US invades Syria - briefly. Was it legal?

Tingkai · June 24, 2003, 13:09

CNN has a story about how US forces attacked six vehicles on an Iraqi highway heading to Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...voy/index.html

Quote:

After the initial attack, a person was spotted on foot near the border with Syria. U.S. special operations forces pursued the individual, and some Syrian border guards showed up, the sources said.

Pentagon officials said at that point the U.S. troops may have crossed the Syrian border. In any event, there was an engagement and three Syrians were wounded. They received medical treatment from the U.S. military. It's not clear if they were shot from the ground or from the air.

Some local villagers have claimed the people killed in the attack were sheep smugglers. Pentagon officials said they might have been smugglers, but said U.S. intelligence strongly suggests high-level Iraqis, not sheep, were their cargo.

Most of the 20 people captured in the attack have been released, Pentagon officials said.

So if US forces actually crossed into Syria, was it legal? Was it justified?

CNN doesn't say how many people were killed.

NY Times reports: "At least one of the Iraqi vehicles destroyed in the attack was hit by American attack helicopters on the Syrian side of the border, the officials said. They said three of the five Syrian border guards, who exchanged gunfire with American ground forces, remained in American custody for medical treatment."

DaShi · June 24, 2003, 13:12

No, sheep smuggling is a capital offense in all countries.

GePap · June 24, 2003, 13:22

Those sheep are WMDs! Our intelliegence says so! And they are never wrong when it comes to WMD's!

Shi Huangdi · June 24, 2003, 13:23

"So if US forces actually crossed into Syria, was it legal? "

Does it matter?

DinoDoc · June 24, 2003, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DaShi
No, sheep smuggling is a capital offense in all countries.

I thought that was only in Wales and New Zealand.

Sava · June 24, 2003, 13:32

Syria can suck it

Gatekeeper · June 24, 2003, 13:35

There's a report out — on CNN, at least — indicating that the *five* Syrians border guards in U.S. medical custody may not really be Syrian border guards at all. Syria has been remarkably quiet in regards to the whole incident, which is leading to public speculation that "there's more going on than meets the eye."

Gatekeeper

Cruddy · June 24, 2003, 13:58

Depends on what the border treaties are and what you define as legal... but lots of precedent for "hot pursuit" across a border.

Most law enforcers don't follow US state trooper policy of stopping at the border...

Anyway, it's conjecture anyway. The Iraq Syria border has very few official check points or markers - most of the locals don't know (or indeed, care) which side of the border they're on.

reds4ever · June 24, 2003, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Those sheep are WMDs! Our intelliegence says so! And they are never wrong when it comes to WMD's!

Your 'intelligence' has been playing too much Worms then!

Meldor · June 24, 2003, 14:14

In the middle of the area they were in, it would be really hard to tell exactly were that border was and when you crossed. It isn't like they have a fence all the way across.

Andrew1999 · June 24, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Meldor
In the middle of the area they were in, it would be really hard to tell exactly were that border was and when you crossed. It isn't like they have a fence all the way across.

They've got GPS though. I'd imagine they knew pretty well where the border was. Besides, if they shot up a bunch of Syrian border guards there must have been an outpost of some kind.

PLATO · June 24, 2003, 14:50

Probably illegal. So why isn't Syria complaining? It is probably because they know that they are guilty of aiding and abetting the world's newest "most dangerous" terrorist...Saddam Hussein (recently demoted from tyranical dictator). Syria would probably prefer to stay out of any spotlights with the 3rd and 4th ID right next door.

Dis · June 24, 2003, 15:13

If Syria doesn't like it they can attack us.

actually I shouldn't say that. They support terrorists who want us all dead.

Solly · June 24, 2003, 15:15

Who gives a **** apart from raving liberals who only want yet another excuse to have a petty dig at the freedom- and democracy-loving state of America.

Cruddy · June 24, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew1999

They've got GPS though. I'd imagine they knew pretty well where the border was...

GPS only tells you where you are on a map. It doesn't tell you how accurate the map is - and borders are generally dependant on who drew the map.

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew1999
Besides, if they shot up a bunch of Syrian border guards there must have been an outpost of some kind.

Who might have been lost as well.

GePap · June 24, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Probably illegal. So why isn't Syria complaining? It is probably because they know that they are guilty of aiding and abetting the world's newest "most dangerous" terrorist...Saddam Hussein (recently demoted from tyranical dictator). Syria would probably prefer to stay out of any spotlights with the 3rd and 4th ID right next door.

How would this be illegal? Saddam has not been charged with any crimes yet, so in theory Syria can just give him refuge in exile, like the Saudis did with Idi Amin. Oh, and Saddam is hardly "most dangerous terrorist".

