Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[mapuc]

I hope I have misunderstood what the host in the news program said some minutes ago.

Russia and Iran send a warning to USA-Future attacks on Syria will be seen as an attack on their country.

Markus

[Dowly]

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." -The God King Donald Trump, 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633

:haha:

[mapuc]

You may think that Assad will think twice before he commit another Chemical attack on his people- I say he will not, not after Russia and Iran have given him massive support.

We will from now on see more intense bombing against the terrorist and the civilians.

Markus

Edit of my former post #1251

Now I know what have been said- A Danish news paper has a printet version of what this host said before. I have used google translate

"US attack on Syria Friday crossed "red lines", and from now on we will respond to any aggression, says the command center for Russia, Iran and allies, which include Syria and Hezbollah.
"The US aggression against Syria is an excess of red lines. From now on, we will respond with force to any aggression or any excess of red lines - no matter who it is."
"The United States knows our ability to respond strongly again," says the statement, which was issued by the group on the media Ilam al Harbi."

[Nippelspanner]

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." -The God King Donald Trump, 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633

:haha:

Brilliant.
And so sad also.

[Platapus]

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." -The God King Donald Trump, 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633

:haha:

Funny, In a sort of OMG we are totally screwed sort of way

[Jimbuna]

I'm not convinced Trump is the sort of individual who takes well to threats so it may well turn out to see pretty soon which way matters will turn out....pear shaped or otherwise.

[Rockstar]

What I heard last year from the other presidential candidate and her party, confrontation with Russia is good and the direction they wanted to go too. So I reckon those who voted for her should be content with it. Great again!

[Bilge_Rat]

Although the US is not especially interested in such technicalities, it would be interesting to learn of the legalities of this airstrike.

difficult to answer, since international law and even U.S. Constitutional law is in a grey area.

Under international law, an act of war is only valid if:

1. it is expressly authorized by the UN; or

2. it is done in self-defense.

Obviously the Syria strike does not fit either category and would seem to be illegal.

However, there is also a growing consensus in the international community that there is also a "duty to protect" civilians from the actions of their own government which would mean that the Strike could be legal.

Under the U.S. Constitution, POTUS derives his power from his position has commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. As C-in-C, he has wide latitude to use military power as he sees fit in what he deems to be the best interest of the USA.

Congress has the express power to declare war, but in the 230 years since the Constitution was enacted, it still has not been clearly established when POTUS has to go to Congress to get his military actions approved.

so you can argue the Strike was legal/illegal/Constitutional/Un-Constitutional... take your pick. :ping:

Bottom line: a U.S. President can pretty much take whatever military action he sees fit.

[ikalugin]

However, there is also a growing consensus in the international community that there is also a "duty to protect" civilians from the actions of their own government which would mean that the Strike could be legal.It may make it, arguably, moral but it does not make it legal, as there is no legal structure to support it.

If there is - present it here please.

[Rockin Robbins]

There is no legal structure to which a State is subject. Each independent country forms its own law, which may or may not constrain its leadership.

Russia had "no legal right" to play with Ukraine. The US had "no legal right" to send troops to Kosovo. The Japanese had no "legal right" to annex Manchuria. The Allies had no "legal right"
to invade Normandy. All this talk about legal rights is nonsense.

States will do what they see is necessary or just what they want to do and other states will respond as they see fit. States do not even act in their own best interest much of the time and self-interest has no bearing on "legality." Where the actions of states are concerned, legality is not even a thing. It is silly even to raise the issue.

[ikalugin]

All this talk about legal rights is nonsense.I would argue that technically you are wrong and that international law applicable to a country is determined by UN charter (ie binding UNSC resolutions) and the binding agreements that it sighned and ratified.

But yes, major powers disregard said law when it doesnt suit them or apply it selectively. For example the Kosovo precedent was used in Crimea. The cause for the outrage is not that the international law is disregarded, but that it is disregarded by the wrong powers.

[Rockin Robbins]

The UN is a bunch of poseurs claiming powers they don't have. They are parasites living off those countries foolish enough to pay for their false claims of sovereignty.

In fact, UN law is not law. The UN is not some morally superior mother hen to all the childish states whose impulses must be controlled. It is morally reprehensible. It is impotent. It is a knowing fraud on the world, which would be better off without it.

