Assad is correct by the way. There is no reason to transport any of the chemical weapons across land or sea; they have to be destroyed where they lie. That is why the United Nation's inspectors placed seals on similar weapons in Iraq. There are no guarantees there won't be a spill that kills thousands and perhaps more people somewhere along the transit route.
He is also correct when he states HIS proposal/resolution to the UN to disarm the entire Middle East of WMD in 2003 was rejected. It never went forward. Assad did propose the resolution.
President Assad is also correct in that he does not have to answer to the American people. They are NOT his colleagues. judge or jury. The American people are spectators to the United Nations at this point. He has no obligation to show where the chemical weapons are or are not or that they are being destroyed. That is up to the United Nations to report on a regular basis to the body of the UN that oversees these processes. The idea Assad has to accommodate an American demand for their personal investigations conducted by so called credible media is outrageous. Somewhere FOX got the idea they were king of the world.
This is not Maury Povich attempting to determine paternity.
The idea the UN report can be disputed is irrelevant. The UN stated there was a chemical weapons exposure that killed many people. This sounds hideous and blatantly cruel, but, so what? If Sarin was used by either the rebels or Assad it was legal at the time. It is no longer legal since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. While it is important to determine the death of innocent people and allow the United Nations to determine any atrocities the Sarin was legally deployed by either side in Syria at the time regardless of how heinous a weapon it was.
It is known Assad did not consent to the use of the Sarin and he explicitly told his military it was out of the question. The problem lies not with him but his chain of command if there was use or a release of Sarin gas. Assad cannot be held responsible if his military mutinied their use of it. So, the UN will no doubt look at all the evidence by any country that has it and determine how it all happened. Either that or nations will present their information to the governing body of human rights and war crime treaties. And Assad has his own information that he may or may not submit to scrutiny.
It doesn't matter if Assad agrees it is a war crime. It is whether or not the World Court states there are criminal actions and whether or not people can be held responsible. It is a court. There has to be evidence. It has to be as accurate as possible. It is fine if the UN believes there are war crimes. Can they hold those responsible accountable by proving it? That is the issue, it is not whether Assad agrees or disagrees about atrocities.
The United Nations will make their stand on Principle. The Nuremberg principles to be exact. There were no war crime conventions before WWII in a way that would allow the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. The Nuremberg PRINCIPLES were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime.
There are seven principles applied through the Nuremberg Principles that were allowed through a UN resolution.
Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), (click here) paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378).
The problem as I see it is whether or not the establishment of Geneva Conventions and Chemical Weapons Convention overrides the possibility of carrying any trials regarding Syria's Sarin gas under Nuremberg Principles. Syria, at the time of the release, was not a signator nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention AND only belonged to the earliest section of the Geneva Conventions. It is up to the World Court to determine the 'jurisdiction' of the war crime charge and then proceed. This is not simple. This is a court of established law, these are international venues of sovereign nations.
A sovereign nation has a right to it's laws and leaders. A World Court has to have sound principles to proceed because otherwise it would be more of a political doctrine and not that of legal proceedings.
Look, "W" withdrew from the Geneva Conventions before he attacked Iraq. So, don't even try it. The USA is not a nation with a lily, white soul. "W" withdrew from treaties in many places for reasons to open venues of war. So don't even try to say that Assad is not on solid ground just because this was heinous. "W" sits in his home along with Cheney in his completely confident they can never be charged with war crimes for the reason of resigning from treaties and conventions. Get over it. They were horrible men and they didn't give a damn about the life and death of others. For God sakes, they used White Phosphorus in Fallujah. I guess they didn't care about President Assad's proposal to ban WMD from the Middle East, now did they?
And don't think for one minute Assad can't bring that before a World Court stating non-participation in treaties and conventions protected some of the worst war mongers in the USA. He can and then Americans wonder why the USA has to 'that country that does everything correctly.'
Assad also makes an interesting point about the rebels in that there are known jihadists involved. The thing is this; those jihadists are not necessarily engaged in a civil war other than for the reason of jihad. It is fine for a rebel force to have allies and fighters that provide services that benefit them. Every man is important as witnessed in Libya. No one is going to dictate what a rebel is and is not except the rebels themselves, but, there are elements providing questionable outcomes to this civil war. I am not justifying anything, but, simply pointing to a reality that is not discussed.
When the USA went into Afghanistan in October 2001 we stumbled across something. We stumbled across an American already engaged in jihad and didn't really have a clue about the war he was involved with. John Walker Lindh went to Pakistan to carry out his honor to his faith on the battlefield. There is that element in Syria and any other countries where there is a war of volunteers under the flag of religious obligation. Their victory does not necessitate a stable nation. Those fighters are not pledged to be Syria's next military that will protect the sovereign borders. That can't be ignored.
