In comments that will likely add to the push for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to be drafted, Sen. Tim Kaine (D – VA) has pointed out that recent US strikes inside Syria against the Syrian government and its allies are “unlawful” under the current AUMF.
The whole operation in Syria is on dubious footing under the 2001 AUMF, which President Obama initially cited sending troops to Syria, but Sen. Kaine noted that the AUMF only authorized action against the perpetrators of 9/11, and that “nobody claims that Syria was a perpetrator. Nobody claims that they are connected to al-Qaeda. In fact, they’re battling against al-Qaeda in Syria.”
Kaine and Sen. Jeff Flake (R – AZ) are pushing a new AUMF designed to replace the 2001 version, and that version would explicitly focus on ISIS and al-Qaeda, as opposed to the vague “perpetrators” language that the old version uses. Neither would permit attacks on Syrian military targets, however.
The Pentagon argued that last weekend’s attack on a Syrian Su-22 bomber was “collective self-defense” intended to protect the Kurds from Syria’s military. This is, however, well beyond the scope of the supposed US mission in Syria, which is to fight against ISIS, as was a previous flurry of Tomahawk missiles fired at a Syrian Air Force base a few months prior.
There were some debates on a new AUMF back in 2015, but they never advanced to a proper vote on the question, and since then administrations have basically treated the lack of a specific new AUMF with specific limits as tantamount to a limitless authorization to go anywhere without approval.
I suppose sending tons of armaments to the terrorist organization operating in the region is lawful?
Yes, if the Israelis approve.
I’m sure Mr. Clapper would characterize that as the “least unlawful” of all the US is doing in the region.
Not that anyone in Congress, or Washington at all,
the US media, etc., gives a crap, but the State’s latest violation of domestic
US law is just collateral damage to its blatant, continuing violation of
international law since at least March 2003, from Iraq through and including
Syria.
And the fact that an arse-klown like Time Kaine can
actually get up and talk about how the US war in Syria violates the 2001 AUMF
without getting laughed off stage shows just how ingrained and accepted US war
criminality has become. Kaine would
never mention US chronic war criminality under the UN charter—or even how the “AUMF”
itself violates the US “War Powers Resolution,” or how the “War Powers
Resolution” in turn violates Article 1, section 8, of the US Constitution (“The
Congress shall have the power …To declare war….”) . The democratic party side of the State has
freely violated all those laws itself – and with vicious abandon under the
Noble Peace Price winner and mass murdering Obama.
US since at least 2011 with respect to Syria has violated
UN Charter, article 2(4) and 57, and, indeed, in direct violation of
International Court of Justice judgment in a case against the US itself, as
follows:
Charter
of the United Nations
Article 2:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the
Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following
Principles….:
4. All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 51:
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.
International
Court of Justice, 27 June 1986, CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY
ACTIVITIES IN AND
AGAINST NICARAGUA, (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
MERITS, at 146:
The Court:
3) By twelve votes to three,
Decides that the United
States of America, by training, arming, equipping,financing and supplying the contra forces
or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities
in and against
Nicaragua, has acted,
against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary
international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;
(4) By twelve votes to three,
Decides that the United
States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely
attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983 ; an attack on
Corinto on 10 October 1983 ; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984
; an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984 ; attacks on patrol boats at
Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984 ; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on
9 April 1984 ; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph
(3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic
of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not
to use force against another State ;
(5) By twelve votes to three,
Decides that the United
States of America, by directing or authorizing overflights of Nicaraguan territory,
and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4)
hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its
obligation under customary international law not to violate the
sovereignty of another State.
“Collective self defense”. How quaint. So, in other words, Syria has no sovereignty.
