Noah Chomsky: US attack on Syria without UN approval would be a war crime

[David Krout]

"WASHINGTON -- A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval.

"As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world," Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.

Chomsky recently traveled to the region to learn more about the Syria crisis, and his comments there led some to believe he was open to military intervention if negotiations failed to produce peace. "I believe you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option" -- backing the rebels -- "becomes more acceptable," he said.

But his comments to HuffPost indicate that he remains opposed to any military action that came without U.N. approval. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/noam-chomsky-syria_n_3851911.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[morningfog]

1. As I have been saying since the war drums started banging.

Good company.

[el_bryanto]

2. Would he support it if it came with U.N. Approval? nt

[SidDithers]

4. No. He would then find some other reason...

for it to be wrong.

Sid

[mike_c]

7. but that isn't necessary, is it...?

It's already wrong. Wars of aggression are SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the U.N. Charter. If it's not immediate self defense, it's a war crime.

It's shocking how many Americans seem utterly ignorant of that. The silence from the media is especially telling-- nothing that interferes with America's exceptionalist narrative is worth discussion. Except it is-- we're rushing into yet another criminal war of aggression.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Americans also don't know it's a crime to even THREATEN another country with a war.

[stevenleser]

36. The exception being discussed is if the UN Sec Council authorizes it. Then it's not a war crime.

That of course has no chance of happening here, but that is the exception being discussed.

[mike_c]

37. that is what the UN Charter says....

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Americans' ignorance of this generally is appalling. We helped write the Charter and we've helped enforce other nations' compliance, yet most Americans think we can "discuss" and "decide" what course of action to take. Strictly speaking, of course, we can-- it's just that any attack is a war crime unless it's in immediate self defense or unless it's authorized by the U.N. Are we a nation that respects the law or not?

[HardTimes99]

54. More to the point, Syria will be entirely within her rights to

attack our ships under that right to self défense from an imminent threat.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. And he would most likely be right. n/t

[joshcryer]

47. Nah, Chomsky said if Libya asked for help, we should.

He didn't support the NATO action but he supported the Revolutionaries, when he wasn't wasting time noting the minimal islamist element.

[LWolf]

56. "some other reason."

Killing people is wrong.

There ya go.

One doesn't need a more specific reason to be against a specific military action when one recognizes that war as a construct is morally and ethically wrong.

[CanSocDem]

60. Indeed.

There's enough information in that video to embarass the staunchest of the neo-liberal war-ism(for lack of a better description) but truly misses your main point.

"Killing people is wrong."



.

[morningfog]

57. Whether or not you support a war is a different question than it's legality.

I am opposed to it, even if it were legal. No one should support it because it is illegal.

[woo me with science]

3. Thank you, Noam Chomsky.

For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665

McCain: Obama to Send New Arms to Syrian Rebels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584769

Obama, ex-rival McCain united as hawks on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580983

US general says Syria action could be 'more substantial than thought'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023585737

[ProSense]

5. Chomsky believes every U.S. President is a "war criminal"

President Obama is consulting with Congress, which has the power to authorize this action.

Congress, be careful what you wish for
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580699

Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

Wesley Clark

<...>

As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)

Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.

<...>

At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008

[BeyondGeography]

6. The more interesting statement is that even Chomsky potentially sees the need for something

more than negotiations. At some point, somehow...

[Cha]

43. That actually leapt off the screen. Is Chomsky going

under the long bus with Liberals Kerry, Warren, Sanders, & Markey, too?

[bhikkhu]

8. Based upon his belief that "the credibility of government claims" has "collapsed"

If one believes so, then the conclusion follows logically.

On the other hand, I haven't seen a collapse of the claims that Assad has used chemical weapons against civilians, I've seen over the weekend their affirmation by several sources, and a relatively detailed assembly of evidence. "Its no longer in question" is the general consensus internationally.

The problem that one faces then is what would be the results of watching a dictatorial regime use chemical weapons to clear out areas of unrest, and doing nothing. If Assad succeeds (and he has been winning the war lately) that demonstrates both the effectiveness of sarin as a uniquely useful and permanent "crowd control" measure, and it demonstrates that the international laws against its use are no longer in force.

[ocpagu]

48. '"Its no longer in question" is the general consensus internationally.'

It really doesn't look like that.

[bhikkhu]

52. I suppose it looks like whatever one reads says it looks like

It will be before the UN soon, so if someone wanted to still think Assad had nothing to do with a chemical attack, or that there was no chemical attack, I suppose putting off really looking at it for another few days is no harm.

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. I am a big fan of Chomsky, BUT he seems to be blinded by his statment

What is "United Nations support"... like that is some final moral high ground. The UN has become a chess table, where the large powers just play checkmate with each other... so nothing ever gets decided.

China, Russia and the USA NEVER agree on anything that comes up in the UN... never.

And as stated, what if the UN decides FOR action against Syria? Of course that would never happen, so that's why Chomsky is using that argument.

I don't agree with people who say war is NEVER the answer. Sometimes war is unavoidable. Syria is certainly something we "can" avoid.

But to have a philosophy that war is always avoidable is naive and ignoring the history of man. Mankind has been at war since before we learned to write it down... it's a self-preservation trait that seems to be built into our DNA. But can't we all just get along... the answer is "no".

[Precisely]

10. "What is "United Nations support"... like that is some final moral high ground."

[DontTreadOnMe]

13. Do you understand the "veto" in the UN?

The veto power of the permanent members has been widely criticized. The heavy use of the veto by the Soviet Union and the United States have gone a long way to discrediting the veto system.

