Bring Assad to justice. Don't kill innocent civilians!

[tecelote]

Bringing the people responsible to justice is different than bombing Syria.

Syrians are mostly good people. Collateral Damage is just not right.

Bombing Syria is wrong.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Do you think he can be captured?

[tecelote]

2. Have you checked out our Military?

Yes.

They can do the job.

[Thinkingabout]

4. I see, now we can send our military after some other folks also.

Assad would probably die before capture.

[tecelote]

6. With no Collateral Damage.

And, what would bombing do? Save Assad's life?

I don't get your point.

[Thinkingabout]

8. You stated Assad shows ld be brought to justice, I ask how is he going to be captured, you stated

Military, I stated we could get our military to capture others also, now you tell me what the point might be.

[tecelote]

9. Bombing is not the answer.

I believe our military can do it.

I'll bet that Washington wants bombing but if you ask the Generals, they would have a different solution.

Bombing = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Thinkingabout]

12. We don't need our troops on the ground either, should never put yhem on the ground in

The middle east, our troops are too precious.

[tecelote]

14. Anyone with Military experience care to respond?

We got Osama bin Laden.

You have no faith in the power of a few proud Marines.

They've done it before, they can do it again.

We can bring Assad to Justice without Collateral Damage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. bin Laden did not have an army defending him

bin Laden was in a country that was not in a state of civil war. bin Laden was trying to stay hidden in a private house. The situations are completely different.

Taking a head of state would also be seen as an act of war anyway, unless an international court had already indicted him.

[BlueStreak]

21. The first step is to get an international consensus that he has to stand trial.

I am willing to see our military used as part of a multinational force under the auspices of NATO or the UN for the specific purpose of arresting Assad. Syria is not a huge place. He would eventually be captured.

And Russia might actually agree with this if it was about the man rather than a guise for a corporate-driven regime change.

So why is this not being discussed?

Milosevic was indicted in 1999. It took 3 years to get him into court. If it takes a couple of years to get Assad into court, that's OK. That is how civilized nations behave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87#Trial_at_The_Hague

[AverageJoe90]

22. "And Russia might actually agree with this if it was about the man...." Sadly, I don't think so.

If that was really the case, They would have helped us get him out a few years ago. But it isn't. Al-Assad is United Russia's guy in Syria.....and Russia's ruling party themselves are beholden to corporate interests, just like our Republicans. And guess what? TPTB wouldn't benefit at all if Al-Assad were overthrown AND replaced by the *secular/left* rebels, the Kurds and ex-military fellows included.

[BlueStreak]

32. Obama should give Russia the option, either get with the ICC indictment, or else we attack Syria

Your choice, Putin. I think if this were frames around war crime prosecution as the first choice there would be a great deal of support in the Congress, the American people, and neighboring nations.

That would be very difficult for Putin to oppose.

See http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/06/syria-assad-icc-criminal-court.html

This is the right way to do it. Give the war crimes process a chance to work. if that fails, then mobilize a multi-national force to go in militarily and take Assad out -- IF there is clear cut proof that he ordered the chemical attacks.

Why are they not doing this? It has little to do with Russia. It is more about:

1) This is really just a pretense for getting a better military foothold against Iran on behalf of Israel.

2) They are afraid they wouldn't be able to prove the charges in a court where evidence can be challenged.

[AverageJoe90]

34. Good points here.

At least if nothing else, Putin might realize that continuing to support an increasingly maniacal dictator such as Assad would ultimately hurt his image, and not only his own, but that of Russia as well.

Our consideration of intervention isn't popular by any means, but Al-Assad even less so, and by a large margin at that.

[BlueStreak]

3. This is the central question, and not a single media outlet (AFAIK) has asked this question

Let's say we all agree that Assad personally ordered the gassing of his people. Let me have that hypothetical because if that isn't true, then any military force is obviously wrong.

So given that Assad personally ordered this, that makes him a war criminal.

This is not complicated, people. What is the correct way to deal with war criminals?

a) Try them in The Hague

b) Send in a bunch of bombs that will kill a bunch of people, including many innocents, and will not actually punish Assad.

Please tell me what is complicated about that. How could B possibly be the correct answer anywhere any time?

Obviously it cannot. So the question that ought to be asked is why are we not taking Assad to The Hague for a trial.

Seriously. Why is that not happening? Why is it not even being discussed?

That's what the damn Congressional resolution should say. it should authorize the POTUS to take all necessary actions to get Assad to an international tribunal to stand trial for war crimes.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Assad would need to be captured or give himself up, don't see either happening.