What is even more interesting, who exactly gave the legitimacy to Kurds to have a collective self defense agreement with US. What makes this incident even messier is that Syria is being PREVENTED to fight ISIS in territory that was obviously promised to Kurds. But as Kurds do not have the manpower to establish control over territory liberated from ISIS, and even less manpower to go after ISIS further afield — US generals are clearly delusional that they can prevent Syrian Army from pushing ISIS on any front. What is helping Syrian Army is the fact that these are SYRIAN ARAB areas, not Kurdish areas. The locals are trying everything to get under government control — and avoid being part of some future Kurdish state with US base in perpetuity and Kurdish military leaders known for their brutal ethnic cleansing and crime enterprises. Like Albanians in Kosovo, Kurds in Syria are being portrayed as a positive force by our mainstream fake media. This is far from the truth on the ground. It may be necessary for US to disclose just how much land was promised to Kurds — so to clarify our “collective defense” extent. It will not help, however. This whole nonsense with Qatar is just as much about Turkey as about Iran. Turkey and Qatar are allies, and now all the “rebels” in Syria along Turkish/Syrian border are under the control of Turkey military. They control vital corridor between Turkey border to the town Al-Bab. Turkey defeated ISIS there, even though US under Obama already planned to help Kurds take Al-Bab. In fact, in anticipation of Hillary win, there was already an all female batallion formed within Kurdish forces, and our media was already conducting interviews with them. They were to “liberate our land”, even though Kurds are a small minority in Al-Bab. To stop rummors placed in our media that Turkey was in Syria without invitation — Russian and Turkish airforce jointly attacked ISIS, while Syrian Army closed in from the southwest to cut off ISIS from any other route except towards Raqqa.
Lets keep in mind that all of this was coordinated with Iran — and then transformed into Astana plan supported by Thrkey-Iran-Russia.
Neocons are still driving Middle East policy, and it was PREDICTABLE that Qatar was to pay for working with the traitor, Turkey. More then that, Qatar funded these pro-Turkey “rebels” along the border, and now these same rebels are under Turkey control, preventing Afrin Kurds from joining Kobani Kurds — and taking aling the way a large swarh of land along Turkey border. So, Qatar is also a traitor. I wonder — knowing neocon rabbid single mindedness — if they are not demanding that Qatar uses its money influence on those same “rebels” to betray Turkey and go “anti-Assad” again. Just enough to allow Kurds to break through. I believe this to be true, as suddenly Turkey is sending their special ops into the corridor to — if necessary fight off Afrin Kurds. Neocons need MORE Kurds in vast Raqqa region, as the predominantly Arab population does not want Kurd overlords. Neocon fear also includes suspicions that locals are colluding with ISIS to hold off Kurds until Syrian Army arrives to take over. At this point — ISIS, the creation of Saudi Arabia and neocons — is being very likely directed to abandon ares to Kurds and move forces into Deir Azzor area to prevent Syrian Army from pushing to Iraqi border. At present, US is actually defending ISIS positions in Deir Azzor by stopping Syrian Army from pushing ISIS along the highway towards Al -Tanf border area. Here, we are defending some imaginary “partners”. Just to find an excuse to plsnt a base in Al-Tanf, and preventing Syrian military to join with Iraqi army. That would have resulted in a sweep of ISIS along the border — and cut off their supplies and retreat. By controlling Al-Tanf, ISIS must fight at Deir Azzor — in hope that US forces would let them withdraw to Iraq. But what if US then destroys them, and gives controll of the border to the imaginary ally, that will convenuently alliw US to stay there. Who knows what promises are made — but it is clear that ISIS is abandoning some places allowing Sytian Army to move in. Did Army evacuate them somewhere? How many blended into population?
