Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Attack on Syria Granted

  1. #1
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Attack on Syria Granted

    Syria Dossiers Give Green Light For Intervention - Even Without The United Nations






    David Cameron has been given a legal green light to launch military action against Syria - even without the United Nations' approval.Official legal advice for the government said intervention would be permitted "in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe" caused by chemical weapons. It comes as intelligence officials concluded it was "highly likely" that President Assad's regime had been responsible for the Damascus chemical attacks that shocked the world.


    The legal position was revealed when Downing Street published its legal advice for intervention ahead of an emergency Commons debate about the crisis on Thursday afternoon.



  2. #2
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    It says: "If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime."


    Precedents for military intervention without UN approval include Kosovo, which was deemed to be a success, and of course Iraq, which dogged Tony Blair and Labour for the following decade.


    Meanwhile, the Joint Intelligence Committee said it had "concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
    This was not enough for some critics of intervention.


    Tory MP Julian Lewis told the BBC: "The JIC summary is inconclusive".


    A Number 10 spokeswoman said: "Today we have laid in the library of the House information on what we know about the attack in Damascus last week and the Government's position on the legality of any military action in response.


    "This reflects the PM's commitment to build a consensual approach and to ensure that MPs can properly consider the issues before voting on the UK response.


    "The judgment of the Joint Intelligence Committee is that a chemical weapons attack did occur in Damascus last week; that it is highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible; that there is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability; and that no opposition group has the capability to conduct a chemical weapons attack on this scale.



    "The Government's position on the legality of any action makes clear that if action in the UN Security Council (UNSC) is blocked, the UK would still be permitted, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, to take exceptional measures including targeted military intervention in order to alleviate the overwhelming humanitarian suffering in Syria."


    Labour, however, will vote against the Government's motion on the principle of military intervention in Syria, a senior party source said told the Press Association on Thursday afternoon.

  3. #3
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default


    …………….

  4. #4
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    There has never been any need for a Security Council resolution approving action to stop, punish or deter a crime against humanity.
    Before the UN or League of Nations were established there were well-recognised situations where action was taken against piracy, against slavery.
    More recently, we have action taken by Nato to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. That did not require a UN resolution, which Russia would have blocked.

    If Russia wants to render [prevent military] action against Syria, for a crime against humanity of using chemical weapons to mass murder its own people, then it must bring a motion of condemnation in the Security Council, as it tried to do with Kosovo.

    It failed, getting only three votes, so Nato action in that case is regarded as legitimate. So was the Nato use of force to create safe havens in Iraq in the 1990s.
    However, any force used must be proportionate; it must have the objective of deterring future use of poison gas by the Syrian state. That means very limited military action, probably to close air bases, with the threat of more extensive action to come, if there is further use of poison gas by the state.
    The world cannot ban chemical weapons and then sit idly by while a state uses them to kill civilians.

    However there is a burden of proof on those who wish to use force to establish beyond doubt the culpability of the Syrian state.
    This would best be done by bringing the evidence before an international court. But this is perhaps premature and the evidence will have to be brought before the Security Council and if the majority [of members] accepts it then they can go ahead with deterrence by use of force.
    That resolves the legal question but there are obviously political and moral questions involved.


    Geoffrey Robertson QC International Human rights lawyer.




  5. #5
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    How exactly does the West hope to deter Asad by bombing a few military bases ?
    Am anti-war on this one….

  6. #6
    1337 Major Undercover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,512
    Rep Power
    69

    Default

    Britain's parliament votes against military action in Syria

    LONDON: British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes on Thursday, a stunning defeat for a government which had been poised to join the US in strikes to punish Bashar Assad's regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack this month.

    Cameron's nonbinding motion was defeated 285-272 and he conceded after the vote that "the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action."

    The prime minister said in terse comments while he believes in a "tough response" to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.

    At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed ready to join Washington in possible military action against Assad over the alleged chemical weapons attack. But the push for strikes against the Syrian regime began to lose momentum as Britain's Labour Party — still smarting from its ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — announced its opposition to the move.

    Cameron gave concessions, promising to give the UN inspectors time to report back to the UN Security Council and to do his outmost to secure a resolution there. He also promised to give lawmakers a second vote in a bid to assuage fears that Britain was being rushed into an attack on Assad.

    In the end, it wasn't enough to dispel lingering suspicions that what was billed as a limited campaign would turn into an Iraq-style quagmire.

    Tony Travers, the director of the government department at the London School of Economics, said Cameron had clearly miscalculated when he brought Parliament back early from its summer recess. He said the move had been unpopular even within Cameron's Conservative Party.

