Since the attack there has been international outcry saying that the attack was a violation of international law…I am writing about that issue here today….
The first “Press” is from the site of a regular visitor to IST….Green Road Journal…….
According to the Syrian News Agency SANA, the US led Coalition has carried out targeted airstrikes against a chemical weapons depot in Hatla, east of Deir Ezzor. The depot is held by ISIS-Daesh terrorists:The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces said that the aircrafts of the so-called “US-led International Alliance” on Wednesday between the hour 17:30 and 17:50 carried out an airstrike against a position of ISIS terrorists that includes a large number of foreign mercenaries in the village of Hatla to the east of Deir Ezzor, causing a white cloud that became yellow as a result of the explosion of a huge store that includes a large amount of toxic materials.
Next is from a major site…Politico….they defend the attack as a legal response….
“No child of God should ever suffer such horror,” argued President Donald Trump during his statement justifying last Thursday’s U.S. missile strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s military. Since then, his decision has faced withering scrutiny, particularly on legal grounds. Critics, from Russia to some members of Congress, have argued the military action was an illegal violation of Syria’s sovereignty. “Whatever it is,” tweeted Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith in response to a question about what the legal justification for the strike was, “it exceeds all prior precedents under domestic and international law.” Use of chem weapons is horrific,” tweeted ACLU national security lawyer Hina Shamsi, “but Trump’s military action violates Constitution & U.N. charter. No legit domestic or international law basis.”
Source: Why Trump’s Attack on Syria Is Legal – POLITICO Magazine
I have given as many posts as possible on this action….I want my reader to be as well informed as anyone……they will decide the validity of this attack.
I still am wondering why NO one and I mean NO ONE is asking the question about the number of missiles fired and the damage done to the airfield….this “attack” does not pass the smell test…..neither the action or the reaction can pass the test.
If I’m not mistaken, the fact that American military personnel are on the ground, it gives the president the right.
Under the current conditions then yes…..but according to some of our treaties it does not…..depends on where one wants to put one’s bravado….chuq
Reblogged this on O LADO ESCURO DA LUA.
I do appreciate the re-blog and the visits…thanx…have a good day….chuq
If it looks like a failure, acts like a failure and walks like a failure, does that make it legal?
NO…it does not….chuq
Legality is rarely the benchmark when it comes to military action. What generally counts is whether or not you are seen to win. Victory has a way of becoming ‘legal’, defeat can bring down a government.
Best wishes, Pete.
Unfortunately it doesn’t even have to be a real victory it just has to be viewed as one.
You got that right, David!