General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt has come to this: NYT Op Ed- "Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal"
By IAN HURD
Published: August 27, 2013
EVANSTON, Ill. THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian governments use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.
There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, This international norm cannot be violated without consequences. His use of the word norm, instead of law, is telling.
Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.
What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts genocide, slavery and piracy are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category. As many as 10 countries have stocks of chemical weapons today, with the largest held by Russia and by the United States. Both countries are slowly destroying their stockpiles, but missed what was supposed to be a final deadline last year for doing so.
There is no doubt that Mr. Assads government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war, including the prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of civilians, even in non-international conflicts, set out in 1949 in the Geneva Conventions. But the conventions also dont mean much unless the Security Council agrees to act. It is an indictment of the current state of international law that there is no universally recognized basis to intervene.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html
I'm sure many here at DU will approve of this message. It really comes down to "screw it, we can do this because we have the power to do so, and will make our own reality" Been there, done that, learned nothing.
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)So...that's what it comes down to.
Not a decision taken lightly, and I don't think it is.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I googled. That be a neocon