[Bilge_Rat]

It may make it, arguably, moral but it does not make it legal, as there is no legal structure to support it.

If there is - present it here please.

here you go:

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is 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.[1][2]

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.[3][4][5] 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.[6][7]

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.[8] 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.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

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, among other cases and for example.[17][18][19][20][21][22] It has also been argued[by whom?] that commensurate to the responsibility to protect, international law ought also recognize a right for populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect themselves against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a massive scale.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect#Military_intervention

As to security council approval, the language in UN Resolution 2254 may be sufficiently wide to justify the strike

13. Demands that all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects as such, including attacks against medical facilities and personnel, and any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment, welcomes the commitment by the ISSG to press the parties in this regard, and further demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applicable;

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2254.pdf

[ikalugin]

here you go:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect#Military_intervention

As to security council approval, the language in UN Resolution 2254 may be sufficiently wide to justify the strike



http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2254.pdf



Neither of those provide legal basis.

The general assembly's documents do not provide the legal basis for the simple reason of the GA not having the right to authorise military action.

The UNSC resolution you cite does not authorise military action. The reason why it does not authorise military action of any kind is simple - authorisation to create a no-fly-zone over Lybia (a military action) was abused to conduct A-G airstrikes (with illegal ground operations by special forces, but noone cares about those) and so we torpedo any resolution that could provide justification to an armed intervention.

[August]

John Kerry in 2014:

"Our deal has resulted in Syria purging 100% of its chemical weapons"


Obama administration officials now: "Oh we always knew he still had chemical weapons"


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-official-we-always-knew-assad-kept-some-chemical-weapons/article/2619808

:doh:

[mapuc]

Then we have this


The Pentagon is looking for any evidence that the Russian government knew about or was complicit in the attack in Idlib province that killed at least 80 people and injured dozens more, a senior US defense official said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/world/syria-military-strikes-donald-trump-russia/

If Russia was aware or was a part of this attack, what can we do about it ? Take it to the UN and what can they do ?

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

Neither of those provide legal basis.

The general assembly's documents do not provide the legal basis for the simple reason of the GA not having the right to authorise military action.

The UNSC resolution you cite does not authorise military action. The reason why it does not authorise military action of any kind is simple - authorisation to create a no-fly-zone over Lybia (a military action) was abused to conduct A-G airstrikes (with illegal ground operations by special forces, but noone cares about those) and so we torpedo any resolution that could provide justification to an armed intervention.

As I said in my original post, that is an evolving area of the law. International law is always evolving and does not rely only on signed documents.

There was no legal basis for the Nuremberg tribunals, but they are now accepted as valid under international law.

The responsibility to protect is an evolving area. Some have argued that a state can intervene in another state to protect civilian lives even without UN authorization. Obviously, no every country, especially those that murder their own citizens agree with that.

[ikalugin]

The responsibility to protect is an evolving area. Some have argued that a state can intervene in another state to protect civilian lives even without UN authorization. Obviously, no every country, especially those that murder their own citizens agree with that. Well, if you want to play that game, sure why not.

The problem with this is that it violates soverenity without a legitimate cause. If a western party could do it for it's ideological or geopolitical needs, if it can interfere in Iraq, Kosovo, Lybia (and others, if we count covert and subversive actions) what stops others from doing the same?

But I guess you would argue that it was all done for the right reasons, with the western powers having the exceptional rights for their actions. The sad thing is that the Pandora's box has been opened and if the western military dominance fails there would be a free for all out there, something I would not like.

[August]

...if the western military dominance fails there would be a free for all out there, something I would not like.

If western military dominance fails there would be a free for all regardless of whether we had taken action in Syria or not.

[ikalugin]

If western military dominance fails there would be a free for all regardless of whether we had taken action in Syria or not.
Yes and no.

The unilateral action is possible due to the said dominance and is in a way interrelated with it through western exceptionalism.

At the same time if there was a strong, inclusive and impartial international security system the world would work just fine, however unilateral actions undermine such a system.

So in a way it is a vicious cycle of sorts.

[August]

Yes and no.

