US: Assad responsible even if didn't order gas attack

[Bosonic]

Source: AFP

The United States said Wednesday it holds Syrian President Bashar al-Assad directly responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks against his people, even though he may not have issued orders himself.

As intelligence units zero in on precisely who may have ordered the atrocity that saw up to 1,300 Syrian civilians killed in apparent poison gas attacks on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, the State Department insisted Assad himself was to blame.

"We ultimately of course hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies," State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told a press briefing.

"The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for the decisions made under their leadership, even if... he's not the one that pushes the button, or says 'Go' on this," she told a press briefing.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/us-assad-responsible-even-didnt-order-gas-attack-203204147.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CdmYh5Scm8ASe3QtDMD

[Cooley Hurd]

1. What if troops under ASSad DIDN'T deploy the weapons?

Is ASSad still responsible? If so, that is some convoluted logic...

[pampango]

3. "... President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime ..."

The article does not state that he is responsible if AQ did it. It merely states that he is responsible if his troops did it.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. Will they be honest with us if AQ DID do it?

There's a big question mark...

[pampango]

22. If Obama is the same as Bush, he won't be honest with us.

But if he was the same as Bush, we would have attacked Syria a long time ago.

[warrant46]

35. Remember this Guy and the WMD nerve gas of Saddam

[ozone_man]

36. Not really.

There were several months required for the Iraq War resolution passed congress. I think what is stunning now is how swiftly, without any return of studies by the U.N., the U.S. is ready to act. I think we are more aware of the possibility that our intelligence services lie to us (e.g., Iraq WMD, Manley, Snowden..), and that this time they are trying extra hard to push through another war. John Kerry sounds very much like Colin Powell. It's not identical, but eerily close.

[tblue]

38. Did not expect this of John Kerry.

But I didn't expect this of Obama either. I really shouldn't be surprised.

[pampango]

43. Actually, Bush conducted offensive bombing of Iraq (not just the continuing NFZ) starting

in June, 2002 - long before congress passed the IWR in October of that year.

Operation Southern Focus

The operation lasted from June 2002 until the beginning of the invasion in March 2003. It was intended to be a "softening up" period prior to invasion, degrading Iraq's air defense and communication abilities. ... The operation was not publicly declared at the time. ... Lieutenant General T. Michael Moseley revealed the operation's existence in mid-2003.

The tonnage of bombs dropped increased from 0 in March 2002 and 0.3 in April 2002 to between 7 and 14 tons per month in May-August, reaching a pre-war peak of 54.6 tons in September - prior to Congress' 11 October authorisation of the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Focus

[John2]

44. Can you listen to your

contradictions? I said the same about General Idriss and the atrocities committed by the U.S. supported rebels. So what if they committed the use of chemical weapons that were supplied by these countries under covert activities? Will anybody invade the U.S. and her allies? President Obama and his Administration has categorically denied the rebels have access or the means to carry these attacks out but others say they do have those capabilities and some even mentioned they were supplied by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey with the means, They even point the fingers at Israeli intelligence supplying the same rebels.

Of course you dismiss these as lies or turn a deaf ear on this information like many did when an intelligence chief lied before Congress about gathering information on American citizens.

Let me also point to the lies about who actually used chemical weapons in the Iran\Iraq War when a UN investigation was called in to investigate. The early verdict was we don't know who used them between Iraq and Iran but when all was said and none, it turned out to be a fabrication just because the U. S. and her Allies such as Britain, France and of course Saudi Arabia and Gulf States were all backing Saddam Hussein and very afraid of an Iranian victory in the War. This is only a repeat of History because they are losing the Syrian War. They and only one side have every motive to manufacture evidence because the Syrian Army is pulverizing the so called rebels. They can't allow Assad to come out on top either. Especially when the main objective by the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia,Qatar and Turkey was to eliminate the Triumirate of Hezbullah, Syria and eventually accuse Iran of falsifying their attempts to build nuclear weapons. The U.S. is not innocent in this affair from the very beginning and never has been. They concocted this scheme from the very beginning starting with CIA covert activities during the Arab Spring. Syria was always the main target alone with other countries not toeing the line in the Middle East. I don't think the U.S. will win this War even if they do carry it out because resistance from groups in the region has hardened against intervention for several reasons. One is the idea of Imperialist and colonial reasons, another is the idea of Israel being involved in taking down Arab countries for their benefit. That is what you and others don't understand about the human mind. It is just turning the Middle East into a killing field and it will eventually spread. It will not spare the loss of many innocent American and Western lives either. That is the holistic picture when all is said and done, and it will be President Obama's legacy when the History books are written. It will not place America in a very favorable view either.

