FReepathon Day 61 ... PLEASE Make Your Donation Today!
Less than $3.1k to GO!
$25 Keeps FR ALIVE
God bless and keep you all.
Posted on 08/30/2013 11:24:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
I’m predisposed to favor a punitive air strike against Syria for its apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians. But there are some important questions being raised by skeptics of such a strike.
The primary question centers on the legality or moral legitimacy of attacking a country with whom we are not at war. The clearest justifications for military action don’t apply. This is not a case of self-defense, or defense of an ally, or the prevention of genocide. There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but Syria didn’t sign it, perhaps correctly calculating that it would one day need to use such weapons. We would be enforcing an informal norm against the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
I think the enforcement of such a norm is legitimate and would make Bashar al-Assad and other dictators hesitate before using such weapons in the future. But if you’re resting the morality of your attack on such a slender reed, you need very strong evidence that the regime you’re targeting actually used chemical weapons. And the administration’s case is starting to look shaky:
Multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture …
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture.
British intelligence asserts that it has “a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus.” That "limited" bit does not provide the level of certainty I was hoping to hear.
The weaker legal basis for a military strike requires a higher factual basis of proof. The Obama administration needs to nail down its case (which it is reportedly due to present publicly today), and if it can’t, it needs to back down.
Update: The UK Parliament has voted not to participate in any strike against Syria. Meanwhile, Obama is apparently ready to go it alone. This seems like a dangerous combination: If you're enforcing an international norm, you ought to have not only very solid evidence that it was broken but also at least some international support. Otherwise it is less an international norm than an American norm.
It's one thing if the case involves an imminent massacre, like in Libya. But the urgency of action, and potential benefits, are much lower in this case. I don't think we're in danger of being sucked into a war -- that's just people assuming the most recent historical experience will be repeated, the same mistake that always happens in foreign policy. But the case for action just keeps fraying around the edges at every point. At the very least, the burden of proof on Obama to produce unimpeachable evidence for Syrian guilt is extremely high.
He is manufacturing all the evidence he needs as I write.
seems all we need to do it get 1 corpse that was in the attack.
Seems the “ahem” “rebels” should be able to to that.
Which will consist of a copy of a direct order from Assad to use chemical weapons, written in Hebrew.
The Dems better have concrete evidence. They were the a-holes who turned Bush’s mistake about Iraqi WMD’ stockpiles into “Bush lied.”
How does the United States benefit if we “WIN?”
It doesn’t matter and Obama knows it. Who is going to hold him accountable?
He doesn’t need any “goods” to justify any of his actions.
Who is going to protest? Good men in Congress? There ain’t any. The GOP? The MSM?
You need not have any “goods” if you have a blank and signed check in your pocket.
“There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians....” And I’m pretty sure that treaty only applies to the use of chemical weapons against the civilians of another soveriegn state. What you do to your own civilians is, and always has been, your business.
Another matter to clear up: who are “civilians”, vs. who are ununiformed combatants?
Why, is New York Magazine going to demand Impeachment on it's cover if he doesn't?
Thought not.
Yellow cake comes to mind every time this aspect of the mess is discussed.
Bammy is a lame duck, so nobody actually can hold him accountable. The people who need to start trying are the Dems. Disgust with the administration can easily be expressed by the voters in next year’s election and voting against white liberal Dems can’t be labelled “racist” as is any criticism of the Obama regime. He could really cripple their party, as Bush’s second term did to the Republicans.
You’re getting it now. Parse — every — word. Look at what they ARE saying and what they’re NOT saying. There is no evidence. There are only conditions they’re forcing into a template of their choosing.
Wasn't that found in Scooter Libby's cell?
I wonder how all the Jewish democrats who voted for Baraq TWICE are feeling about now?
Colin Powell was a much more convincing liar.
Whether or not Obama “has the goods on Syria” does not matter a whit. The President of the United States has no right to declare war. If the President goes to war without Congressional approval, and it is not a national emergency, that President should be subject to impeachment, removal from office, and incarceration. Such an act may rise to treason, and there is a document somewhere that spells out the punishment for that crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.