fentanyl Use!

All 6 US B-2 stealth bombers have departed Diego Garcia Airbase in the Indian Ocean and returned to the United States.

Trump official who is taking over DOGE from Elon Musk revealed... and Democrats will be furious

DNC official reveals how Democrats spent $2 billion trying to trick Americans

MSNBC Admits Their Rumor About Kash Patel and Nightclubs Is A Misstatement

I Had No Idea It Could Be So Expensive Not To Build Anything

Spike Proteins Are Being Found in Stroke Victims Brains Up to 17 Months After Being Vaxxed

FIVE childhood vaccines ALL test positive for glyphosate

America is Under Siege – 233 Federal Cases Against Trump – Larry Klayman

Must be 21+ to dine inside Franconia Road McDonald's |

U.S., China Reach Agreement To Lower Tariffs In 90-Day Cool-Off Period

African Woman Protects Herself from Muggers

Cafe Owner Kicked Israelis out. Then This happened

The True COST of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION explained - Edward Dowd

People are just starting to understand the economic impact of illegal migration on an economy.

Freight Fraud, Cargo Theft, Deadly Collisions - Ghost Carriers Are Growing National Security Threat

Hamas To Release American-Israeli Hostage As Goodwill Gesture To Trump


Ron Paul
See other Ron Paul Articles

Title: Congress Needs to Oppose Trump’s Illegal War in Syria
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.theamericanconservative. ... e-trumps-illegal-war-in-syria/
Published: Jan 25, 2018
Author: DANIEL LARISON
Post Date: 2018-01-25 06:42:15 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 239
Comments: 2

Sen. Cory Booker and Oona Hathaway call out Trump for planning to keep U.S. troops in Syria indefinitely:

But the president doesn’t have the power to unilaterally make the decision to commit American troops to stop Mr. Assad by force. He needs to make his case to Congress and the American people, as well as the international community. Inserting American troops into this situation on his own is not just bad policy, it is illegal under both the Constitution and international law.

It is encouraging to see some more opposition to Trump’s illegal war in Syria. Booker and Hathaway are correct that what Trump proposes to do (and what he’s already doing) in Syria breaks the law. The 2001 AUMF has been distorted and abused to cover a multitude of unnecessary wars over the last sixteen years, but there is no way that the administration can hide behind it this time.

Booker and Hathaway’s op-ed would have been much stronger if they had emphasized that the U.S. military presence in Syria has been illegal from the start. Whatever one wants to say about the war on ISIS inside Iraq, the U.S. had no right to expand it into Syria. The U.S. had no right to put troops inside Syria without the permission of their government, and it still doesn’t. The U.S. has been trampling on international law in Syria for over three years. The difference now is that Trump is proposing to continue doing so without having the fig leaf of counter-terrorism to cover it up.

The authors’ conclusion is correct:

For several decades now, Congress has gradually ceded its war authority to the executive branch. If it does not act now, it may lose what authority remains. Congress has to attend to its constitutional duties: Our troops and their families deserve a public debate over the precise scope of their mission if we’re asking them to put their lives on the line.

Congress must tell the president he cannot engage our troops in an illegal war in Syria. To allow this blatantly illegal action would spell the end of congressional authority over war.

The danger in allowing Trump’s illegal war in Syria to go ahead uncontested is not just that it will let an incompetent president commit the U.S. to an open-ended mission in a devastated and war-torn country without authorization or debate, but that it will mean the president can ensnare the U.S. in wars of his choosing without any involvement from Congress. You may not care about what Trump is doing in Syria today, but you will care about what he or some other president chooses to do with this usurped authority elsewhere.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

Congress will never oppose any war in the middle east, congress is doing what jew lands wants.

Darkwing  posted on  2018-01-26   9:15:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Ada (#0) (Edited)

Whatever one wants to say about the war on ISIS inside Iraq, the U.S. had no right to expand it into Syria. The U.S. had no right to put troops inside Syria without the permission of their government, and it still doesn’t. The U.S. has been trampling on international law in Syria for over three years. The difference now is that Trump is proposing to continue doing so without having the fig leaf of counter-terrorism to cover it up.

