Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
|
International law is tricky. With the exception of things like crimes against humanity, it really only exists if the other party makes a complaint. There is no international police force, and states must bring their complaints before international tribunals on their own behalf. In other words, theoretically violating an international charter is meaningless, until a charge has been put forward and an investigation done before a tribunal, which has taken jurisdiction of the issue. The laws and words themselves are meaningless as, unlike the laws within a state, there is no automatic jurisdiction.
Given Assad's recent track record, I don't see him making any complaints any time soon. Regardless of whether you think he perpetrated this chemical attack, there's no doubt that he's been using his planes to drop a plethora of weapons indiscriminately on civilian populations.
Basically, you're only really entitled to accuse another party of a breach of international law, if you come in with clean hands. Assad's regime does not fit that criteria. And even if Assad were to somehow bring this action before some kind of international tribunal and then find the USA guilty of an unwarranted attack on him, the vast majority of the process would be spent investigating his own plethora of breaches. As nobody is going to take any action against the USA, all that would happen would be Assad exposing himself to further repercussions. The USA has nothing to cover up. They've boldly attacked Assad. Assad, through his own actions, has put himself in a position where he cannot have any kind of breach of international law determined.
In the context of any kind of armed conflict, it's almost a certainty that all parties have violated some aspect of international law, so it often comes down to a question of who's worse. In the context of this conflict, things are a huge mess, and Syria really no longer exists as a sovereign state. You've basically got a bunch of bandits running around committing atrocity after atrocity, with various outside powers sticking their fingers into the mess.
As far as the public is concerned, do you really think they care that some of Assad's military planes were destroyed? Any criticism Trump is taking is because people don't like Trump, not because people are concerned about the state of Assad's air force of territorial integrity. What emotional manipulation does Trump need? The people on both sides of this debate are equally guilty of "emotional manipulation". Trump with his usual grandstanding, and the anti-Trump crowd with their usual attacks on moral character.