Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Barack Obama
In reply to the discussion: I've yet to read a valid post made [View all]
mike_c
(36,636 posts)51. how's this for validity?
Attacking another nation without doing so in immediate self defense or under UN authority is a war crime. It is defined as such in the UN Charter, which the United States helped to write and which Congress has ratified.
This is not a philosophical point, or a moral argument. It is a simple statement of fact:
Article 2, paragraph 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 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
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 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
If the U.S. attacks Syria in any way or for any reason, the commander in chief and other responsible parties in his administration becomes a war criminal under international law, and since that treaty was ratified by Congress, under U.S. law as well, although we both know that won't be enforced. How do we know that? BHO would join a fraternity of war criminals that most recently welcomed Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld in waging aggressive war and using American exceptionalism to justify it. They're still walking free, so war criminals have every expectation of not being prosecuted in the U.S..
There's no question of "validity" here, or at least none that I can see. Ban Ki Moon reiterated yesterday that any U.S. attack absent immediate self defense would be a crime against humanity.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You also don't have the right to barge into a private group and demand that we defend our rights
IrishAyes
Sep 2013
#30
"It was posted in BOG, for BOGers. Please respect the rules of this group."
R. Daneel Olivaw
Sep 2013
#17
Discussion of DU and bringing frustrations re what is happening in other forums
grantcart
Sep 2013
#68