[tecelote]

7. You have no faith in the skills of our military.

I'm against bombing Syria but I believe in our military. Our leaders in Washington are abusing great Americans.

[Thinkingabout]

10. You would rather put boots on the ground at the risk of being killed in order to capture Assad?

I am against putting boots on the ground, I know our military is capable, I don't see the need to risk our troops lives.

[tecelote]

11. So, this is a No-Risk Operation?

[Thinkingabout]

13. If you put our troops on the groind to capture Assad you would not consider them to be in harm's way

[tecelote]

15. Read my comment above.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Our very capable Seals was not able to bring bin Laden out alive, I think they would not be able to

Able to get Assad out where he could be tried for international violations either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. I think ...

too many people have been watching too much TV, where military operations go off without a hitch and are completed in 60 minutes or less (minus the commercials).

The fact is, nothing about bringing Assad to the world court would be simple ... unless in the extremely unlikely event that he surrenders himself or he is forced out and served up by actors from within his regime.

[SunSeeker]

28. Yes, the MSM has. The answer: Russia and China would veto it.

Because Russia and China sit on the UN security council, which refers despots for prosecution at the Hague, Assad will never get prosecuted. Russia and China have veto rights and have exercised them to protect Assad. They already vetoed a UN resolution to merely increase sanctions against Assad.

[BlueStreak]

33. Don't be so sure. See post #32.

[former9thward]

35. Member states can refer to the ICC.

However the U.S. is not a member of the ICC so it can't refer anything.

[telclaven]

17. SEALs operated in a permissive environment

Assad has an air force. To take that out, you need to bomb his airfields.

To bomb his airfields, you need to bomb his air defences.

To put boots on the ground, you need to eliminate his artillery assets. Yup, gotta bomb those too.

Special Forces are great and all, but they rely on stealth and God like air support. In a stand up fight, they will be overwhelmed.

[tecelote]

18. So the deaths of innocent civilains is a better option?

You said: "Special Forces are great and all, but they rely on stealth and God like air support. In a stand up fight, they will be overwhelmed."

I disagree.

There are many in the military that see all lives, worldwide, as valuable.

[telclaven]

19. um, do you have any military experience?

Not being snarky here, but movies way over inflate our capabilities.

The fact of the matter is the loss of innocent life is inevitable. It is not possible to prevent, no matter what method is attempted.

[tecelote]

20. Good question.

No. But I am interested in the response from military members.

From what I do know, I'll bet our rank and file has an interesting opinion.

And, I'll bet our Generals have a better plan than our politicians.

Why have we not heard their voices here?

[telclaven]

23. I just gave you one

Ex-army officer.

[JRLeft]

24. Better to stay out of it.

[SunSeeker]

25. Why Assad Hasn't Been Charged With War Crimes

From Slate:

Given the allegations currently being leveled at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, readers might be wondering why Assad and his senior commanders have not been charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court like leaders such as Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir. After all, the court was specifically set up to “have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern,” and last month’s chemical attacks certainly fit the bill. A number of NGOs and dozens of countries have called for such a prosecution. 

Unfortunately, international law is once again protecting Assad’s violations of international law. Syria is not a state party to the ICC (neither, for what it’s worth, is the United States) and therefore its prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction over crimes committed there. For Assad to be charged by the ICC, he would have to be referred by the U.N. Security Council which, as with an authorization for military intervention, isn’t going to happen as long as Russia and China have seats. Marc Lynch discussed a few other possible avenues for Assad’s prosecution a few weeks ago, but for now, a prosecution seems extremely unlikely, even as the Syrian government commits exactly the sort of crimes the court was set up to deal with.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/09/05/assad_s_war_crimes_why_hasn_t_he_been_charged_with_war_crimes_by_the_international.html

[davidpdx]

27. I agree, Russia and China's veto would block the referal

Then again, if it is put before them that they either have to act as part of the international community or sit and watch the carnage unfold in Syria that might work. They both have the option of abstention during the vote.

[davidpdx]

26. Someone else suggested a war crimes tribunal

in a thread yesterday. Of course that would depend upon the evidence showing that Assad was responsible. I think there is no doubt chemical weapons were used.

In the short term it probably wouldn't help the plight of the Syrian people much, but it would be one peaceful step that could be taken.

[Turbineguy]

29. You mean hold leaders responsible for their atrocities?

Next they'll be arresting Bush and Cheney.