The Death Of International Law?

The Bush Administration may be setting a violent and dangerous precedent for the future,and they don't care.

Did the Raid Into Syria Signal the Death of International Law?
If standard U.S. military doctrine claims any country can be declared "criminal" and lose its sovereignty,the answer is yes.

A parallel new Bush doctrine is emerging, in the last days of the soon-to-be-ancient regime, and it needs to be strangled in its crib. Like the original Bush doctrine -- the one that Sarah Palin couldn't name, which called for preventive military action against emerging threats -- this one also casts international law aside by insisting that the United States has an inherent right to cross international borders in "hot pursuit" of anyone it doesn't like....


Though a nominal ally, Pakistan has been the subject of at least nineteen aerial attacks by CIA-controlled drone aircraft, killing scores of Pakistanis and some Afghans in tribal areas controlled by pro-Taliban forces....

The U.S. raid into Syria on October 26 similarly trampled on Syria's sovereignty without so much as a fare-thee-well. Though the Pentagon initially denied that the raid involved helicopters and on-the-ground commando presence, that's exactly what happened....

The Washington Post was ecstatic, writing in an editorial:"If Sunday's raid, which targeted a senior al-Qaeda operative, serves only to put Mr. Assad on notice that the United States, too, is no longer prepared to respect the sovereignty of a criminal regime, it will have been worthwhile."
Is it really that easy? To say: We declare your regime criminal, and so we will attack you anytime we care to?


Of course, the very invasion of Iraq was illegal in 2003, and it flouted international law. So some may say, these cross-border raids are small potatoes. But they're not. This is a big deal. If it becomes a standard part of U.S. military doctrine that any country can be declared "criminal" and thus lose its sovereignty, then there is no such thing as international law anymore.

The US government sees such behaviour acceptable if they are the ones doing it,but there is no doubt that if another country took such action they would condemn them and demand an immediate end to the aggression.

Now,more than ever,the international community has to put a stop to Americas dangerous policies.(and i don't mean through the use of force)
The longer they are left to continue in this manner the more chance there is of the whole of the Middle East going up in flames,and the more chance there is of another world war.

Another Cold War... that was declared over with because the purpose of making the appearance of victory was valuable.

Ya, you could say that "Oh no, the wall came down and people danced in the streets". Huhahaha... coulda got nuked still! Coulda had attacks on our ships and ports! Lots of could haves! Same ones we face now!

"Freedom requires constant vigilance", right? That made sense to me when I was a peon in the navy - be vigilant in not letting the ship run into any other countries ship, that sort of thing. Could start a war we didn't plan, ya know.

Russia, China, many smaller nations have a more advanced, capable, and ready military now than they did then. I don't mean us/them, I mean in total. Better guidance for nuke bombs, that sort of thing...

This is what GWB should have done in the first place - you harbor those bastards that hit us, were are going to get them so get your civilians the hell out cause colateral damage is horrible! And then we strike with our missile boats and nail those SoBs with our combat special services. "Oh but we did, so this one guy says - but they couldn't do anything without orders, etc." Ya, if we had an extremist group of terrorists here (I mean pre-BS) and they went and attacked folks...I would do whatever I could to let them pounce on those mutha forkers. I'd get all my "sound" military veterans to go to where ever the bastards were, get the civilians away, and - upon iding the SoBs - let the military of the ally blast them terror bastards to bits. OFC we'd need reparations to rebuild and if they even got close to hurting a civilian they'd have to pay in trade and money for the families effected...

I am a pretty stupid person so... ignore button is right over there

EDIT : for a bit of clarity

[edit on 2-11-2008 by SolarSeaman]

I am a pretty stupid person so... ignore button is right over there

Why would i use that,its not your fault you're intellectually challenged.


Extremist:a person who goes to extremes,esp.in political matters./a person who goes to extremes,esp.in political matters.

Terrorist:a person who terrorizes or frightens others./a radical who employs terror as a political weapon;usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells;often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities./One who governs by terrorism or intimidation.

As you can see,the above describes the US government perfectly,so can the 'enemies' of America do whatever they please to you? Didn't think so.Are you going to attack your government anytime soon? Didn't think so.

I also have the opinion that if you want the war you fight the war,whether you be soldier,veteran,politician or civilian.I'd deploy you to Iraq or Afghanistan and then count the seconds it takes you to realize that you've made a huge mistake and that you're not for the war after all.

I have no problems with killing terrorist or terrorist supporters regardless of borders. It wouldn't stop anyone else, let alone the terrorist, from performing their actions.

Why is it that people believe the USA should be the only country that should obey international law. People really, really need to understand history and should educate themselves a little bit.

Only strong, free societies with the backing of the United States even considers the concept of International Law. Do you honestly think China or Russia would even consider a thought of handing over sovereign rights to other decision makers unless they knew it would favor them? Hardly, and the track record of the United Nations shows this with their veto power.

This isn't a group hug makes them feel loved or they need to be better educated type thing. Terrorists just need to be dead, regardless of where they are hiding.

reply to post by hinky

I have no problems with killing terrorist or terrorist supporters regardless of borders. It wouldn't stop anyone else, let alone the terrorist, from performing their actions.

So,if these terrorists were in the UK or a European country??

Why is it that people believe the USA should be the only country that should obey international law.

I believe that all countries who are part of the UN should,but i am well aware that many do not.The reason that US is the one getting it in the neck is because of the lies and manipulation they have spread since 9/11,and the atrocities that are being committed by them in Iraq.The reason for the war in Iraq was to free the people from Saddam and to set up a democracy,we are so far from that now that it isn't even a dot on the horizon.

Do you honestly think China or Russia would even consider a thought of handing over sovereign rights to other decision makers unless they knew it would favor them?

Countries like Syria and Pakistan haven't handed over their sovereignty,the US government is trying to take it from them.

Terrorists just need to be dead, regardless of where they are hiding.

But its not just terrorists that are dying,its innocent civilians too.Would you stand by and accept that view if it was American civilians dying??

You do realize Syria gave the US government the whereabouts of the ass clown they were looking for. Pakistan also helps the US government but publically claims infringement to keep their own people from taking over the government that supports the USA.

Both these governments prefer to have their people publically hate America than have the living terrorist within their borders plotting destruction within their borders. It doesn't take a person with a high level of intelligence to figure this out. It's nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

As for the opening thread about International Law, why do you possibly think the United Nations headquarters is located in New York. Not Moscow or Peking but New York. Do you think they got some great lease on office space? Only the United States would put up with the silly crap that the UN Diplomats routinely dish out.

As for 9/11 and then tying it to Iraq, you have to love this argument. You do know they are two separate issues.

Now for the European terrorist, I don't see any European country protecting them. I do see many counties of that region cooperating and arresting terrorists. Don't you see that also?

As for 9/11 and then tying it to Iraq, you have to love this argument. You do know they are two separate issues.

The war on terror started with 9/11.The US claimed Saddam had WMD and that he was going to use them,such terror was not to be allowed.

Now for the European terrorist, I don't see any European country protecting them. I do see many counties of that region cooperating and arresting terrorists. Don't you see that also?

I never said they did,i said what if.
There are militant factions across Europe who support the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.They do so verbally and no doubt they do so with money and shelter too.

You do realize Syria gave the US government the whereabouts of the ass clown they were looking for. Pakistan also helps the US government but publically claims infringement to keep their own people from taking over the government that supports the USA.

Helping and giving locations is one thing,the killing of innocent civilians in the process is another.

"International Law" was never alive in the first place- it can't be "dying" now. A failed idea brought forth by American idealists. Long past due for being thrown on the scrap heap of history.

reply to post by SuperViking

A failed idea brought forth by American idealists. Long past due for being thrown on the scrap heap of history.

Do some research.
The concept of international law dates back centuries.The earliest known law was the Introduction to the Law of Nations written at the end of the 8th century by Muhammad al-Shaybani.In the US the first international law was the Lieber Code,signed by Lincoln in the 1860s.In Europe the League of Nations was the first international law organization which was founded as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919–1920.In 1945 the UN replaced this.