[snappyturtle]

2. Hang on tight! Here comes the spinning. nt

[David__77]

4. This is code for that they know that there was no order to do this by the government.

It's interesting, because the US wants the Syrian army to break down, to defect, etc. Of course you're going to have problems then. So the US wants to further degrade Syrian command and control, so that the use of chemical weapons becomes even MORE likely.

[another_liberal]

18. Good insight.

They know there is no tangible proof of Assad giving any such command, but the war must happen anyway or they will all look really foolish.

[leveymg]

6. This is as insane as "Dr. Strangelove"- crazy Maj. Ripper sets off WW3 to protect precious bodily

fluids. Some middling officer commanding an isolated unit starts it, so everyone else has to die winning the war. Utterly insane.

Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
-- General Jack D. Ripper

[Downwinder]

7. Does this signal that the DOJ is going to remove

objections to the action against Bush et. al?

[another_liberal]

12. No, no, no, no . . .

This is about a bad guy leader of a bad, bad country. It is not about some silly law suit against the former President of a totally good guy country that loves kittens.

Are we clear on this now: Syrian President baaaaaad, American President gooooood.

[Downwinder]

15. If I were the Iraqi woman's lawyer I would be back in

Court with a BIG display of the State Department quote.

[another_liberal]

16. Oh hell yes!

I would love to be there to see that when it happens.

The DOJ does not have a leg to stand on. American Presidents are not, and must not be, above the law.

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. Yes yes, we know and Saddam attacked the world trade center.

Can we just get on with the damn movie script now? I mean I am absolutely here with a raging hard on waiting for the shock and awe to start. President Obama is not selling this one as well as his former teacher did. Now that Bush and Cheney knew how to get us all hot and heavy with mushroom clouds, and mobile thingy ma bobbles. This guy can't even get us a few stealth flyovers. For god sake, your teachers had the fucking MOAB! Dude get started my balls are turning blue.

[Celefin]

9. Uh-huh...

"The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for the decisions made under their leadership, even if... he's not the one that pushes the button, or says 'Go' on this," she told a press briefing.

Now there's a dangerous sentence. Of course it will never officially apply to our side, but still...

And why the rush? No time to wait for the inspectors, secret proof, now also no need for proof, just the need to act as quickly as possible without saying anything about what ultimately is to be achieved by said action, except for teaching someone a 'lesson'.

It's indeed not like Iraq, it's already a lot weirder.
Somebody infiltrated a chemical weapons unit and somehow managed to get the attack underway? The reason for the panicked phone calls? Makes as much sense as anything else at the moment.

Since war seems inevitable now, let's hope that by some magical incident 'we' end up supporting the least bad side. Not getting my hopes up, though.

[another_liberal]

10. So we do have "regime change" in mind as our goal?

Something tells me the arms makers and generals (with a lot of help from certain Israeli politicians) are just determined to start another war. Their other wars are winding down quickly, and Syria is the situation du jour for a new military adventure.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Hell, US president aren't even responsible what they *do* order

E.g., torture.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. President Obama, meet Staff Sgt. Bales.

[David__77]

19. That would be an absolutely identical thing from the perspective of int'l law.

But might makes right, which is why a country like N. Korea got nukes.

Americans like to huff and puff - ESPECIALLY "liberals" these days - but want it for cheap in terms of lives. It seems like the only way to insure peace is to raise the cost of war in terms of lives.

[Arctic Dave]

20. Once they made it easy to wage war, everyone found it acceptable.

Just sit back, watch it on TV. Puff up your chest and feel good about yourself afterwards.

[David__77]

21. That's why "WMDs" freak them out so much.

It is actually comparatively easy/cheap for states to make that cost too high. If Saddam Hussein really had the weapons our wonderful intelligence community was sure he had, then the cost of the Iraq war may have been way too high for Bush's presidency to have survived, for instance. It seems that Syria might have chemical weapons and the means to deploy them. Obama should think twice about becoming a major party to this civil war. Once he says "launch!" then the US has its fingerprints all over this thing and there's no going back for years to come.

[joshcryer]

28. Not exactly. Targeted killing is reserved by all states.

It's true that "might makes right" but Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, they could all go to the international criminal court and file charges against Obama for doing so (ie, the wedding killings). Why they don't do it is because there are usually reparations and it's handled politically so there's "implicit" consent to go dropping bombs via drones.

