General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it legal for the U.S. to invade an independent county because it violates the rights
of some of its citizens?
Isn't this what they Syria situation is about?
Isn't it why invaded Iraq the last time under George W. Bush. The first invasion of Iraq we justified because we said Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The Second invasion of Iraq we justified because we said they had WMDs. That it was based on a lie isn't the point.
The point is does one country have the right to invade another country because they do not approve of its policies?
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)......first iraq war when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US had UN approval and was not just the US launching the invasion....
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Ask Schiff, he is talking about it.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1748021
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)under certain conditions. Trump made a statement that was intended to circumvent the law by saying it was vital to US security interests because of a threat of chemical weapons. You can research the exact wording, but, bottom line, trump lied to get around the law.
Link to tweet
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)No leader has the right to commit atrocities on his or her own citizens and it is incumbent on the nations of the world to act unilaterally or universally to stop that person.
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)So, it is up to every country to decide what constitutes an atrocity, and what constitutes an appropriate response to it?
Can you cite any law for this? The OP was concerned with legality, after all, and did not ask about morality.
-- Mal
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If the world or individual states stopped Germany when they opened their first concentration camp in 1933 tens of millions of lives could have been saved.
We are all interconnected. None of us are islands onto ourselves.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Freedom fries 2017?
Would that be Russia, China, or perhaps Germany, leading it? Germany might have to leave NATO as that might violate some fine print.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Calculating
(2,955 posts)Little Kimmy does some atrocious stuff to his people. After the holocaust the whole world said "Never again". Well, it's happening again to people in NK. Little Kim will have the families of dissenters condemned to torture camps/caves for 3 generations where they are starved/worked to death, tortured, and have medical experiments such as vivisection and bioweapons testing conducted on them.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)And China....
The list can go on......
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Do we have a fundamental duty to do our best to save fellow humans from unimaginable government inflicted atrocities? Yes, no, maybe?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That is a principle, imho, worth upholding. How you do so in a complicated world is difficult.
Isn't the opposite of that adhering to Charles Lindbergh's and Donald Trump's America First ideology which "we" are all supposed to hate?
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Nobody would want to commit atrocities because they would know that the rest of the world would come down on them for it. As a result, life would improve for people everywhere. The problem comes about due to things such as nuclear weapons. Once a country acquires nuclear arms it becomes extremely hard, if not impossible to do anything about their abuses of human rights. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate defensive weapon in the sense that nobody wants to risk MAD and mess with you.
deist99
(122 posts)NK could kill a hell of a lot of South Koreans if we tried that. Considering what we know has happened in North Korea since the end of the Korean War I believe Truman should have listened to MacArthur and dropped nukes along the Yalu river to stop the Chinese and freed all of Korea.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)As well as the US, all place where military and/or police killing their own is common.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Would the rest of the world have been legally/morally justified in invading the US pre-Civil War to free the slaves?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Yes
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)How about right up until civil rights? How about when America was overthrowing democratically elected regimes around the world to aid its own economic interests? What about a couple of weeks ago when it killed about 200 innocent people in another country?
Or do 'atrocities' only count when its other people doing them?
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Pre-civil war, other countries didn't have much better records than we did. That's why I mentioned the pre-civil war era.
To some extent that's still true today. There is no country that has a perfect track record when it comes to human right.
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)As for the two US invasions of Iraq, in both cases we had the fig-leaf of UN approval as far as international "law" is concerned. Most of the time we have some pretext, and some showing of support from at least some of the world community for our actions.
Domestically, it gets fuzzy because Congress has cravenly surrendered the duty imposed on it by the Constitution to declare "war." Various authorizations of force have been passed to permit us to blow things up and kill people without calling it a "war." But Presidents have usually been scrupulous about acquiring this "consent" from Congress before embarking on military action.
In general, "legal" is whatever you can get away with. So far, the US has been pretty good at getting away with whatever violence we wish to execute.
-- Mal
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Iraq in March 2003...."
https://www.globalpolicy.org/political-issues-in-iraq/un-role-in-iraq.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or we'd have invaded Saudi Arabia by now, and that's just for starters.
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)And I'd agree if we didn't spend 700 billion dollars on a military for a country separated from its enemies by gigantic oceans. At that point it becomes morally repugnant not to try and place peacekeeper. Either we stop pussyfooting around and embrace the title, or slash our budget by 500 billion.
Either way I'm all for scrapping military waste. We have the tech and money to turn our infantry into robots but we insist on making tanks and submarines.
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)That sounds way to familiar.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Maybe edit your headline.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A right that the US has always claimed. US Presidents from Jefferson onward have always claimed the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries. That is why the US has always been at war.
avebury
(10,952 posts)want to violate the rights of certain groups of citizens in our own country makes them all hypocrites when they attact foreign countries for violating the rights of their citizens.
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)I thought it was illegal because; we needed permission from Congress 1st off and honestly an important reason. Like Pearl Harbor... maybe I'm wrong. Chances are good I'm wrong, but that's what I was taught.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)So if you enter Syria illegally, you can be deported by Syria. I do not believe that it violates our laws though.
Our soldiers in Syria are illegals.
"A passport and a visa are required. Visas must be obtained prior to arrival in Syria from a Syrian diplomatic mission located in the travelers country of residence. The Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic in Washington, DC, however, suspended all operations, including consular services on March 18, 2014 and has not appointed a protecting power.
Foreigners who wish to stay 15 days or more in Syria must register with Syrian immigration authorities by the 15th day of their stay.
Syria charges a departure tax at its land and sea borders for all visitors except those on diplomatic passports and children under the age of 11."
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11809908
What is the court designed to do?
To prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for the worst crimes - genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The court has global jurisdiction.
It is a court of last resort, intervening only when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)"The United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
The international court of justice, on the other hand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de justice; commonly referred to as the World Court, ICJ or The Hague[2]) is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN). Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the court settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.
. . .
As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the Court's statute ... However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the Court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties...
In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.
--- end quote ---
So that doesn't sound like it would have jurisdiction either.
There is a reason the US did not sign on to the ICC treaty. The current situation is one example.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That makes that war very different from 2nd invasion and from Syria.
still_one
(92,217 posts)very well, but you stated it perfectly
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)crime.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Since 2014. When would you say the invasion took place?
malaise
(269,045 posts)the Constitution and International Law
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
But using force under that should have the backing of the UN Security Council.
still_one
(92,217 posts)"WASHINGTON President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war.
Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syrias violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.
The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide the president or Congress whether the United States should attack another country.
Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?
No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another countrys soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again, which is not self-defense.
........
Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?
Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful absent Security Council authorization.
Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATOs air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international law. Instead, it cited a list of factors like the threat to peace and stability and the danger of a humanitarian disaster without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful. In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention should not serve as a precedent.
.......
Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?
The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large standing army instead of demobilizing.
In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of a war in the constitutional sense, as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html?_r=0