Syria moves chemical weapons again, motive unclear

[Sand Wind]

Source: CNN

The Syrian regime is again moving around its stockpile of chemical weapons, leaving the United States trying to figure out what Bashar al-Assad will do next with his deadly arsenal.

CNN has learned that the U.S. intelligence community is closely watching the latest development as diplomatic efforts continue around forging a plan for al-Assad to relinquish those stockpiles to international control.

Obama administration officials at two agencies said the movement took place in recent days – since United States and Russia agreed on September 14 to a timetable for Syria to declare its chemical weapons inventory and then give them up.

“There is activity at known chemical weapons storage sites,” one official said. “What is unclear is whether they are moving them to consolidate the stockpile and then declare it, or are they moving it around to conceal it” in advance of reporting it to international inspectors.


Read more: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/syria-moves-chemical-weapons-again-motive-unclear/

[jessie04]

1. Stall, Delay, Shuck, Jive, Doubletalk, Lie, and more Lies.

Yeah, the people who hailed this agreement were played for S U C K E R S !!

[jessie04]

2. Do people really think...

you can suddenly trust a mass murderer thinking he wouldn't tell a lie ??

I am so glad so many here trusted him to give up his chemical weapons !!

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. You mean like the president and the secretary of state?

[jessie04]

4. Unfortunately ...yes.

and a lot of people here who thought we could peacefully work things out with this man who has murdered 100,000 people and used chemical weapons to kill 1400 innocents ...400 of them children.

Even Neville Chamberlain would have been embarrassed by this.

[dkf]

5. What if it turns out we helped arm the rebels resulting in Assad's ruthless response?

I would like to know how complicit we are in what has occured. How much blood is on our hands?

[jessie04]

6. I have no idea.

Sorry.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Uh, Assad hasn't "murdered 100,000 people."

There is a civil war. Tens of thousands of regime soldiers and supporters have been killed, as have tens of thousands of regime opponents and innocents. There have been horrible atrocities committed by all sides (the regime has committed more, but it remains to be seen if the rebels will catch up; they're doing their best).

What was a civic rebellion two years ago has morphed into a revolution funded by billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the very folks who support the most radical Islamist elements.

Meanwhile, Gen. Sisi in Egypt just a few weeks ago gunned down a thousand people in the street in Cairo. Shouldn't we be bombing him, too? If not, why not?

[jessie04]

19. I stand corrected ...sort of.

The United Nations, which on Thursday also gave an overall death toll of more than 100,000, estimates that some 5,000 people a month are dying in Syria's civil war.

http://www.timesofoman.com/News/Article-20325.aspx


100,000 have died....I would tend to believe he's responsible directly or indirectly for most of those.

Thank you for correcting me.

[Igel]

20. Takes two to tango.

If the protesters had quietly gone home after their first march there'd have been no civil war.

It's a question of who threw the first punch--and if the first punch is in any way justifiable.

[jessie04]

21. I do not understand what you are saying in your post.

you lost me on that one.

[bemildred]

24. I will hazard: Everybody shares in the blame, or perhaps: who you blame depends on where you start.

With which I concur. The damage will not be repaired by assigning blame in the most convenient way.

Our good friends the Saudis have made a sterling contribution to the mess, for example. Just looking around the Middle East, I don't see anybody who is not involved, and few states which are not culpable and which can be said to have behaved well.

[jessie04]

18. THAT is a bald face lie.

.

[rtracey]

7. So

So you are calling our President and Sec of State mass murderers? I certainly hope not......

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Uh, I'm not, but it sounds like that poster I was responding to is.

[avaistheone1]

11. Murder

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun
noun: murder; plural noun: murders

1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


.snip

The administration justifies its use of armed drones with reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed just days after the September 11 attacks. In the AUMF, Congress authorized force against groups and countries that had supported the terrorist strikes. But Congress rejected the Bush administration’s request for open-ended military authority “to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.” Deterrence and preemption are exactly what Obama is trying to accomplish by sending robots to kill “suspected militants” or those who happen to be present in an area where suspicious activity has taken place.

Moreover, in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Congress specifically declared, “Nothing in this section is intended to . . . expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [of September 2001].”

Drone attacks also violate well-established principles of international law. A targeted killing is defined as the “intentional, premeditated, and deliberate use of lethal force . . . against a specific individual who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator,” according to Philip Alston, former UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions. Targeted or political assassinations – sometimes known as extra-judicial executions – run afoul of the Geneva Conventions, which include willful killing as a grave breach. Grave breaches of Geneva are punishable as war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act.

Christof Heyns, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, expressed grave concern about the targeted killings, saying they may constitute war crimes. He called on the Obama administration to explain how its drone strikes comport with international law, specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals, and whether the State in which the killing takes place has given consent. Heyns further asked for specification of the procedural safeguards in place, if any, to ensure in advance of drone killings that they comply with international law. He also wanted to know what measures the U.S. government takes after any such killing to ensure that its legal and factual analysis was accurate and, if not, the remedial measures it would take, including justice and reparations for victims and their families. Although Heyns’ predecessor made similar requests, Heyns said the United States has not provided a satisfactory response.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/25-2

[rtracey]

13. So you are indicating this

So I take it, by your post, you feel our president, sec of State, and all who are involved in war decisions are mass murderers? Are you comparing our president to ohhh Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Assad? So are drones any different then B-52 bombers in ww2, sopwith camels in ww1, because they are unmanned, vs manned? War is never ending. There will always be a war of some kind at any given time on this planet, so do you prefer our soldiers to be open to conflict, or prefer an unmanned drone...me, as a family member who have several active military on duty...give me the drones dude.....

[avaistheone1]

15. No one is above the rule of law.

More members of my family have been in the service than I can count. They have been scarred by war and have seen some pretty ugly things. I think conducting war with drones are is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Besides...

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

[Celefin]

16. Not mass murderers but war criminals

There is a reason the administration accused Assad of 'violating international norms': they couldn't use the perfectly legit accusation of a grave breach of the Geneva Convention (which Syria has signed, as opposed to the CW treaty) - because they are committing those themselves on a weekly basis.

War is never ending. There will always be a war of some kind at any given time on this planet,...

That may sadly be true, but why on earth does this country have to be involved in almost every one of them, all the time and everywhere?
There is a reason the US is so hated in so many places. And drones certainly aren't helping.

[bemildred]

23. Pretty much, yeah.

War crimes trials are not at all out of the question. At this point, I'd say they are necessary lest this sort of shit keep happening.

[Adsos Letter]

10. You may be correct...

...but we won't know until the timetable and details of the confiscation have been agreed to. In the meantime, it looks like the intelligence community knows where to find them if they need to.

[jessie04]

17. He's NOT giving them up.

At least not until he thinks he is in danger.

[Pterodactyl]

22. I agree. The purpose of the "agreement" was to delay action.

[David__77]

12. It'll take a few years to work all of this out.

Hopefully peace and security are restored to Syria soon.

[hughee99]

25. This is the sort of thing that tends to happen when your major motivation in reaching an agreement

is getting the story off the front page instead of addressing the problem.