When neocons prevailed to expand the war threats to include Qatar, it is a clear sign that things are not doing well. Saudi Arabia has been outflanked by UAE, the actual occupier/collaborationist in Yemen independance bound South. In this they are supported by the neighboring Oman. UAE, while screaming loudly against Qatar, has a higher trade with Iran then Qatar. Kuweit has over 40% of Shia population, and neighboring both Shia Iran, and Shia dominated Iraqi south — is not likely to stir anything. Egypt here is the key. As the most populous Suni Arsb country — it has become Saudi “partner” after Saudis only two months ago slammed Egypt over exiting Yemen war. Saudi Arabia will clearly have to forfit the political leadership in Sunni Arab world. As Egypt has good relationships with Iran, has patched up relationship sith Turkey, supports Russian efforts in Syria, and Astana peace plan, has distanced itself from Yemen mess — it is now in a position to steer Saudi Arabia through the mess it created. Qatar is the catalist of changes. But do not underestimate the stupidity of neocons and their gambling instinct. They will risk anybodies interest but their own. And as things are not going according to their divine plan — they need to go further. Iran? Russia? As US public has not yet grasped the dangers of nuclear war — the gamblers have little to fear in the shape of political defeat at home.
So why hasn’t the United Nations sought criminal charges against the
United States, I wonder? Would it be because the U.N. has deteriorated
into being America’s footstool, which turns a blind eye and a deaf ear
to blatant violations of international law?
The U.N.’s repeated acts of nonfeasance is exactly one of the reasons why the headquarters of the international organization must be moved out of New York City to a neutral location, far from the influences of Washington, DC.
What do you expect from NATO owned organization? Three of the five permanent security council members are NATO. This leaves only veto power to Russia and China. However — all other bodies of UN are staffed by that key — and in excess of that key, making most of the key appointments in UN bureucracy politically loyal to the three — which in reality is only one, US. there is nobody to initiate such initiatives. Recently, one UN expert issued a report on the state of human rights that was somewhat realistic, but US and Israel demanded UN pull back the report, and fire the expert. Which was promptly done — with appologies to Israel.
The U.S. does have a Security Council veto. There is no way to suspend the Big Five veto powers, or the U.S. would have removed Russia’s long ago.
Heh — I never noticed that the UN’s charter, which can be amended, forbids any amendment taking away the Big Five’s veto power without their permission.
Sounds like the UN needs to be dissolved and replaced.
Agreed, except the UN might only dissolve if it were replaced or displaced by something even worse.
The amendment process requires 2/3 of the membership and all five permanent SC members. Technically, the any one or all of the Big Five could concede their veto via the amendment process.
Realistically, that’s never going to happen unless a sovereign government collapsed and the UN-recognized replacement was led by an idiot or a pawn.
We are witnessing an increase in US warfare abroad combined with an attempt to unravel the social network at home.
Same as usual.
“The means
of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of
tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a
war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the
armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” — James Madison (aka Dolly’s husband)
“would explicitly focus on ISIS and al-Qaeda”
Yeah. Put a verb after that “on” though. Because instead on “focus on fighting ISIS and al Qaeda” we currently get “focus on supporting ISIS and al Qaeda”.
If this were still a functioning republic, some people in the military hierarchy would face a bit of an execution about this and politicians, civil serpents, think tankers and their handlers would not be far behind.
“since then administrations have basically treated the lack of a specific
new AUMF with specific limits as tantamount to a limitless
authorization to go anywhere without approval.”
no AUMF law can override any international law or the UN charter, and so a war of aggression, such as in Libya and now in Syria, are clearly war crimes and crimes against humanity. Some day some one will pay.
There is no enforcement mechanism. The Nuremberg Trials more or less stayed at Nuremberg.
If the U.S. were to introduce its own binding laws backing its by-treaty adoption of the UN Charter as the fundamental law of the land, and not leave these things a political question, then yes, legal action could be taken in the U.S. itself against its own war crimes.
Obama’s war which is now Trump’s has been illegal by our law and international law and this guy was Hillary’s running mate? good lord.
I guess if Keane can’t be first (or second) in line at the profiteering trough, nobody gets the trough.
If we are going to bomb organizations that support Al-Qaeda, here’s some places where you don’t want to be standing near.
The Pentagon
CIA headquarters
Netflix
The Academy Awards
CNN
Saudi Arabian embassy
the newspapers that echo Al-Qaeda propaganda, such as the fake chem weapons attack cliams.
etc