The unilateral action is possible due to the said dominance and is in a way interrelated with it through western exceptionalism.

At the same time if there was a strong, inclusive and impartial international security system the world would work just fine, however unilateral actions undermine such a system.

So in a way it is a vicious cycle of sorts.

Well a "strong, inclusive and impartial international security system" has never existed in the history of mankind so you can hardly say the world would work "just fine".

[ikalugin]

Well a "strong, inclusive and impartial international security system" has never existed in the history of mankind so you can hardly say the world would work "just fine".
True, UN blew it in the 40s or 50s depending on who you ask.

However, UN in it's imperfect form, as well as other such institutions form the level of threshhold for that FFA we have been talking about. Undermining them lowers that level.

[Bilge_Rat]

well international law has been shifting for a long time, at least since WW1.

What Ikalugin is arguing for is what is called the Westphalien system, also known as "Realpolitik", one of Kissinger's favorites and which is based on the 1648 peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years War. Under that system, each sovereign state is free to manage its internal affairs as it sees fit without any outside interference.

What we have also seen since 1918, championed by the UN, US and EU is a "morality" based system where a certain basic level of human rights are agreed on and all nations are expected to abide by them. Under that system, it is permissible for one nation to interfere in another nation if it is mistreating its own citizens.

Obviously, not every nation falls strictly in one camp or another and there is not unanimity on either approaches.

[Rockin Robbins]

Neither of those provide legal basis.

The general assembly's documents do not provide the legal basis for the simple reason of the GA not having the right to authorise military action.

The UNSC resolution you cite does not authorise military action. The reason why it does not authorise military action of any kind is simple - authorisation to create a no-fly-zone over Lybia (a military action) was abused to conduct A-G airstrikes (with illegal ground operations by special forces, but noone cares about those) and so we torpedo any resolution that could provide justification to an armed intervention.
As will China. Isn't it strange that totalitarian or formerly totalitarian countries are more protective of personal and national sovereignty than so-called democratic countries? In China, property ownership is pretty sacred. There's not even eminent domain in China because individuals' right to property ownership is so strong.

Values we in the West claim are the bedrock of our civilization are taken from us and those countries we look down upon as places where our "freedoms" don't exist are defending those freedoms while we cower to the United Nations after doing something right.

The UN has no right to authorize or take military action. They are a sorry joke on humanity. Go Russia and China on this issue!

[Bilge_Rat]

more info on the "morality" based system. It is called "contingent Sovereignty";

Contingent sovereignty refers to the new and still evolving theory which challenges the norm of non-intervention in the internal affairs of countries, commonly associated with the Westphalian doctrine of sovereignty.

Stewart Patrick of the United States State Department has described the contingent sovereignty as follows.[1]

Historically, the main obstacle to armed intervention -humanitarian or otherwise- has been the doctrine of sovereignty, which prohibits violating the territorial integrity of another state. One of the striking developments of the past decade has been an erosion of this non-intervention norm and the rise of a nascent doctrine of “contingent sovereignty.”

This school of thought holds that sovereign rights and immunities are not absolute. They depend on the observance of fundamental state obligations. These include the responsibility to protect the citizens of the state. When a regime makes war on its people or cannot prevent atrocities against them, it risks forfeiting its claim to non-intervention. In such circumstances, the responsibility to protect may devolve to the international community.

This emerging consensus reflects the traumas of the twentieth century. The seminal event was the Holocaust, but it was hardly the last to shock the conscience of humankind. From the killing fields of Cambodia to the bloody hills of Rwanda, a litany of atrocities has mocked our earnest, repeated pledges of 'Never Again.'

Following the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described what he termed a "developing international norm ... that massive and systematic violations of human rights wherever they may take place ... should not be allowed to stand." No longer should frontiers be considered an absolute defense behind which states can commit crimes against humanity with "sovereign impunity."

The concept of contingent sovereignty is evolving and currently not codified in international law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_sovereignty

[Rockin Robbins]

If western military dominance fails there would be a free for all regardless of whether we had taken action in Syria or not.

It's like Ariel Sharon said about the middle east negotiations in the 1980s. "If all the Arab countries laid down their weapons tomorrow, in 24 hours there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, in 24 hours there would be no Israel."