    "Clearly this will be seen as a defeat, it suggests he got the politics wrong, both with the opposition and with some members of his own party," Travers said. "It's not great, it's not brilliant, nor is it the end of the world for him. He's lost votes before. It doesn't necessarily stop them taking further action, but they are going to have to start again really."

    He said there was "not a lot" of public support for British military activity in Syria.
    U MAD BRO?

  7. #7
    teekhi jammu chilli Major General arumita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    my home
    Posts
    30,267
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    this is not good for world peace














  8. #8
    ▐║Mirchirific Moderator║▌ Brigadier General mirchi.foreever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ~~~missing~~~
    Posts
    25,227
    Rep Power
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arumita View Post
    this is not good for world peace
    Can you please elaborate this new word to me" peace"? Lol

    Kidher hai re peace mere dost?

  9. #9
    teekhi jammu chilli Major General arumita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    my home
    Posts
    30,267
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirchi.foreever View Post
    Can you please elaborate this new word to me" peace"? Lol

    Kidher hai re peace mere dost?














  10. #10
    ▐║Mirchirific Moderator║▌ Brigadier General mirchi.foreever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ~~~missing~~~
    Posts
    25,227
    Rep Power
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arumita View Post
    this is not good for world peace
    Quote Originally Posted by arumita View Post
    Haha hahah that's what I thought ...

  11. #11
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Army chiefs who led Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan have praised Parliament for its decision not to join the U.S. in any military strikes against Syria. As America prepares for missile strikes against the war-torn country - possibly as early as tomorrow - David Cameron is still reeling from Thursday's shock Commons defeat.

    But despite the anger and frustration of the British government - and many Conservative MPs - generals who led the British Army in recent campaigns said not taking action against Syrian president Bashar Assad was the correct decision.

    Lord Dannatt, former head of the British Army, described the vote as a 'victory for common sense and democracy', telling the BBC the 'drumbeat for war' had dwindled among the British public in recent days.

    'The will of the people has been expressed through the House of Commons that we don't want to get involved in this - that's the right answer at this precise moment.


    'President Obama may well take note of what's happened in Westminster tonight and think again - I certainly hopes he thinks again because I'm absolutely convinced the use of explosive ordinance into Damascus at the present moment will make the situation in that very difficult Syrian civil war worse, not better.'

  12. #12
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    President Obama declared Saturday that he has decided to take unilateral military action against Syria, but is seeking congressional authority before launching an attack.

    'I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,' Obama said from the Rose Garden Saturday. 'Our military has positioned assets in the region.

    The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose,' he added. 'Our capacity to execute this mission is not time sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week ,or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.'

  13. #13
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default


  14. #14
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Other potential target areas



  15. #15
    SBF Leader
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Syria state-run daily says Obama decision to seek congressional approval start of US 'retreat'

    DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — A Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria "the start of the historic American retreat."


    The gloating tone in the front-page article in the Al-Thawra daily followed Obama's unexpected announcement on Saturday that he would ask Congress to support a strike punishing the President Bashar Assad's regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons. The decision marked a stark turnabout for the White House, which had appeared on the verge of ordering U.S. forces to launch a missile attack against Syria.


    "Whether the Congress lights the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Al-Thawra said.


    The paper, which as a government outlet reflects regime thinking, also claimed that Obama's reluctance to take military action stems from his "sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies." The daily said the American leader worries about limited intervention turning into "an open war has pushed him to seek Congress' consent."


    The U.S. Navy moved warships over the past week into the eastern Mediterranean as the Obama administration considered its options. With everything in place, Obama said Saturday that he had decided the U.S. should take military action and that he believes that he has the authority as commander-in-chief to "carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization." But he added that he believes the U.S. "will be stronger" if he takes his case to Congress for its nod of approval before taking action.

Similar Threads

  1. Dad takes mom for granted
    By Unregistered in forum Ask Preeto / Agony Aunt
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-05-2013, 09:24 AM
  2. gf takes me fr granted.
    By Unregistered in forum Ask Preeto / Agony Aunt
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 23-06-2010, 04:38 AM
  3. Taken for granted....Ballo
    By Preeto Maam in forum Ask Preeto / Agony Aunt
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 27-07-2008, 04:59 PM
  4. How to: Get all your wishes GRANTED!
    By Baadsah in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23-07-2008, 10:41 AM
  5. .....:::: Wish Any Babe... It would be Granted ::::......
    By AxN in forum International Celebrities
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 05:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •