Skip to comments.WHAT IS AN ACT OF WAR?
Posted on 09/12/2012 5:58:58 AM PDT by 7thson
Question for those with more smarts than me - is acting an embassy, consulate, or killing an ambassador an act of war? If so, where can I get confirmation on that? Thank you in advance.
An attack on the embassy is exactly the same as an attack on our mainland soil.
Obama denigrates the beliefs of Christians all the time. Anyway, its the First Amendment, Free Speech. This is an attack on the First Amendment, orchestrated by the White House. It cost Ambassador Chris Stevens his life.
Since the killing was done by Muzzies there can be no declaration of war.
America, one notch lower under Obama. All part of his plan to reduce America. See the movie 2016.
Arch-duke Ferdinand was unavailable for comment.
Bruce Herschensohn, Former Dep. Special Asst. under Nixon, told the Friends this morning—these are all acts of war.
Yes, and I’m sure empty chair will come out any minute and blame former President Bush for starting it.
I declared war on all of them, on 9-12-01.
Difficult to get a straight answer from anyone these years—and, I for one tend to disbelieve anything the “experts” (basterds) say!
Anyway...some food for thought.....
Wow.. I am glad to see you had the self-control to wait a day.
/just funning ya!
I was a day ahead of you.
Wow.. I am glad to see you had the self-control to wait a day.
/just funning ya!
And why the heck are we sending these animalistic killers financial aid? We shouldn't be doing anything at all for them. They're obviously not the least bit grateful for anything we've ever done for them. If they're not going to be U.S. friendly, screw them. Let them eat each other. Enough already!
Obama would be in a fix, since he isn’t a real POTUS he cannot declare war. If he did he would go to prison for ordering murder.
But then again, who would prosecute him?
Nobody will because they have no balls.
(To answer your question, prepare for unsatisfactory diplomatic gobbledegook.)
“In the post World War Two era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except:
1) As a means of defending themselves against aggression; or,
2) Unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries which embark on wars of aggression.
In effect, this means that countries in the modern era must have a plausible casus belli for initiating military action, or risk UN sanctions or intervention.”
More to the point, what you are interested in is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
“Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage...”
“Concerning compulsory settlement of disputes. Disputes arising from the interpretation of this treaty may be brought before the International Court of Justice.”
“The International Court of Justice, also known as World Court or ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.”
“After the court ruled that the U.S.’s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.
“The United States accepts the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council.”
I can't see straight right now.
An act of war is when your President supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
On 9-11, I was too busy w/ civilian rescue ops in NY Harbor and swearing at the subhuman muzzie filth. I waiting ‘til Wed night to formally declare war. heh.
My eyes are squirting blood at what the treasonous 0bummer has done to enable our enemies, once again...
I don’t know about an act of war, but I think the intel was there these attacks were going to happen. But Obama was so looking forward to his meeting with that Limp Pimp, you know, the one that “introduced” Barry to his wife, that Obama skipped the intelligence briefing (first time EVER).
With Americans murdered, and Obama doing nothing to help, I would say he is complicit in their murders.
In that case, your delay is justifiable. ;-)
"Declaration of War" is a function allocated to Congress, per Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Now look at what we have.
Can't you just smell the fresh blooming flowers, hear the colorful birds singing, and feel the warmth of the new, shining sun? Thank goodness Oboma and Hillary bought us this new and wonderful Muslim spring. Before their brilliant policies, all we had over there were uneducated, radical, inhumane, blood thirsty killers. My, how things have cha...............never mind.
The house should immediately initiate authorization for President Obama to respond militarily to these attacks. I don’t believe they need to wait for the president to come to them.
There is no taking our ball and going home...
His minions are out attacking Romney for critizing the *resident during “a time of war”.
His “minions” can go F themselves.
I am ready for, and would assist in anyway, for the smell of freshly made of mid-eastern glass!!!
We ( or any nation ) can declare war, but on whom?
This appears to be a well organized gang, no one that I know of has said that this is state sponsored (or by Egypt, Libya, Iran, etc.). We we have information that it was sponsored by a nation, then let’s roll.
We did not declare war on Germany during the Reagan administration when the disco in Germany was bombed.
I hate to say this, but it’s like they critique that the gang is attacking a US installation because a couple of people within the US produced a movie they don’t like.
The fault here lies in our President and his team. If we stood strongly for freedom, and the gangs knew we would find them and kill them, this would not be happening.
If authorized by the appropriate military channels (i.e., from the head of state, or someone legitimately acting on behalf of the head of state), yes, this would be an “act of war.” As it stands, it was most likely a “crime.”
Depends on your definition of “crime”.
To me, it was a crime against the USA and its citizens.
To the Community Organizer-in-Chief: the crime against the USA was justified by a ‘crime’ against one of the religions of the world.
That one is debatable. Unfortunately, the US is no longer Superman. With Iraq and Afghanistan we now have a version of kryptonite. Throw in Reagan pulling out the Marines in Beirut.
Once the illusion of invincibility is cracked, it can no longer be put back together. Once the commitment of putting troops in harms way and then having them get killed, it creates a confidence to the local populace.
The muslim commons can fight a form of guerrilla war trans countries and the US is helpless to stop it.
An act of war is anything the nation on the receiving end is willing to go to war over. We don’t live in the middle ages, when you needed a “Casus Belli” anymore.
“The muslim commons can fight a form of guerrilla war trans countries and the US is helpless to stop it.”
We’re not helpless to stop it. Helpless would imply that we have no means available to stop it. We have the means, we simply don’t have the will to use those means. So, a better description might be, we are too spineless to stop it.
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ maybe you can get your answers here ,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.