4 ms·

so you're saying because the current legal framework doesn't allow you to randomly start military actions in other countries' territory without their consent, t

so you're saying because the current legal framework doesn't allow you to randomly start military actions in other countries' territory without their consent, that the legal framework is wrong? Maybe as a thought experiment, try applying similar logic the other way around: should any other country have gotten involved in e.g. the Ferguson situation? If so, would that be considered an act of war by the US?

candiodari 8y ago
Pray tell. There is international law, and international law. There is NO international law. Law exists where you have clear laws, a clear and separate way to determine how it applies in situations, and a way to rectify situations afterwards, and an enforcement mechanism ... So thankfully none of that exists, all there is is some vague international documents nobody actually respects. Not the US, not Europe, and certainly no-one else. For instance, one part of international law said that France and the UK (and several others) would declare war on Russia if Russia ever violated the territory of the Ukraine, which it did when it annexed Crimea ... [1] Is it that "legal framework" you're talking about (international treaties) ? Why don't you complain that a new world war wasn't started, despite the "legal framework" (ie. international treaties) stating that we should to respond to Russia's provocation ? Weird how people have such selective application of law and weird interpretations. Interpretations ? Yes, by the way. Why don't you go through those human rights treaties, and verify these questions for me ? 1) if you take actions against a foreign state or military without wearing a uniform, what rights do you have ? None. You can be shot on sight, with collateral damage around you (no limits, so theoretically we could nuke terrorists), by a foreign force, on the territory of a different state than the one controlling the foreign force. 2) WHO makes the determination if you fall under that category from question 1) ? The "on the ground" commander of the force shooting you. This decision is final and cannot be contested by courts afterwards. 3) It does not matter why that force is there, whether they're invading, just visiting, protecting dignitaries, or in fact just entering that territory to eliminate terrorists. Read through the human rights treaties (start here [2]) and point out where I'm wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... [2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
throwaway5752 8y ago
If the "Ferguson situation" involved collaborators seeking to secede a section of the US/overthrow of US gov't and had a proven history of using mass casualty tactics to achieve it and the US government had asked for that countries help and had approved those tactics? ... Then no, that would not be considered an act of war.
- black_puppydog 8y ago
  that's a very long list of "if"s, and they don't all apply to the situations today. See for example Pakistan: "Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks as an infringement of its sovereignty and because civilian deaths have also resulted, including women and children, which has further angered the Pakistani government and people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Pakistani_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Paki...
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    Of course it makes them angry and it should. These type of operations should be handled with the gravest responsibility and killing dozens of noncombatants just because they're gathered for a wedding, for example, is an outrage and beyond unacceptable. But do you think these operations are happening without the approval of the Pakistani government, or do you think those statements are for domestic consumption?
    - jstanley 8y ago
      It's not OK to kill civilians in Pakistan regardless of what the Pakistani government may or may not privately think about it.
      - throwaway5752 8y ago
        But that's not what's happening. Pakistani militants have planned and executed attacks on US citizens in the US and Afghanistan. Bin Laden lived there and coordinated from northern Pakistan for a decade after 9/11. The operations are targeting criminals who have committed and conspired to commit murder, not an indiscriminate campaign of murder against random citizens of Pakistan. Many innocent Pakistani people (and a Pakistani PM) have been killed by these groups. It's not morally cut and dry.

candiodari 8y ago

Pray tell. There is international law, and international law. There is NO international law. Law exists where you have clear laws, a clear and separate way to determine how it applies in situations, and a way to rectify situations afterwards, and an enforcement mechanism ... So thankfully none of that exists, all there is is some vague international documents nobody actually respects. Not the US, not Europe, and certainly no-one else. For instance, one part of international law said that France and the UK (and several others) would declare war on Russia if Russia ever violated the territory of the Ukraine, which it did when it annexed Crimea ... [1] Is it that "legal framework" you're talking about (international treaties) ? Why don't you complain that a new world war wasn't started, despite the "legal framework" (ie. international treaties) stating that we should to respond to Russia's provocation ? Weird how people have such selective application of law and weird interpretations. Interpretations ? Yes, by the way. Why don't you go through those human rights treaties, and verify these questions for me ? 1) if you take actions against a foreign state or military without wearing a uniform, what rights do you have ? None. You can be shot on sight, with collateral damage around you (no limits, so theoretically we could nuke terrorists), by a foreign force, on the territory of a different state than the one controlling the foreign force. 2) WHO makes the determination if you fall under that category from question 1) ? The "on the ground" commander of the force shooting you. This decision is final and cannot be contested by courts afterwards. 3) It does not matter why that force is there, whether they're invading, just visiting, protecting dignitaries, or in fact just entering that territory to eliminate terrorists. Read through the human rights treaties (start here [2]) and point out where I'm wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... [2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

throwaway5752 8y ago

If the "Ferguson situation" involved collaborators seeking to secede a section of the US/overthrow of US gov't and had a proven history of using mass casualty tactics to achieve it and the US government had asked for that countries help and had approved those tactics? ... Then no, that would not be considered an act of war.

black_puppydog 8y ago
that's a very long list of "if"s, and they don't all apply to the situations today. See for example Pakistan: "Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks as an infringement of its sovereignty and because civilian deaths have also resulted, including women and children, which has further angered the Pakistani government and people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Pakistani_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Paki...
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Of course it makes them angry and it should. These type of operations should be handled with the gravest responsibility and killing dozens of noncombatants just because they're gathered for a wedding, for example, is an outrage and beyond unacceptable. But do you think these operations are happening without the approval of the Pakistani government, or do you think those statements are for domestic consumption?
  - jstanley 8y ago
    It's not OK to kill civilians in Pakistan regardless of what the Pakistani government may or may not privately think about it.
    - throwaway5752 8y ago
      But that's not what's happening. Pakistani militants have planned and executed attacks on US citizens in the US and Afghanistan. Bin Laden lived there and coordinated from northern Pakistan for a decade after 9/11. The operations are targeting criminals who have committed and conspired to commit murder, not an indiscriminate campaign of murder against random citizens of Pakistan. Many innocent Pakistani people (and a Pakistani PM) have been killed by these groups. It's not morally cut and dry.