QUELLE EST LA BASE JURIDIQUE LÉGALE POUR INTERVENIR MILITAIREMENT EN SYRIE PAR FRANCOIS HOLLANDE ET LAURENT FABIUS ? (09.09.2015)
When Laurent Fabius (who infamously 'ordered' the peacetime bombing of New Zealand after the no nuclear Lange government was elected in 1985) was asked about the legal grounds for the Syria military 'intervention' President Hollande curiously claimed to have authority to order through the errr...'news media' yesterday....
...Laurent Fabius incredibly replied everyone would just have to wait for the ...legal grounds....
paris: hollande's [sh]amnesty henchmen: 'free syria army' mercenary terrorists
Of course it did seem odd that Hollande issued a grand pronouncement through the 'news' media on September 7th 2015, that had not in any way gone through any kind of 'political' process, except that of a dictator.
sham-eful international terrorist organization
“Hollande said....reconnaissance flights will take place and afterwards we will make decisions. Assad is responsible for the situation in Syria. The solution is political, but a solution cannot be found that leaves Assad in place..."
Hollande's own extraordinarily unpleasant announcement was obviously timed to co-incide with Cameron's own very nasty and unpleasant grandstanding too.
It is difficult to see however how Hollande could fit in with Cameron's extraordinary extra-judicial line, not least because Hollande has only just begun trying to push the 'reconnaissance' line...
All the war propaganda recently really is quite incredible given the UK & France have no legal grounds to go to war with the Syrian government, which everyone knows is their true purpose.
Q - Quelle est la base juridique légale pour intervenir militairement en Syrie ? À la différence de l'Irak, le gouvernement syrien ne l'a pas demandé à la France. La France se targue de n'agir militairement que dans le cadre de l'ONU. Y a-t-il un texte onusien sur lequel se base la France pour mener des opérations aériennes en Syrie ? Ou votre justification légale est la légitime défense dans un sens large ?
Q - What is the legal basis for military intervention in Syria?
Unlike Iraq, the Syrian government has not asked France. France prides itself to only act militarily within the framework of the UN. Is there a UN text for France to conduct air operations in Syria?
Or legal justification is self-defense in a broad sense?
R - Les autorités françaises auront l'occasion de s'exprimer sur ce point dans les prochains jours.
R - The French 'authorities' ?? will have the opportunity to speak on this in the coming days
Q - Pour ses vols de reconnaissance, voire des frappes, au-dessus de la Syrie, peut-on dire que la France fait désormais partie de la coalition arabo-occidentale dirigée par Washington qui agit dans ce pays ? François Hollande n'a pas été très clair à ce sujet hier.
Q - For its reconnaissance flights or strikes, above Syria, can we say that France is now part of the Arab-Western coalition led by Washington, which is in this country?
Francois Hollande was not very clear on that subject yesterday.
R - Comme l'a indiqué hier le président de la République, nous agirons en lien avec la coalition, en préservant notre autonomie de décision et d'action.
R- As reported yesterday the President of the Republic, will act in line with the coalition, maintaining our autonomy of decision and action.
In legal terms Hollande and Fabius make no sense at all.
There is very obviously a Cameron/Hollande double act going down to try and bypass parliaments and courts as much as possible as they try and play catch up with the US & Turkey.
Cameron seems to run with a line that Hollande follows and vice versa, that are both somehow supposed to come together somewhere along the line ??
The reality the US, UK, France & Turkey et al do not seem able to comprehend is the far more functioning Syrian government are not going anywhere anytime soon.
Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives.