Syria Live{britain says legally entitled to strike syria even if the U.N. Security Council blocked s

[xchrom]

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Syria_9


Obama makes case for punishing Syria, but possible delays loom

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama made the case on Wednesday for a limited military strike against Syria in response to last week's chemical weapons attack even as he faced new obstacles with British allies and U.S. lawmakers that could delay any imminent action.

Casting the need for intervention in Syria's civil war on the basis of U.S. national security interests instead of humanitarian grounds, Obama presented his clearest justification to war-weary Americans for confronting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government with "international consequences."

***SNIP

Britain's intelligence committee says a chemical attack did take place in Syria last week, and that there is "some" intelligence to suggest "regime culpability".
by Reuters: Mark Kolmar 7:58 AM

Britain says it would be legally entitled to take military action against Syria even if the U.N. Security Council blocked such action.
by Reuters: Mark Kolmar 7:53 AM

Britain's intelligence committee says evidence shows that it is "highly likely" the Syrian government was behind last week's chemical attack.
by Reuters: Mark Kolmar 7

[GeorgeGist]

1. Wheels falling off?

7:50 am "highly likely"
7:58 am "some" intelligence to suggest "regime culpability".

[RC]

2. "legally entitled to take military action"????

...even if the U.N. Security Council blocked such action? They still feel legally entitled? Who the Hell gave them that authority? Richard Bruce Cheney?

Syria is a sovereign nation. How would Britain like it, if some other country decided to come in and deal with some of Britain's problems without an invite? Didn't they have some problems with terrorists themselves?

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Here's the legal opinion:

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. Such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

5. All three conditions would clearly be met in this case: (i) The Syrian regime has been killing its people for two years, with reported deaths now over 100,000 and refugees at nearly 2 million. The large-scale use of chemical weapons by the regime in a heavily populated area on 21 August 2013 is a war crime and perhaps the most egregious single incident of the conflict. Given the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons over several months, it is likely that the regime will seek to use such weapons again. It is also likely to continue frustrating the efforts of the United Nations to establish exactly what has happened. Renewed attacks using chemical weapons by the Syrian
regime would cause further suffering and loss of civilian lives, and would lead to displacement of the civilian population on a large scale and in hostile conditions.

(ii) Previous attempts by the UK and its international partners to secure a resolution of this conflict, end its associated humanitarian suffering and prevent the use of chemical weapons through meaningful action by the Security Council have been blocked over the last two years. If action in the Security Council is blocked again, no practicable alternative would remain to the use of force to deter and degrade the capacity for the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.

(iii) In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of
overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike specific targets with the aim of deterring and disrupting further such attacks would be necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable. Such an intervention would be directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog#block-521f38d7e4b0cdd8c14128f5

[malaise]

4. WTF

Just heard that on BBC - evidence shows that it is 'highly likely'?
That's Orwellian for 'we don't fucking know'.