There Are A Few Major Problems With The West's Reasoning For Striking Syria

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-justification-for-attacking-syria-2013-8

***SNIP

The ban against chemical weapons is of only limited use in the first place, as former intelligence analyst Joshua Foust explains:

The problem with the norm against chemical weapons use is that it goes out the window when things go wrong. Dictatorial regimes who already abuse their citizens will not be above further abuse when it comes to defending themselves from an existential threat. In Assad’s mind, he is fighting, literally, for his life — so any perceived outcry over using chemical weapons is going to be outweighed by his need for survival.

The only legal ways to intervene militarily in another country are in cases of self-defense or with U.N. Security Council approval. This isn't a case of self-defense, and getting through the U.N. won't be easy.

Phillip Carter, senior fellow and counsel at the Center for a New American Security, explains at War on the Rocks:

The first exception to the rule covers actions taken pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution. The US had this mandate in Libya, and for its recent actions in Afghanistan, Somalia, and the first Gulf War, among others. However, because Russia and China plan to veto any intervention in Syria that comes before the Security Council, there appears to be no chance of obtaining UN sanction to act in Syria.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-justification-for-attacking-syria-2013-8#ixzz2dS3dvJZt