WHITE HOUSE HAS NO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR HITTING ISIS IN SYRIA by Josh Rogin

[grahamhgreen]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html

Harf implied that that the administration might claim the right to strike ISIS in Syria based on the principle of individual self-defense, a clear exception to the need for permission or UN Security Council. Such a rational might be applicable if the American government claims there’s an imminent threat to U.S. personnel in a state that is unwilling or unable to counter that threat. But if administration officials actually try to invoke individual self-defense as a justification, they would likely have to contradict repeated statements by top officials this week claiming ISIS does not present an immediate threat to the U.S. homeland.

...


Another possible international legal justification the administration might use is the right of “collective self defense,” under which the U.S. and its allies could claim that strikes inside Syria are part of the effort to defend the country of Iraq from ISIS. That justification would build on Kerry’s contention that the Assad regime is unable to control its own territory and therefore other states have a right to take action.

But this explanation has drawbacks as well. Namely, it would only justify actions to protect Iraq—not “destroy” ISIS, as President Obama has promised in recent days. Iraq would have to formally declare that it was threatened by ISIS forces in Syria, invoke its own right to self-defense, and then ask other states for assistance.

....

A third possible international legal justification by the Obama administration could be to invoke the same justification it is now using to explain the ISIS war on domestic legal grounds, the principle that the war against al Qaeda is an ongoing armed conflict and that ISIS is part of al Qaeda. That argument must be reconciled with the fact that ISIS and al Qaeda are publicly at war with each other and fighting on the ground every day in Syria.

Do you think the Republicans will back the President on this potentially illegal action, or throw him to the wolves? Do you think they will 'not look back' as Obama did if we get a Republican in the White House in 2016?

Obama is really putting himself out on a limb here.

In my view, he really needs to seek congressional approval for any military action, or the R's will come after him tooth and nail.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Rogin's a Republican troll. I'll wait to hear what the justification/explanation is, but

ISIS is killing American hostages in Syria and using Syria as a base of operations for Iraq terror--I am sure that will factor in. BTW, Rogin will be back later in the week with fresh John McCain/Lindsey Graham quotes about how Obama's a weak leader who doesn't listen to the military or some such crap.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Obama needs to be very careful. The R's will keep coming after him until the find a reason

that has enough of a legal hook in it, that it will stick.

This may very well be a trap they a setting for him with the help of right wing White House insiders.

[Maedhros]

2. Obama ignored Congress when they forbid him from stupidly bombing Libya.

I doubt he will listen if Congress forbids him from stupidly bombing Syria.

He has taken Bush's Imperial Presidency concept and notched it to '11'.

[grahamhgreen]

5. I think they're baiting him and he's taken it.

I won't 'get his back' on this one.

[KurtNYC]

4. the timing it terrible coming 50 days before the Nov midterms

IMHO Obama should have put the Repubs on record.