The US would have no legal ground to demand extradition form Syria if Saddam were charged with international war crimes, specially given no such treaty with the US.

Velociryx · June 24, 2003, 17:30

While that's true on paper, GePap, I don't see the Syrian government playing hardball with the US with 90k troops in the neighborhood, and more close at hand.

Syria is staying quiet because it's politically prudent to stay quiet, even if they have nothing whatsoever to hide.

-=Vel=-

The Templar · June 24, 2003, 18:25

My first impression is that its illegal. But its not as though Syria can enforce its rights against the US.

Of course, this just goes to show Bush and Co. don't really respect the sort of "national soveriegnty" that they always appeal to when they reject the ICC or some other treaty.

Japher · June 24, 2003, 18:27

What is legal in war?

Didn't we have some problems with this type of thing in Vietnam, accidently wandering into Laos or Cambodia? Someone help?

overload

DinoDoc · June 24, 2003, 18:29

I think Cruddy has the best answer so far.

PLATO · June 24, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

How would this be illegal? Saddam has not been charged with any crimes yet, so in theory Syria can just give him refuge in exile, like the Saudis did with Idi Amin. Oh, and Saddam is hardly "most dangerous terrorist".

The US would have no legal ground to demand extradition form Syria if Saddam were charged with international war crimes, specially given no such treaty with the US.

I think the incursion into Syria was probably illegal. And Syria is guilty of aiding and abetting Saddam (although it is unclear weather this is illegal or not). And, how can you say Saddam isn't a terrorist now (assuming that he is behind the attacks going on in Iraq now...Haven't you said yourself that "freedom fighter"= "terrorist" depending on which side you are on?)?

And, who said anything about extradition (which is a legal term anyway).

Vel has it right. Syria will be smart to stay quiet regardless.

BeBro · June 24, 2003, 19:01

They briefly invaded?

That is illegal!!! Why didn´t they stay there?

DinoDoc · June 24, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
That is illegal!!! Why didn´t they stay there?

See what happens when you don't come with us. If we had Germans with us, we would have stayed.

MichaeltheGreat · June 24, 2003, 19:41

Technically, it's an incursion, not an invasion.

IIRC, it's legal if you're in the process of pursuing combatants with whom you are actively engaged, assuming you do the least necessary, consistent with the safety of your own troops.

Going into a neutral country after something like an enemy base camp is illegal, because there's neither the urgency of immediate combat and pursuit, nor is there the safety issue.

Basically, enemy bullets don't stop at the border and turn back, so you don't have to either. If the enemy disengages, then there's a question of if/how far you can pursue, but not if the enemy is itself first entering the neutral country in a moving fight.

A few border guards doesn't mean an outpost right there, it might mean an outpost or camp a few kilometers away, and these guys wondered what the hell the deal was with all the firing, so they went to check it out, and got more than they bargained for.

BTW, Andrew, if you're being shot at, or pursuing guys who can stop anytime and shoot at you, looking at GPS and a map is probably not at the top of your priority list.

TCO · June 24, 2003, 19:44

I can neither confirnm, nor deny that excursions were made in other wars and that I was briefed on it.

TCO · June 24, 2003, 19:46

I meant incusrions. Sorry I'm a little soused and I didn't read MTG's post. But it's interesting that independantly we used the trusion word. Well suffix. Or root or whatever is the part of a word outsie otg the rpefix.

Poogas · June 24, 2003, 19:58

I don't think a few troops chasing some Syrians/iraqi's supposedly found of sheep justifies the word "Invasion" if anything an Intrusion, as some have arleady pointed out, Syria and Iraq don't really have the most defined borders.

But on the other hand, if the US had a intrusion including sheep smugglers, and chasing them down with a few hundred tanks, jeeps, and armed personel till the "High Speed" pursuit conlcuded at the Syrian capital (what ever the hell that is) that I suppose would justify a Invasion.

Sava · June 24, 2003, 19:59

I wish I were a Joint-Chiefs member. I would go on CNN and say this, "We did what we had to do. Syria can suck my balls if they don't like it."

Why can't we have leaders like that?

Poogas · June 24, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I wish I were a Joint-Chiefs member. I would go on CNN and say this, "We did what we had to do. Syria can suck my balls if they don't like it."

Why can't we have leaders like that?

That sir, is my dream. lol.... I agree we need a leader who speaks his mind!!!

Thorn · June 24, 2003, 20:11

The United States can do anything it wants to, any nation that wishes to oppose it will be obliterated. End Transmission.