Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama makes the right choice and will present his case on Syria to the whole Congress for a vote (521 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That doesn't answer my question. (8+ / 0-)

    What international law says that the USA can take over from a paralyzed UNSC?

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:04:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Guardian (0+ / 0-)

      has a good discussion of the ramifications of international law outside the UN.

      It's a fallacy that international law is managed by and goes only through the UN.

      47 is the new 51!

      by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:09:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You should try reading your own link. (5+ / 0-)

        The talking heads all quoted agree that using CWs is a war crime (and guess what, water is wet!), but none of them can cite any international convention justifying the enforcement, by military intervention, of such conventions absent UN approval.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:54:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you should read it again (0+ / 0-)

          since it makes the fundamental point that international law exists outside the UN. The UNSC is not the equivalent of the Supreme Court as final arbiter. One quote:

          if that state had failed to protect its population from atrocities. R2P, established in 2005, could be advanced as a legal justification in Syria, but its validity in the absence of a security council mandate is in dispute.
          If the concept of the UN being the final word was indisputable there would be no dispute. You might find reading about the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine. Here's a link that, while the author doing a bang up job of casting it as a UN supervised action still recognizes that there's substantial responsible analysis that, in the case of UN inaction, the requirement of capable actors to act does not cease.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:27:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "is in dispute." Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, NonnyO

            And why is it in dispute? Because there's no international convention that allows us to intervene, and we keep insisting we can.  On what basis, pray?

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:40:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and *really,* now, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, NonnyO

            if it's a matter of honest dispute, then why not err on the side that doesn't involve (1) killing people and (2) risking provoking a regional war?

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:55:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm in favor of not blowing people up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edwardssl

              as a general principle. Right now no one has given me a reason for blowing up Assad's army.

              The convention that, theoretically, does is the 1925 convention against chemical weapons, which Syria did sign. And, the principle of responsibility to protect, which the UN General Assembly has approved. The problem I have with that document I sited is is ameliorative, not prophylactic.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:56:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I should probably add (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edwardssl

              that I'm a living, walking, talking example of what the Tea Party fears. I'm a One World Government supporter.

              The UN? A failed (so far) vehicle. But until there is one, I'm not going to ignore the international laws and conventions that actually provide the paltry oil that does govern international relations. All of them, not just the ones that advance my goal.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:04:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  again, forgot the link. (0+ / 0-)

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:28:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site