Are there legal grounds for our airstrikes on Syria,Iraq? Are we in violation of international law?

[J_J_]

Are we a nation of laws?

Do we follow international law?

Does the UN have any meaning?


Are we a rogue nation that does whatever they want, the kind of nation the UN was set up to reign in?


In Iraq, we already used cluster bombs and white phosphorous on Fallujah.

These are war crimes and collective punishment.

Then there is the depleted uranium all over causing birth defects, genocide.

Our government is out of control.

Where is the UN on this?

[KG]

1. international law is what the u.s. says it is.

[yeoman6987]

2. We are not under international law

That is why The Hague is of no use to us. The UN we basically own because we pay practically the whole thing. The UN would NEVER do a thing to us. And certainly not kick us out or it would be immediately disbanded.

[The Magistrate]

3. Neither Is Any Violation, Sir

The government of Iraq has requested assistance against an invasion and a rebellion, as it has every right to do. We have every right to provide this assistance. The invasion is based in territory nominally part of Syria, but in which the Syrian government is unable to exercise authority. Engaging the bases of the force invading Iraq there is part of Iraq's legitimate right of self-defense. Syrian permission is not required.

[Xithras]

4. Admittedly, it's a murky area of international law.

Iraq is a U.S. ally and was facing a full scale invasion from Syria. If Syrian government soldiers were doing the invading, then there's no question that bombing Syria to aid an ally would be legal under international law. That's where things get murky.

Under international law, it is completely illegal to bomb civilian criminals in a foreign nation without permission from the nation to be bombed. If you see ISIS as a civilian group, then it's an illegal action. On the other hand, ISIS has declared that it IS an independent nation, and it has formed regular armies, local administrations, courts, school systems and other mechanisms of nationhood to back up its claim. If ISIS is a nation, then its actions in Iraq constitute an invasion and U.S. attacks are in defense of an ally...which makes it a legal action.

I oppose the airstrikes for reasons that have nothing to do with "legality". Legal is not the same thing as "right".

[J_J_]

5. What if the US media is making all this bullshit up? ISIS is not a threat to US

Counterterrorism Experts claim ISIS threat "distorted" and "a farce"

"Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East"



The UN needs to examine the info and determine whether this is needed as a collective action.

Who the hell do we think we are?

Our media can say whatever the hell they want and everyone just believes them?

[morningfog]

6. Iraq? Arguably. Syria? Absolutely not.

[leftstreet]

7. Certainly not until the US has a pupp...approved leader in Syria

[morningfog]

9. That's the rub with Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter.

We only deal with our chosen ones. We pick the one we want and then they request our troops and our war to help them. Somehow that is legal?

[BlindTiresias]

8. lol international law