You may find this link useful.It shows 100 ways international law shapes society,and i'm guessing you'll have never realized that most of the things on it are made possible by this law.
www.scribd.com...

Originally posted by hinky
I have no problems with killing terrorist or terrorist supporters regardless of borders. It wouldn't stop anyone else, let alone the terrorist, from performing their actions.

Remember, the label of Terrorist is relative...

Our U.S. Special forces units could be considered Terrorists.

It all depends on perspective.

I actually have a master's in International Relations- this concept of International Law we have today is very much a product of American idealists- many much like yourself- and it's a terrible idea. It doesn't work and and only encourages stronger nations to sublimate their own self interests to appeal to non-citizens. It's pathetic.

reply to post by SuperViking


even though the United States refused to support the International Criminal Court?

What American Idealists? Do we know their names?

I'm English,not American.

And did you look at the link?
Its full of things that we take for granted,but are made possible because of international law.

I know the law isn't perfect,there is always someone who will use such things for their own ends,just as people manipulate US or British law.But that doesn't mean that they should be abolished.

Woodrow Wilson, for one. The names are very well known, read a book.

And jackyll, it doesn't matter if you're British, you're still an idealist just like Wilson and such. Just as naive.

Thank god no one follows that #.

An idealist sees things as they should be,not as they are.
If i didn't see the world as it really is i wouldn't be having these political debates now would i? I'd be all happy behind my rose tinted glasses.

That's great. An idealist can argue with a realist while drowning about how it would be great if the water just turned into Jell-O, while a realist deals with the situation at hand and survives it.

Idealism in international relations FAILED. That's why no nations follow it now. American and Western European citizens seem to think they're governments should follow it, but they're for the most part extremely sheltered and ignorant about foreign policy and aren't (thankfully) listened to. Just look at history- no one in power listens to that #.

And if someone who believes in it comes into power, they quickly come to the realization that it won't work and other options must be pursued. There's a reason why virtually all governments work in this way and it's not a conspiracy about the New World Order behind it. It's facing reality.

You continue to be an idealist and argue about how things should be- no one in power to enact such policies would ever do so because they just simply aren't effective. And while you can be a 'citizen of the world' and offer up ideas to benefit all of mankind, those politicians are paid for and bear the responsibility of working for their government and the safety and security of their populaces, not all of mankind.

So keep railing about how the US or the EU or Iran or China or whatever is 'immoral'- no one who matters cares, you'll see such the rest of your lifetime. Governments care about what is effective. And that's what they should care about.

You continue to be an idealist and argue about how things should be

Correction.

I argue about the atrocities in Iraq.I argue against Americas belief that they have to bomb any country they want.I argue against the expansion of the ME war.I argue against the Bush administrations continuous lies and manipulations.

If you think the US should be able to attack anyone they want,then you are giving a green light to every other country in the world that has issues with their neighbours to take up arms.If America can do then so can they.

Umm...yes, I know. That green light is there- it never HASN'T been there. Nations are only limited by their strengths and weaknesses. It's never been any different.

The nations that are part of the UN are limited by the laws they agreed to.

The problem is that we tend to remember failures and discount success. We remember Rwanda and forget successful operations in El Salvador, Mozambique and Nambia. We focus on Kosovo, where the U.N. mission met stiff resistance, and forget Cyprus, where the United Nations has preserved the peace since 1964. We remember the disaster in Somalia and forget the mission in Kashmir, where the "blue hats" of the United Nations have played a role in keeping the peace between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan since 1949. Today, there are 18 peacekeeping missions in the world with more requests for new missions than the United Nations can handle. If U.N. peacekeeping has failed, why does this demand exist?

www.signonsandiego.com...

No, they're only limited by what punitive actions can be done against them. Weak countries do have to abide by UN regulations. Strong nations do not.
Who is going to enforce UN limitations upon China, Russia, or the US?

No one, not even each other. And that's why it fails. It's tautological: The UN can and will intervene...where it can. It's pointless.