Turkey shoots down Russian jet

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's confirmed by the Syrian governments position on the matter, as has been pointed out in the article linked.

What Syrian governments position. You were qouting an analist.

Even the US government says they didn't coordinate with Syria, and here you are claiming they got permission.

originally posted by: Blissful
If things keep escalating, America needs to invade Russia.

....yeah....nooooooo

originally posted by: RogueWave
Nonsense. Syria is not Iraq is it now?

No and I didn't say it was, did I?

originally posted by: RogueWave
International law states that for intervention in a souvereign state there has to be a UN mandate, or permission by that state. There is no UN mandate and US doesn't have permission. They didn't even bother to ask but just went ahead.

No, there does not have to be a mandate at all. All nations have the inherent right to self-defence. Iraq asked the US and allies to assist it with IS, IS is operating from both Iraq and Syria which is enough legal basis for action to cross the border.

There is ample precedent for this since the UN was founded.

originally posted by: spy66
Jesse's You live in the Uk you should know this better than me.

I Guess you will get it this week than.

Yes, I do live in the UK and yes, I do know it better than you.

Clearly, you are simply confused. The article you linked to showed it was UK pilots embedded with the USAF that were involved in the Syria strikes. No UK jets, no UK Command involved, no UK missiles, no UK anything apart from pilots who are on an exchange/training programme.

EDIT: And I must reiterate - the PM needs no such permission from Parliament to deploy HM Forces. That responsibility replies with him and him alone acting as proxy for HM the Queen. HM Forces do not answer to Parliament.

a reply to: stumason

Thus, US air strikes have been conducted in Syria without a request from the national government. Thus, in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria, the United States cannot credibly claim that it used force in self-defence or at the request of the Syrian state exercising lawful force to suppress rebellion.

Theo Farrell is Professor of War in the Modern World and Head of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He is co-author of International Law and International Relations (2012).

www.telegraph.co.uk... /news/worldnews/middleeast/syria /11116792/Are-the-US-led-air-strikes-in-Syria-legal-and-what-does-it-mean-if-they-are-not.html


Can't embed link. You have to remove a space after "uk" and "syria".

What are your credentials, mason?

a reply to: RogueWave

Personally, I care not for the opinion of one professor and instead I'll rely (as you tried to invoke "international law") on precedent.

Firstly, the strikes are in self-defence of Iraq, not Syria. Iraq has been overrun with an insurgency based in Syria. Iraq has the right to self-defence and has requested assistance from the US and others, ergo, the US is acting in the defence of Iraq.

No UN mandate is required.

Precedents for this include Turkish action against Kurdish militants in Iraq, Indian action against Militants based in Burma (Myanma), Russia in Georgia, Iran in Northern Iraq and Vietnam into Cambodia to just name a few examples.

At any rate, even your own source justifies it, even if questioning the legality the good Professor seems ok with it.:

Not for the first time, the United States has acted illegally in using force in response to overriding humanitarian necessity. It did so in March 1999, when along with its Nato allies it launched an extended bombing campaign to stop atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. In this case also, the United States could not claim it was acting in self-defence. Nor was military action authorised by the UN Security Council. Whilst there was just cause, humanitarian necessity is not recognised in international law as constituting a legal ground for use of force. Thus, among the Nato allies, only Belgian claimed a legal right to use force for humanitarian reasons.

State opinion was divided following Nato's war in 1999. Many states, especially western, recognised the legitimacy of Nato's actions even if few recognised the legality. Russia and China attempted to pass a UN Security Council condemning the Nato bombing as illegal. A year later, in April 2000, the G77 group of 133 non-industrialised states issued a statement rejecting the “so-called right of humanitarian intervention.” Not much has changed since 1999. Indeed, if anything, attempts by the Bush administration to claim a right of preventive self-defence and fallout over the dubious legality of the 2003 Iraq War, have hardened most states’ views against accepting the legality of humanitarian wars.

There is an added strategic imperative, in that Isil military advances threaten the viability of the Iraqi state, in which the United States has much invested, and threaten the stability of the wider region. This is underlined by the involvement of five Arab states – Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – in the strikes against Isil in Syria.

The upshot is that US strikes against ISIL in Syria are probably illegal but widely recognised as legitimate. We are likely to see a rerun of what happened in 1999. Some states may seek to reaffirm the illegality of using force for humanitarian ends or to otherwise interfere in the internal affairs of states. However, most states will welcome this necessary action and simply stay silent on the question of legality.