That remains true. The UN promotes the side seeking genocide. How much credibility to they retain? They don't seek peace. They take sides, seeking the victory of their favorites. The UN is swine. Africa is the same situation. The UN has much blood on its hands. They don't deserve our respect or support.
.

[ikalugin]

You are wrong, I am not for the Wesphalian system, I am for a legal international system.
I have little love for benevolent tyrants, especially those I do not share destiny with.

I guess it is very cynical of me, but I see the "moral" system as a tool for priviledged powers to further their ideological and geopolitical agenda at the expense of others less fortunate via selective application of standards determined by said powers. Human rights are one such standard, it is applied arbitrarily to some countries and not others, to some aspects of live and not others.

Hence why I am for a legal rather than moral system or a system of sovereighn states if it could not be achieved.

p.s. this forum really forges me into a liberal.

[ikalugin]

However even if a moral system did exist (rather than it's perversion we see now) it would still fail - because morals are subjective and individual, but I guess you forgot about it in the post cold war euphoria.

[Platapus]

Under the U.S. Constitution, POTUS derives his power from his position has commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. As C-in-C, he has wide latitude to use military power as he sees fit in what he deems to be the best interest of the USA.

Congress has the express power to declare war, but in the 230 years since the Constitution was enacted, it still has not been clearly established when POTUS has to go to Congress to get his military actions approved.



The War Powers Act of 1973 establishes just that. However, since its inception every US President has made statements that they feel the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that the President is not bound by it.

So far it has not gone to the SCotUS for determination.

[Bilge_Rat]

I don't think the War Powers Act 1973 is Constitutional either, but yes, it is debatable.

[Platapus]

I don't think the War Powers Act 1973 is Constitutional either, but yes, it is debatable.


However, all laws that are passed are presumed to be constitutional until proven unconstitutional. Although that is also debatable. :D

[ikalugin]

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/557950

Putin claims that there is information regarding possible future chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

[Rockstar]

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/557950

Putin claims that there is information regarding possible future chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Google translator.

l
v

Moscow. 11 April. INTERFAX.RU - Russia has information that attacks using chemical weapons, similar to what happened in Idlib, can be prepared in other areas of Syria, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"We have information from various sources that such provocations, and I can not name it in any other way, are being prepared in other regions of Syria, including in the southern suburbs of Damascus, where they are going to throw some more substance and blame it on him Application of the Syrian authorities, "he said at a news conference after talks with Italian President Sergio Mattarella.

The Russian president also said that the situation with the chemistry in Syria is reminiscent of the events of 2003, when the US demonstrated allegedly chemical weapons discovered in Iraq.

"We discussed this with Mr. President, and I said that this reminds me very much of the events of 2003 when the representatives of the United States in the Security Council showed allegedly chemical weapons discovered in Iraq, after which a campaign began in Iraq, a military one, and ended with the destruction The country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of the IG (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation - IF) on the international scene, "Putin said.

The leader noted that Moscow intends to seek from UN agencies the investigation of the chemical weapons incident in the Syrian province of Idlib.

"We believe that any manifestation of this kind is worthy of being thoroughly investigated.We are going to officially appeal to the relevant UN agency in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate these manifestations," Putin said, responding to Interfax's question about the situation in the Syria and the threat of new US strikes.

Last week, media reported that in the city of Khan-Sheikhoun in the Syrian province of Idlib, ammunition was used with poisonous substances, which killed, according to various sources, about 100 people, injuring dozens of people. The United States and its allies accused the head of Syria Bashar Assad of being hit, Damascus categorically rejected this accusation.

Last Friday, the United States hit Tomahawk with a missile at the Shayrat airfield in the Syrian province of Homs. According to the Pentagon, a total of 59 missiles were fired. The purpose of the missile strike was an airfield, from which, as the American authorities believe, planes that committed Himatak in Idlib flew.

[August]

Another interesting article. Seems Assad may have bitten the hand that feeds him.

“Why Russia has not been able to achieve that [removal of Syria’s residual chemical weapons] is unclear to me,” Tillerson said. “I don’t draw conclusions of complicity at all; but clearly, they’ve been incompetent, and perhaps they’ve just simply been outmaneuvered by the Syrians.”

