Obama's Illegal War

More:  As expected the US is justifying its Syrian bombing campaign under Article 51 of the UN Charter  because it is defending Iraq from ISIS. The UN ambassador wrote Secretary Ban Ki-moon that the self-defense exception is applicable because Syria has lost control of the territories occupied by the so-called Islamic State.  The American ambassador also claimed one of the groups targeted near Aleppo posed a direct threat to US security. The ambassador did not address the issue of compliance with domestic legal authority for war. [read below]

{23.09.14} Still operating under a long obsolete congressional grant of war authority to the Charlatan for war against the perpetrators of the September 11th terror attack, the Obamarama has run that domestic green light into bombing ISIS in a third country, Syria, which explains why the bomber-in-chief is publicly claiming "all terrorists are Al-Qaeda". Clearly they are not, since mainstream al-Qaeda broke with ISIS for being too extreme, and is fighting the organization on the ground in Syria's civil war. Commentators and even the New York Times are questioning the administration's policy overreach. No congressional authority to wage war in a third country without a UN security mandate, or invitation by the soverign nation, can be considered legal under international law. {12.09.14, War is Their Only Answer}

In the first meeting of the General Assembly, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani condemned ISIS for its barbaric acts, but also told news media that the US military action does not "have any legal standing" without a framework sanctioned by the UN. He also called US policy "confused" since it is bombing rebellious militants while also trying to undermine Syria's ruling regime of Bashar al-Assad. Iran is a close ally of President Assad, and opposes the so-called Islamic State declared by the extremists. Russia has also expressed its disapproval of Obama's unilateral decison to go to war against ISIS in Syria. The US does have an invitation from its quislings in Baghdad to operate against ISIS in Iraq.  Unlike Iraq, Syria has not made a request for assistance eventhough it has effectively lost control of part of its territory to ISIS.

When the Obamanator went to war against Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, he made sure he obtained a UN Security Council resolution authorizing NATO airstrikes. Once again the imperialists in the Washington security establishment are trotting out the limp pony of "commander-in chief-authority" as enough basis for war mongering anywhere in the world they allege a threat to America's apparently boundless security interests. Unfortunately, top government officials have repeatedly said ISIS does not present an immediate threat to the United States, so the remote attacks against it cannot qualify as self-defense. Nor can collective defense of Iraq be a legitimate basis since Iraq has not formerly declared that it is threatened by ISIS forces in Syria and involk the recognized exception of self-defense with a request for assistance from its allies.

The Obombanator will chair a US Security Council meeting in New York next week, where he could ask for a resolution authorizing the use of force against ISIS in Syria. Resolution 2170 concerning ISIS passed last month did not authorize the use of force. Russia will undoubtably veto any effort to give the United States international legal authority to further project its military power abroad given the on-going dispute over Ukraine.