EDIT: As for my credentials - I fail to see the relevance. If we have to have a professional qualification to have an opinion on ATS, I strongly suspect you shouldn't be posting either!

a reply to: stumason

Precedents for this include Turkish action against Kurdish militants in Iraq, Indian action against Militants based in Burma (Myanma), Russia in Georgia, Iran in Northern Iraq and Vietnam into Cambodia to just name a few examples.

These are not precedents for this case, cause the situation is not the same. These nations came under attack themselves, and take action themselves, in another country. In this case the US is a third party that is not attacked itself.

Using your logic, Russia would be allowed to engage ISIS in Iraq, since Syria is being attacked by ISIS from Iraq, and Russia is Syria's ally, so it would be self defense..................right?

Iraq has the right to self-defence and has requested assistance from the US and others, ergo, the US is acting in the defence of Iraq.

Iraq can only invite the US to give assistance on their own territory.

At any rate, even your own source justifies it, even if questioning the legality the good Professor seems ok with it.:

I know what my source says. We were discussing legality. Not moral justification.

ISIS obviously needs to be stopped. Now that Russia is actually there legally, by invite, US should stop violating international law, and pack up and leave.

EDIT: As for my credentials - I fail to see the relevance

The relevance is that it is your opinion, against the opinion of someone with credentials. If you don't have such credentials, then you don't have his credibility imo.

a reply to: RogueWave

So, in your mind, even though Iraq is being attacked by a force that crosses the border, the US (and Arab allies, don't forget) should leave them be the moment they cross that imaginary line in the desert? Don't be so daft.

The US and the Arabs, acting in defence of the "3rd party", are perfectly justified.

Oh, by the way, the Russia/Georgia one was thrown in there precisely because of that - Russia acted "in defence of a third party" - the breakaway republic of South Ossetia - so I assume you would now be happy to condemn Russia for the Georgia War? Or for that matter, the Crimea Annexation - also illegal under international law.

Basically, all this nonsense about "illegal" this and that is just huff and puff from people who, for whatever reason, hate the US and the West. I never hear them bleating about "international law" when anybody else does it, just the USA.

As for credentials, just because you found one chap who agrees with your point of view, it doesn't make it correct. All you did was go searching for an article that supported your viewpoint - I bet you hadn't even heard of him prior to reading that report.

Now, considering that the UN itself (Ban Kai Moon seems ok with it) is ok with the reasoning given for US action in Syria, your entire argument is moribund.

The American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, officially informed the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, of the legal justification in a letter, asserting that the airstrikes had been carried out under a fundamental principle in the United Nations Charter. That principle gives countries the right to defend themselves, including using force on another country’s territory when that country is unwilling or unable to address it.

-----

“The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself,” the letter states. “Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq’s borders.

“In addition the United States has initiated military actions in Syria against Al Qaeda elements in Syria known as the Khorasan Group to address terrorist threats that they pose to the United States and our partners and allies.”

----

The argument seems to have persuaded Mr. Ban to issue an implicit nod to the airstrikes. He told reporters earlier Tuesday that the strikes had been carried out “in areas no longer under the effective control of that government.”

originally posted by: Blissful
a reply to: spy66

If China doesn't get involved, poorly for Russia. I don't want a war to happen, but Russia's been encroaching upon the U.S.'s geographical and political territory for far too long.

War's not something I want to happen. The safety of our world's citizens is. Sadly, Russia's leading in the opposite direction. If China gets involved, I'll be very fearful.

Where the hell do you get your news?

Like do you mean Alaska? What territory of the U.S. Is Russia encroaching on?

a reply to: stumason

So, in your mind, even though Iraq is being attacked by a force that crosses the border, the US (and Arab allies, don't forget) should leave them be the moment they cross that imaginary line in the desert? Don't be so daft.

Not only in my mind, but by international law. Insults don't make you right.

the legal justification in a letter, asserting that the airstrikes had been carried out under a fundamental principle in the United Nations Charter. That principle gives countries the right to defend themselves, including using force on another country’s territory when that country is unwilling or unable to address it.

No where does it say in that UN charter that this right is extended to third parties, and that they don't need permission.

Syria also wasn't unwilling to let the US attack ISIS, but coordination was required for their permission.

The US didn't coordinate with them, so they didn't get permission.

Oh, by the way, the Russia/Georgia one was thrown in there precisely because of that - Russia acted "in defence of a third party" - the breakaway republic of South Ossetia

No, Russia was the third party.

But, yes, it was not legal. Was this not condemned by the world community?