UN coup-like contrivance as a warfare authorization-substitute (aided and abetted by errant presumptions that it has "supremely higher power" for officializing attempted detours around the U.S. Congress, Parliaments and other national law assemblies):


1. Responsibility to Protect/R2P/RtoP - Wikipedia

a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. [Note: This is the long under-reported SJW/"Social Justice" Warring scheme which was "customized"/"normalized" at the United Nations to be used routinely as if a legalistic "mobile security systems" licensing for its UNPROFOR "Protection Forces"/"Peacekeeping" missions aka foreign military invasions of sovereign countries -- US&NATO forces similarly but more high-tech to selectively disarm/abolish/"restructure" whatever rulers/governments/nations that they and/or Israel/etc. happen to revile -- so as to "customarily" evade UN codifications against wars of aggression, forcible regime change, territorial expansion by conquest/loss of territory to invaders and such. Precursors: NATO Operation Deliberate Force [1995] || Operation Mistral 2 [1995] || NATO bombing of Yugoslavia [1999] - the second major combat operation in its history, following the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council.]

The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations. The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.

The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort. The United Nations Secretary-General has published annual reports on the Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures available to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity crimes.

The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, for example. It has also been argued that commensurate with the responsibility to protect, international law should also recognize a right for populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect themselves against genocide, [alleged] crimes against humanity and [alleged] war crimes on a massive scale.


Another ongoing but under-reported custom/norm/lawsmithing aspect of the "War is Peace and Systemic Security" works-in-process by the UN/US&NATO/Et Al. Consolidated (e.g. MIC/Military Industrial Complexicons and so on) re: Syria and globally:


2. Hot pursuit - Wikipedia

(also known as fresh or immediate pursuit) refers to the urgent and direct pursuit of a criminal suspect by law enforcement officers, or by belligerents under international rules of engagement for military forces. Such a situation grants the officers in command powers they otherwise would not have. [See also: Exigent circumstance - Wikipedia]

The participating states at the League of Nations Codification Conference of 1930 broadly agreed on the validity of the right of hot pursuit, but the proposed convention on territorial waters in which it was included was never ratified. It was finally codified as Article 23 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas in 1958.

The Geneva Convention on the High Seas was eventually folded into the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [Due to Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention]. Article 111 of the latter treaty grants a coastal state the right to pursue and arrest ships escaping to international waters, as long as: [List at the site]

some have proposed translating the maritime right of hot pursuit into a comparable right to pursue criminals over land borders. Although it does not form a settled tenet of international law, the principle has been invoked by the United States regarding Taliban militants crossing into Pakistan, by Turkey regarding its attacks on Kurdistan Workers Party bases in northern Iraq, and by Colombia regarding its raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia camp in Ecuador, which led to the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis.


3. Would US have right of hot pursuit in Syria? - The Seattle Times | September 23, 2014

International law authorizes military action if a nation can show it is acting in self-defense. But even recognizing that nations have repeatedly invoked their self-interest in striking at opposing forces across borders, legal experts said there is no governing international legal code that recognizes a reflexive right of hot pursuit on land.

Temple University law professor and international law authority Peter J. Spiro said the hot-pursuit doctrine is well-established in criminal law, used to justify U.S. law enforcement pursuit of an armed fugitive across state lines. But Spiro added that “without some justification or U.N. National Security Council authorization, any use of force will comprise a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”

There is clearer authority when it comes to pursuit on the sea.


4. UN: Hot Pursuit Laws Needed to Fight Terrorism in West Africa - Voice of America News, voanews.com | March 20, 2015

YAOUNDE — The United Nations is calling on African countries affected by terrorism to draw up legislation to facilitate hot pursuit.

Jean-Paul Laborde, executive director of United Nations counterterrorism committee, said terrorism suspects are escaping because police are not permitted to cross national boundaries without a warrant.

"Of-course there is more to be done not only by the international community but also at the regional level in terms of police cooperation which is already well done among the countries of central Africa. But it is also needed to establish links with the other parts of Africa especially with ECOWAS (Economic Community of West Africa States) and with the countries of this region," said Laborde. [+ Note: An Economic NATO Would Strengthen the U.S. and Europe - widening the NATO umbrella to allies of the Asia Pacific: countries like Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Japan and some other nations outside of NATO's orbit at the present to foster greater global security and economic growth.]

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2018-01-27   13:00:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]