Skip to comments.U.N.'s Ban casts doubt on legality of U.S. plans to punish Syria
Posted on 09/04/2013 7:56:10 AM PDT by opentalk
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization, remarks that appear to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. backing.
He also suggested that a U.S. attack could lead to further turmoil in conflict-ravaged Syria, where the United Nations says over 100,000 people have been killed in the country's 2-1/2-year civil war.
Ban was speaking to reporters after President Barack Obama won the backing of two top Republicans in Congress in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
"The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter and/or when the Security Council approves of such action," Ban said. "That is a firm principle of the United Nations."
Obama said on Saturday he was "comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.reuters.com ...
I am against attacking Syria.
That being said, Screw the UN. We don’t have to ask you for permission.
” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization, remarks that appear to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. backing.”
I must have missed that in the constitution. I thought I read that congress has that authority.
Funny that this douchebag is still pretending to be relevant.
My gawd, even the UN - a pinnacle of ineptness, corruption, and stupidity - has turned on the Obamadork.
This is a true indication that on the scale of abilities, the dork lives in a subterranean level below the zero line.
Heh, I really love this.
When those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage, how can this happen in this modern world.
Well, it happened because a Government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.
So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.
The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.
I do think that we have to act because if we don't we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity and those international norms begin to erode."
President Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama, Junior
Took the words right out of my mouth.
According to the U.N. he is correct.
Meanwhile, back in America...
I keep hearing that the War Powers Act allows a U.S. President to do anything he wants militarily for any reason at all, for a certain number of days.
What say you, FReepers?
Now mind you, even if that were true, since he asked for Congress to approve, Congress could still say “NO APPROVAL”!
Then it would be up to Obama whether to go ahead or not.
Apparently when it comes to whatever Obama wants, Congress is too gutless.
“We have a real chance at this New World Order. An Order where a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders’.
What a world. Where we have globalists like Ban Ki Moon commenting on Barry and his nonsense.
Funnier by the minute!
Reagan’s biggest mistake.
I’m thinking the Vatican will see it similarly and conscientious objection could be in the works for those not wanting to be BO’s mercenaries, something they didn’t sign up for
Violence never solved anything.
Those of a certain persuasion, anyway
The War Powers Act gives the president 90 days to act without congress, but it requires an immediate threat. Doesn’t apply here.
I would like to see the squares you have to check to determine our sovereignty has been threatened, war powers act is so easily abused.
That's really not what the War Powers Act says, but that's the way it's been used since it was passed. The Act actually says the President cannot act without Congress' approval (except for limited cases such as an attack on US soil) but if he should somehow find himself embroiled in one, he has 30 (or is it 60?) days to get Congressional approval or he must withdraw forces as quickly as possible while not compromising the troops' safety.
Needless to say, it's been abused since day 1.
Yes, we should leave that sorry excuse for an organization asap.
We dont have to ask you for permission.
Until we formally leave it and cancel the treaty, I am sorry to say that we DO. We ratified the treaty so it is the law and the charter is quite clear. IOW, if congress passes the authorization, we will be in violation of the treaty and our soldiers will be carrying out illegal orders.
GWII, it can be argued, was carried out iaw the previous resolutions of the security council regarding Iraq (GWI) - at least that was the justification used and nobody has called the US out on it.
You see, the leftists did know what they we taking about regarding UN Approval - they are simply choosing now to IGNORE it, just as they did with Libya and Kosovo.
I must have missed that in the constitution. I thought I read that congress has that authority.
Not according to Kerry! But I have align with the we need to stay out of it crowd, but FU U.N.
...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
UN Charter, Article 2:
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.
CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION - details the only acceptable way ...
We ratified it, and as long as we stay in it, we are bound by it ...
You mean attacking Syria doesn’t pass the “Global Test”?
I guess it means that attacking Syria doesn’t pass my “ is it necessary for Americans to die and Taxpayer dollars be wasted test”.
Funny how all of these liberals who detest our military and it’s use when a Republican is President are more than willing to use that same military at the drop of a hatpin when one of theirs is in office.
Well come on! We have the Prophet Obonghole on our side and his blackness gives him the wisdom to not only know more about the Constitution than anyone but he must also know what is and is not legal under the UN’s “Ministry of Funny Walks and Hats”.
I state, unequivocally, that it must be his blackness which gives him such wisdom as there are absolutely no other indicators in his character, his hidden college transcripts, his Senate voting record which would indicate any other brilliant attribute.
He might as well have run his last campaign with the slogan: “If He’s black we must send him back”
Still not clear who we are helping...Al qaeda rebels? As their power grows more Christians will be put at risk, more violence..
War Powers Resolution of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the “War Powers Resolution”.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference.
Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term “introduction of United States Armed Forces” includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution—
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
No, it means the un sees another opportunity to create a temporary cash stream for their favorite charity...themselves.
Have no fear. After the money train arrives they'll be on board.
“Requires an immediate threat” (WPA)
That is what I thought true.
But why do the regime and its apologists keep saying he does not need Congress?
Are they trying to re-define “threat”??
No one has mentioned that Syria’s Air defense systems were supplied by Russia, and probably manned by Russians. What will happen when we start killing Russians?
False. Treaties do not trump the constitution per case law.
Take a guess.
Article 6 - makes the treaty the law of the land - so, although Congress can still declare war under the Constitution, that declaration, if it violates the treaty, in turn makes that declaration a war crime under the treaties which we ratified. By ratifying the Charter, we agreed to those limitations.
As far as I'm concerned, we should leave the UN right now, but we are there and the treaties are still the law.
So the UN could toss our entire constitution if 50% of the senate ratifies it?
I don’t think so.
In 1776, treaties were agreements between nations, not “international law”.
Just like laws that the federal level passes, treaties must be made: in pursuance of the Constitutions delegated powers as well. To do otherwise is a serious usurpation of the very nature of our Constitutional Republic. To allow foreign law to trump the Supreme Law of the Land leaves the people of this nation in a precarious situation at best with their liberties.
Since it Zero and his posse that want to take action you can be assured the people “he” wants to help are those killing Christians and desiring to kill Americans.
Reread my post. Congress CAN declare war - but they violate treaties which are the law of the land and limit what can be done ...
Look at it this way, can the President order a soldier to kill civilians? If he did, the soldier is required by his oath, under the constitution, to obey that order, if lawful. What law governs whether that order is lawful? The Geneva Convention, which we ratified and is, according to Article 6 the law, and prohibits such things.
The fact that you don't like it, does not change reality, and the solution is quite simple - leave the UN and renounce the treaties.
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.