Are you saying this is justification for the US? We weren't talking about Georgia here. Does this cancel out the violation that was the subject of our discussion?

As for credentials, just because you found one chap who agrees with your point of view, it doesn't make it correct. All you did was go searching for an article that supported your viewpoint - I bet you hadn't even heard of him prior to reading that report.

So you blame me for finding credible sources to back up my argument. At the time I asked about your credentials you had only given your opinion.

The argument seems to have persuaded Mr. Ban to issue an implicit nod to the airstrikes. He told reporters earlier Tuesday that the strikes had been carried out “in areas no longer under the effective control of that government.”

No longer under control doesn't mean the area isn't still legally considered territory of that state. Mr. Ban can nod all he want but these actions require either permission of Syria, or a UN mandate, and that takes more than just a nod by Ban.

And also from your source,

Two legal scholars, Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School and Ryan Goodman of the New York University School of Law, said the United States appeared to be on solid ground by invoking the argument of collective self-defense of Iraq, but that the notion that Syria’s sovereignty could legally be violated because it was “unable or unwilling” to suppress the threat would be more controversial. While the United States has long invoked that argument in various contexts, many international law scholars disagree with it, they said.

Seems more "chaps" with credentials think this.

a reply to: stumason


He is arguing solely to argue because it deals with the west / US / UK. It is apparent no amount of facts is going to be accepted if it supports the position of the west / US / UK.

The airstrikes in Syria are valid as Syria has allowed them. No UN mandate is needed because Syria is allowing it, although its been pointed out mandates from the UN on this topic do exist. The actions in Syria re based on the same legal argument used to defend Russian action in Syria.

Some people cannot accept the fact that Syria authorized US/UK/west airstrikes. Some people cannot accept the fact that Syria stated if they were not notified it would be considered an act of aggression. Some people cannot accept the fact that Syrian state controlled media has stated Syria has been notified of the strikes and as such its not an act of aggression.

The west / US / UK have Iraqi government approval to launch airstrikes inside Iraq just as Iran has Iraqi government permission to have ground forces and Iranian military officers operating inside Iraq.

They lost their argument that the US/West/UK were doing something illegal in Syria. They cannot accept that and so we get the same failed argument time and again in multiple threads now.

a reply to: RogueWave

The legal term you are looking for in international law and UN precedence is called universal jurisdiction. There is another legal term established by the UN in 2005 (I will need to look it up and link it to you) that allows 3rd party nations to intervene in another country when the government of that country is going after its own civilians, and an argument can be made against the Syrian government.

ISIS / Al Queida has attacked other countries like France and the UK and the US and Spain and Turkey and Iraq and Syria. Because of that the door was flung open to end that threat. Under the UN Charter a nation has a right to self defense and in this day and age when terror groups operate from the soil of a country they do not control then that means the country they are using to attack from is fair game.

Syria was notified of air operations and it was approved by Syria.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure, so when and where was permission given or asked?

The reaction from Damascus was somewhat opaque. The Syrian Foreign Ministry simply noted that before the bombing started, Washington had notified Damascus through its envoy to the United Nations. U.S. officials countered that they had provided only a general warning about the possibility of military action and had not coordinated with Assad’s government.

The US did not request permission from the Syrian government, nor did it coordinate its actions with the Syrian government, provide direct notification to the Syrian military or give indication of timing on specific targets, but it did notify the Syrian U.N. representative, which the Syrian government confirmed.

And off course, you know better than experts of international law.

originally posted by: RogueWave
Not only in my mind, but by international law. Insults don't make you right.

"Inernational law" is not some cast iron set of rules - it is very much open to interpretation. It seems the UN agrees with the US argument that this is legally justified as Syria does not have control over the territory in which IS operates.

originally posted by: RogueWave
No where does it say in that UN charter that this right is extended to third parties, and that they don't need permission.

You clearly didn't bother to read my post properly, as I clearly posted it... Here, I'll help you out:

The American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, officially informed the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, of the legal justification in a letter, asserting that the airstrikes had been carried out under a fundamental principle in the United Nations Charter. That principle gives countries the right to defend themselves, including using force on another country’s territory when that country is unwilling or unable to address it.

originally posted by: RogueWave
Syria also wasn't unwilling to let the US attack ISIS, but coordination was required for their permission.

The US didn't coordinate with them, so they didn't get permission.

They didn't need it. Under the UN charter, countries have the right to defend themselves which extends to other countries if that other country is unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

originally posted by: RogueWave
No, Russia was the third party.

Exactly, like the US is the 3rd party defending Iraq - the conflict was between Georgia and the breakaway Republic. Russia was acting like the US is now in "protecting" the breakway.

originally posted by: RogueWave
But, yes, it was not legal. Was this not condemned by the world community?

No - it was condemned by the West but largely ignored by Russia and it's friends. Russia faced no action either.

originally posted by: RogueWave
Are you saying this is justification for the US? We weren't talking about Georgia here. Does this cancel out the violation that was the subject of our discussion?

It certainly lends a precedent, which is important in law. But there is no "violation" in regards to the US.

Here, for the umpteenth time, I'll explain it.

Iraq is under attack, it requests help, the US and the Arabs respond. The enemy is basing out of another country who are unable to take any action, so the right of self defence extends into that other countries territory.

originally posted by: RogueWave
So you blame me for finding credible sources to back up my argument. At the time I asked about your credentials you had only given your opinion.

One source and it means very little, to be honest. The UN seems quite content with action as it is firmly within the scope of self-defence as defined by the UN Charter.

originally posted by: RogueWave
No longer under control doesn't mean the area isn't still legally considered territory of that state. Mr. Ban can nod all he want but these actions require either permission of Syria, or a UN mandate, and that takes more than just a nod by Ban.

Haha, you clearly don't understand the tenet. It means that if that country cannot stop attacks on another from it's soil, then the country being attacked (or those acting on it's behalf) have the right to take action themselves against that enemy.

originally posted by: RogueWave
And also from your source,

Two legal scholars, Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School and Ryan Goodman of the New York University School of Law, said the United States appeared to be on solid ground by invoking the argument of collective self-defense of Iraq, but that the notion that Syria’s sovereignty could legally be violated because it was “unable or unwilling” to suppress the threat would be more controversial. While the United States has long invoked that argument in various contexts, many international law scholars disagree with it, they said.

Seems more "chaps" with credentials think this.

They said it would be "controversial", not illegal.

originally posted by: RogueWave
You were qouting an analist.

What a bunch of arse!

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: RogueWave
You were qouting an analist.

What a bunch of arse!

Ya they will keep this up until they kill the thread ( it there job lol)

a reply to: RogueWave

The Syrian foreign minister, in the articles I linked you to several times now, stated other countries, including the US and UK, are good to go with airstrikes so long as they talk to the Syrian government about it. As was stated, again in the articles I linked you, they stated the US informed Syria of the airstrikes.

The countries attacking ISIS in Syria have been approved and accepted by Syria.

I'll take the position of the Syrian foreign minister / government of syria over your argument.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Syrian foreign minister, in the articles I linked you to several times now, stated other countries, including the US and UK, are good to go with airstrikes so long as they talk to the Syrian government about it.

See, now you are just changing words to make it look like you are right.

They didn't say "talk". They said this,

"Everyone is welcome, including Britain and the United States, to take action against ISIS and Nusra with a prior full coordination with the Syrian government," al-Moallem continued.

Full coordination is not the same as notifying.

Again, the US government itself says that they didn't coordinate,

The reaction from Damascus was somewhat opaque. The Syrian Foreign Ministry simply noted that before the bombing started, Washington had notified Damascus through its envoy to the United Nations. U.S. officials countered that they had provided only a general warning about the possibility of military action and had not coordinated with Assad’s government.

The US did not request permission from the Syrian government, nor did it coordinate its actions with the Syrian government, provide direct notification to the Syrian military or give indication of timing on specific targets, but it did notify the Syrian U.N. representative, which the Syrian government confirmed.

So are you saying that the US is lying or are you just going to keep ignoring it, looking ridiculous in the process?

I'll take the position of the Syrian foreign minister / government of syria over your argument.

That qoute doesn't even say they gave permission or that the US coordinated with them. The US however says they didn't.

So you don't believe me, you don't believe the US, but you do stick to that qoute that doesn't even back up what you are claiming. Laughable.

And the US notified Syria before we launched our attacks. The Syrian government did not protest nor did they attack our aircraft.

Why?

Because they were ok with the actions.

Again your issue is with the Syrian government so take it up with them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And the US notified Syria before we launched our attacks. The Syrian government did not protest nor did they attack our aircraft.

So you changed you tune again. Ok if this is your argument then international law was still broken, since prior coordination and permission still did not occur.

It is a ridiculous argument anyway. Absence of reaction does not equal permission. You really think Assad was going to draw in the US in the war against him by shooting at their planes, which are not attacking him? He had no say in the matter and smartest move was to let it slide.

This still does not equal permission, let alone prior permission.

You fail.