For the record:

THE VETO RECORD

USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union
US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticizing Israel.
UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe
France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK
China: 5 vetoes

More recently, the US has used its veto regularly to shield the Israeli Government from international criticism or attempts to restrain the behavior of its military.

[Precisely]

15. At this point

let our leaders at least go through the motions, if they will.

[DontTreadOnMe]

16. The Russians vetoed already on sanctions for Syria last year...

The UN has become useless for actually voting.. the veto prevents a actual vote. It's a stalemate where it is not just a waste of time, because never will anything be brought up on a vote.

[Precisely]

21. Last year. Sanctions. What Obama's doing goes against recent history.

[DontTreadOnMe]

29. You keep changing the topic.. so responding to you has become meaningless.

eom

[Precisely]

33. Did not

change it to fit how you changed it. Sorry.

[HardTimes99]

11. Noah???? Will he be launching an Arc???? - nt

[The Straight Story]

12. Was assad using chemical weapons a war crime?

The UN won't do jack about that (russia would veto again) so why should Obama care what the UN thinks of what he does?

[MNBrewer]

14. Why should we care about what Obama thinks about punishing war crimes elsewhere

when he won't do it when the war crimes are committed BY HIS OWN PEOPLE.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

19. ^^^This^^^

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. oops.

[blazeKing]

25. He didn't use chemical weapons the al qaeda rebels did

If you want to know how legit western intelligence is, refer to the Iraq war.

[lark]

28. Totally agree

I don't trust the CIA or NSA or DIA one little bit. They twist and turn and fluff and pretty soon their news has absolutely nothign to do with the truth.

The MIC continues to run this country, no matter who is in charge. Sad that Obama isn't making a difference, when he has to know that what he's contemplating is bad policy. Notice that what he sent to congress is far broader than what he outlined in his speech. If he only wanted to fire off a few cruise missiles, why did he ask for much more than that?

[JRLeft]

30. ^This

[David Krout]

34. If the rebels were the ones who used chemical weapons would it be a war crime? nt

[last1standing]

51. Are you seriously advocating that the US become a rogue nation?

Or merely suggesting we dismantle the UN as a useless organization? Either way, you have a lot to learn about what the UN stands for and does.

Research what you're advocating and then look at those who advocate the same thing. Maybe you'll come to understand why what you've suggested is heinous.

[awoke_in_2003]

53. "why should Obama care what the UN thinks"...

I remember hearing that line used in reference to another president less than a decade ago.

[The Straight Story]

55. Sigh...the point is (in case you missed it)

That if the UN does not care enough about Assad and does nothing about his actions what makes anyone think they will do anything about the US and it's actions? Do YOU honestly believe that if Obama strikes the UN will do anything at all to stop him or punish the US in any real way? If so, please explain what they will do.

They won't. They can't. Which, if you have been watching Obama/et al, is the basic argument being applied to this situation in general. To wit: If the world does nothing now about assad, why will he care what they think and why wouldn't he just keep using the same weapons (and wouldn't now other people use them as well).

It is really simple logic to follow that we can apply to daily life if that helps: A parent beats and burns their kids as punishment, cops show up, say it is none of their business and tell the parents to be nice, cops leave, parents continue on and other parents seeing this who were borderline before see no one cares and they do the same.

Etc and so on.

[morningfog]

58. I remember bush saying the same stuff. Cowboy diplomacy.

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. He must be a libertarian

[iamthebandfanman]

22. And what Syria did is STILL a war crime..

so whats a country to do when the international laws enforcement body does nothing?



The UN needs to be scraped and a new organization established. Never in my entire life thought id say that, but its clear they are ineffective at resolving conflicts before they devolve into violence.

Should have never let China and Russia onto the council.

People whine about our war crimes, but they've commited a ton in their history .. yet without any atonement at all they were allowed to decide the moral dilemmas of others. Its like having a democratic president with a republican congress. One side tries to push forward agenda and make progress, while the other does everything it can to stand in its way .. even if its just one person (or country) that has objection.

[oldhippie]

39. "The UN needs to be scraped and a new organization established."

And how would the new organization be any different in order to be more effective? And how would it get sovereign countries to agree to the changes?

[JRLeft]

23. He's already committed multiple war crimes with drone strikes.

Why let the UN stop him from committing another?

[reformist2]

24. We need to seek UN approval for this.

[Supersedeas]

26. Not happening...China and Russia have made that clear

[reformist2]

35. Did we have a vote? Did we even try?

[Supersedeas]

41. Knowing the outcome ahead of time, why would they?

[joshcryer]

49. Not on this issue, but there were many UN votes that didn't pass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia's_role_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

[morningfog]

59. Then we don't do it. Period.

[valerief]

27. Hell, what one more? There are no repercussions for BIG crimes anyway. Rich must get richer. nt

[JRLeft]

31. So many interests in this military strike, defense contractors, fossil fuel industry, AIPAC, and

shareholders.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Why is it so hard for people to realize that there is nothing that makes the US supreme?

[woo me with science]

38. kick

[indepat]

40. Luckily polls indicate some 60% are against a pre-emptive war of aggression, something

Chomsky says would be a war crime without UN support. Sadly, some 40% support what is purported to be a war crime. Yet those 40% want to bomb Assad because he allegedly committed a war crime: to wit, war crimes committed by the U.S. must not be a problem, but 40% want to punish other war criminals.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I CAN'T FUCKING STAND THAT ALBUM!!!!!!!

[font size=5]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[/font][font size=3]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[/font]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

[SidDithers]

50. The really scary thing is....

I had that album.

Sid

[upi402]

45. Well he's been right all along

Obama ignores these oracles at his peril - our peril.

[woo me with science]

61. kick