But Tillerson said he still holds out hope for productive talks with the Russians when he travels there this week, and he hopes Russia can press Assad to never use chemical weapons again.


“I’m hopeful that we can have constructive talks with the Russian government, with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and have Russia be supportive of a process that will lead to a stable Syria,” Tillerson said. “Clearly, they … have the greatest influence on Bashar al-Assad and certainly his decisions to use chemical weapons. They should have the greatest influence on him to cause him to no longer use those. I hope that Russia is thinking carefully about its continued alliance with Bashar al-Assad, because every time one of these horrific attacks occurs, it draws Russia closer in to some level of responsibility.”


The changing US calculus on Assad and Russia is making it harder to see what Russia and the United States would be negotiating when Tillerson meets Lavrov April 12, Gvosdev said.


“The ask and the give are harder to ascertain,” Gvosdev said. “Two weeks ago, it was how do we move this [Syria] political process along.”
But now Tillerson is likely to tell the Russians that domestic politics in the United States is playing a bigger role in this, and “I can offer you less upfront,” Gvosdev speculated. “At a time when the Russian establishment very much … wants certain things upfront.”


“We are no longer talking about sanctions relief, [but how to] prevent new sanctions from being imposed,” Gvosdev said.


Assad’s actions have upended what was an important foreign policy priority for Putin — exploring the potential for cooperation with the United States on Syria and a possible rapprochement — and have seemingly taken sanctions relief off the table for discussion for now, and Russia will not forgive him, Kofman said.


“They are furious; it is very clear,” Kofman said, noting that there has been “no actual statement from Putin in support of Assad.”


“That is why I am saying he has signed his own political death warrant,” Kofman said of Assad. “They [the Russians] will never forgive him. They will wait. The time will come when Syria is stabilized, and they can actually have a change of power at the top. And then come for him.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/04/russia-us-chemical-weapons-attack-assad-putin-tillerson.html#ixzz4dxFqgdEP

[mapuc]

Any comments on Putin's accusation against USA-
Putin Claims that USA is preparing a Chemical attack on Syrian ground and thereafter blame Assad for this.

Read this on a Danish news paper-couldn't find a English version.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

Any comments on Putin's accusation against USA-
Putin Claims that USA is preparing a Chemical attack on Syrian ground and thereafter blame Assad for this.



comment?

That he is delusional?

That is the kind of nonsense I would expect from the Fat North Korean Kid.

[mapuc]

comment?

That he is delusional?

That is the kind of nonsense I would expect from the Fat North Korean Kid.

Google is your friend-Made a search and found an English version

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/putin-says-expects-fake-gas-attacks-to-discredit-syrias-assad.html

Markus

[August]

Google is your friend-Made a search and found an English version

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/putin-says-expects-fake-gas-attacks-to-discredit-syrias-assad.html

Markus


Markus,

You almost have to expect Putin to say something like that. They're desperately trying to deflect the blame for last weeks attack on someone, anyone besides their murderous client.

[Bilge_Rat]

not sure what that is about. I am guessing he has a target audience in Russia and/or the Middle East to whom that message is aimed.

We need Ikalugin to translate. :ping:

[mapuc]

Markus,

You almost have to expect Putin to say something like that. They're desperately trying to deflect the blame for last weeks attack on someone, anyone besides their murderous client.

I should in my first comments about this issue give my response-I think these accusation is so far out. Well Bilge_Rat said it perfectly, something you would expect NK's leader could say.

I also see it as two little boys who are about to get into a fight and before the fight begins they throw words against each other and one of them is more verbal than the other boy.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3uaf1NFxXc

CNN goes down the drain while interviewing Syrian man. Here's a true patriot of Syria. If they can kick out Assad, the Iranians and Russians, there's hope with guys like this.

Man, she was really trying to reel him in but he wouldn't be silenced.

[Reece]

:up: :salute: :yeah:

[ikalugin]

not sure what that is about. I am guessing he has a target audience in Russia and/or the Middle East to whom that message is aimed.

We need Ikalugin to translate. :ping:
Do you need a full translation? Or just the core narrative points?