In Libya, the leaders recognized by The West do not have control over their nation. They eliminated Gaddafi's army and now have multi-militia in their place. The militia provide their own reasons for protecting their territories. Some are loyal to the current leadership and some are too scared to 'give it up' and become part of a sovereign military in fear of Gaddafi II occurring.
In the Middle East, there are issues such as warlord status, too. The militias have loyalties to warlords and that change. Members can move between warlords to improve their economic status. The real question is how is all that balanced out if the rebel forces win?
Where the rebels and/or jihadists are getting their money is irrelevant. The fighters are there and they may or may not be paid and only seek food and shelter as compensation for their status. So, that's an odd question and I don't think it is measurable. These rebels don't have a sovereign treasury to draw on. And we know there are ways of making money including the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
The 100,000 or 110,000 dead are not all innocent people. 15,000 Syrian military are dead and there is no accurate accounting for rebels and/or the difference between rebels and innocent citizens. The American Civil War was the same way. There are mass graves in Arlington National Cemetery marking those dead in the civil war. Some of this might be interesting to ask, but, there not necessarily answers. There were plenty of innocent people killed in Iraq, but, that body count is still in dispute.
There are innocent people dead in Syria. There is no doubt about that, at the very least there are children. But, no one is saying Assad's forces are trained in urban warfare so much as warfare. The questions are American questions and they are misleading to say the least. The questions are so bring doubt to what Assad is stating. There are no reasonable answers to those questions in a way that would relate Assad has knowledge of what is occurring every inch of every attack. There are Generals and Commanders coming to the podium to report on progress or lack of it.
"...This is war...you don't have good war...." Ah, but, see the USA ALWAYS has good war.
Assad made a statement at the end of the interview that flaws his defense within his civil war. He states 'opposition' is a political status. Correct, however, this civil war started as peaceful demonstrations in 2011 until the demonstrators had to defend themselves. That is how he loses his status and how there needs to be a political resolve to this conflict. The Syrian military fired the first shots to end what was viewed as an uprising similar to that realized in Egypt. He has sound reasons for seeking to stabilize his nation, however, it has turned into an asymmetrical civil war with an unknown outcome. There will no doubt be a shared governance sought. The reason for a shared governance is to keep this from occurring again.
He is also correct when he states HIS proposal/resolution to the UN to disarm the entire Middle East of WMD in 2003 was rejected. It never went forward. Assad did propose the resolution.
President Assad is also correct in that he does not have to answer to the American people. They are NOT his colleagues. judge or jury. The American people are spectators to the United Nations at this point. He has no obligation to show where the chemical weapons are or are not or that they are being destroyed. That is up to the United Nations to report on a regular basis to the body of the UN that oversees these processes. The idea Assad has to accommodate an American demand for their personal investigations conducted by so called credible media is outrageous. Somewhere FOX got the idea they were king of the world.
This is not Maury Povich attempting to determine paternity.
The idea the UN report can be disputed is irrelevant. The UN stated there was a chemical weapons exposure that killed many people. This sounds hideous and blatantly cruel, but, so what? If Sarin was used by either the rebels or Assad it was legal at the time. It is no longer legal since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. While it is important to determine the death of innocent people and allow the United Nations to determine any atrocities the Sarin was legally deployed by either side in Syria at the time regardless of how heinous a weapon it was.
It is known Assad did not consent to the use of the Sarin and he explicitly told his military it was out of the question. The problem lies not with him but his chain of command if there was use or a release of Sarin gas. Assad cannot be held responsible if his military mutinied their use of it. So, the UN will no doubt look at all the evidence by any country that has it and determine how it all happened. Either that or nations will present their information to the governing body of human rights and war crime treaties. And Assad has his own information that he may or may not submit to scrutiny.
It doesn't matter if Assad agrees it is a war crime. It is whether or not the World Court states there are criminal actions and whether or not people can be held responsible. It is a court. There has to be evidence. It has to be as accurate as possible. It is fine if the UN believes there are war crimes. Can they hold those responsible accountable by proving it? That is the issue, it is not whether Assad agrees or disagrees about atrocities.
The United Nations will make their stand on Principle. The Nuremberg principles to be exact. There were no war crime conventions before WWII in a way that would allow the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. The Nuremberg PRINCIPLES were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime.
There are seven principles applied through the Nuremberg Principles that were allowed through a UN resolution.
Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), (click here) paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378).