However, this is different as the military objective is a government, sovereign, body. A huge distinction from guys running around with AKs and RPGs and meeting up in the middle of the night to exchange explosives to make IEDs. This is a huge difference between conspirators sitting down and having coffee and discussing the next target that they're planning to hit. The target will be chemical factories which while morally objectionable, totally horrendous, are legal, because Syria did not sign the Chemical Weapons Convention. The use of those weapons are obviously against the Fourth Geneva Convention (or are terrorism, depending on whoever used them) and would be a war crime.

[David__77]

29. Differences noted. However...

I do find it interesting that the post to which I responded was hidden. I suppose it was the use of "murder" which is a misnomer, as the intent was not to kill those individuals, but rather insurgents. But that is somewhat like the Syrian forces that want to wipe out insurgents. "Collateral damage" is not murder "characterized by deliberation or premeditation," but it sure is killing.

[JoeyT]

31. A country that refuses to sign treaties that ban horrific weapons

that most of the world opposes? Wow. I bet you'd have to go really far to find one of those.

Torture is against the Fourth Geneva Convention. So is shooting at rescue workers. I don't see any prosecutions for any of that. It's funny we drag the GC out whenever we feel like it, then insist it totally doesn't apply to us when we don't want it to.

[joshcryer]

40. When did I say "it totally doesn't apply to us"?

[Celefin]

34. Hm... cluster bombs are banned for violating the GC by treaty binding 103 countries.

Does that make their use by Britain and the US a war crime?
How many signatory nations does it take to make strikes on non-signatory countries legal?

I think there is a really difficult to argue topic here.
One that shouldn't be dismissed as this could very well become a wicked problem in future conflicts as the old power structures transition into new setups and nations sign treaties across formerly clearly defined dividing points.

[joshcryer]

41. In non-signatory states, I think it would.

In states that haven't signed they can use them on their own internal civil war I think without violating the Geneva conventions (as could Sarin gas), but if used over a civilian population it would be a war crime.

Not sure what's so complicated about it, myself.

[icymist]

14. What a convenient thing to say right after W. gets immunity!

Would a RW president grant such a pardon to a Dem.? Stay tuned folks! Same place, same channel!

[Igel]

26. It's a stupid thing to say.

It's simply self serving. "I have a goal. I will make the necessary assumptions and alterations to the standards of proof necessary to achieve it."

Nidal Hasan was under the command of President Obama. Hasan made decisions under his CiC's command. The CiC is responsible for all such decisions, even if he had no command and control authority over it.

Oh, that didn't go so well.

It's so easy to reduce it to an absurdity that I wouldn't expect this out of a freshman undergrad with a straight face--at least not one that expected to pass any reasonable course.

Of course, that student would be 4 years away from being a 1st-year law student, and much simpler than expected from such a neophyte law student.

And you'd have to assume--possibly not entirely correctly--that a 1st year would be much, much simpler than a law professor.

Politics makes people stupid.

[Jefferson23]

23. Disgusting and incredibly stupid for us to suggest such a thing. There exists NO agreement

on the identity of the perpetrators. Assad's enemies and too many western and middle eastern journalists are
pointing to Assad. Yet here we are claiming that regardless, it is Assad's responsibility.

Sorry, this is one fucking clueless approach, quite shockingly so. The humanitarian interventionist bullshit
is just that, bullshit. The pretext here is sickening!

[JI7]

24. this is stupid, this is like saying if we decide to strike it will be Hagel

who gave orders and not Obama . when it's clear who made the decision even though it may be hagel who directly speaks to the military.

and people are making stupid comparisons to individual soldiers who commited crimes which were clearly not ordered by others.

[Nevernose]

39. You should probably let the CIA know about your sources

As I'm sure they'd be very grateful for evidence that the use of chemical weapons was specifically ordered by Assad. Clearly you have sources that no one else on planet Earth has.

[GeorgeGist]

25. zero

[dkf]

27. Wow...this is worse than Bush at least pretending Saddam had nukes.

[Laelth]

30. Wow. I had forgotten how much I hate Yahoo news.

The comments are almost always nauseating.

-Laelth

[JoeyT]

32. We'll be greeted as liberators!

Yeeeeehaw!

[Earth_First]

33. "The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for the decisions made under their

leadership"

Bookmarked for later.

[DeSwiss]

37. K&R

"The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for the decisions made under their leadership....''

- Well, at least now we know who to blame for these killings.

[daleo]

42. Translation

Evidence isn't necessary when it gets in the way of doing what you really want to do. Fact is, the quaint notion of evidence is awfully inconvenient.