The problem as I see it is whether or not the establishment of Geneva Conventions and Chemical Weapons Convention overrides the possibility of carrying any trials regarding Syria's Sarin gas under Nuremberg Principles. Syria, at the time of the release, was not a signator nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention AND only belonged to the earliest section of the Geneva Conventions. It is up to the World Court to determine the 'jurisdiction' of the war crime charge and then proceed. This is not simple. This is a court of established law, these are international venues of sovereign nations.
A sovereign nation has a right to it's laws and leaders. A World Court has to have sound principles to proceed because otherwise it would be more of a political doctrine and not that of legal proceedings.
Look, "W" withdrew from the Geneva Conventions before he attacked Iraq. So, don't even try it. The USA is not a nation with a lily, white soul. "W" withdrew from treaties in many places for reasons to open venues of war. So don't even try to say that Assad is not on solid ground just because this was heinous. "W" sits in his home along with Cheney in his completely confident they can never be charged with war crimes for the reason of resigning from treaties and conventions. Get over it. They were horrible men and they didn't give a damn about the life and death of others. For God sakes, they used White Phosphorus in Fallujah. I guess they didn't care about President Assad's proposal to ban WMD from the Middle East, now did they?
And don't think for one minute Assad can't bring that before a World Court stating non-participation in treaties and conventions protected some of the worst war mongers in the USA. He can and then Americans wonder why the USA has to 'that country that does everything correctly.'
Assad also makes an interesting point about the rebels in that there are known jihadists involved. The thing is this; those jihadists are not necessarily engaged in a civil war other than for the reason of jihad. It is fine for a rebel force to have allies and fighters that provide services that benefit them. Every man is important as witnessed in Libya. No one is going to dictate what a rebel is and is not except the rebels themselves, but, there are elements providing questionable outcomes to this civil war. I am not justifying anything, but, simply pointing to a reality that is not discussed.
When the USA went into Afghanistan in October 2001 we stumbled across something. We stumbled across an American already engaged in jihad and didn't really have a clue about the war he was involved with. John Walker Lindh went to Pakistan to carry out his honor to his faith on the battlefield. There is that element in Syria and any other countries where there is a war of volunteers under the flag of religious obligation. Their victory does not necessitate a stable nation. Those fighters are not pledged to be Syria's next military that will protect the sovereign borders. That can't be ignored.
In Libya, the leaders recognized by The West do not have control over their nation. They eliminated Gaddafi's army and now have multi-militia in their place. The militia provide their own reasons for protecting their territories. Some are loyal to the current leadership and some are too scared to 'give it up' and become part of a sovereign military in fear of Gaddafi II occurring.
In the Middle East, there are issues such as warlord status, too. The militias have loyalties to warlords and that change. Members can move between warlords to improve their economic status. The real question is how is all that balanced out if the rebel forces win?
Where the rebels and/or jihadists are getting their money is irrelevant. The fighters are there and they may or may not be paid and only seek food and shelter as compensation for their status. So, that's an odd question and I don't think it is measurable. These rebels don't have a sovereign treasury to draw on. And we know there are ways of making money including the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
The 100,000 or 110,000 dead are not all innocent people. 15,000 Syrian military are dead and there is no accurate accounting for rebels and/or the difference between rebels and innocent citizens. The American Civil War was the same way. There are mass graves in Arlington National Cemetery marking those dead in the civil war. Some of this might be interesting to ask, but, there not necessarily answers. There were plenty of innocent people killed in Iraq, but, that body count is still in dispute.
There are innocent people dead in Syria. There is no doubt about that, at the very least there are children. But, no one is saying Assad's forces are trained in urban warfare so much as warfare. The questions are American questions and they are misleading to say the least. The questions are so bring doubt to what Assad is stating. There are no reasonable answers to those questions in a way that would relate Assad has knowledge of what is occurring every inch of every attack. There are Generals and Commanders coming to the podium to report on progress or lack of it.
"...This is war...you don't have good war...." Ah, but, see the USA ALWAYS has good war.
Assad made a statement at the end of the interview that flaws his defense within his civil war. He states 'opposition' is a political status. Correct, however, this civil war started as peaceful demonstrations in 2011 until the demonstrators had to defend themselves. That is how he loses his status and how there needs to be a political resolve to this conflict. The Syrian military fired the first shots to end what was viewed as an uprising similar to that realized in Egypt. He has sound reasons for seeking to stabilize his nation, however, it has turned into an asymmetrical civil war with an unknown outcome. There will no doubt be a shared governance sought. The reason for a shared governance is to keep this from occurring again.
