Syrian 2013 Chemical Weapons Attack

Page last edited 2,077 days 8 hours ago
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2013 Syria chemical weapons attack

Try Assad in the ICC[edit]

According to Article 63 of the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC's operation, the court can't try anyone in absentia.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons[edit]

I agree that Bush Sr. was complicit in that blind eye turning to the Halabja chemical attack (yet another of many reasons to never put a Republican in the White House). To be fair to Bush Sr. though, we also didn't know for quite some time if it was Iraq or Iran that carried it out. By the time we did, Iraq had invaded Kuwait and the response and aftermath of that conflict, we eliminated Iraq's WMDs under Clinton and UN authority, after a military engagement that was also not a declared "war".

It is also worth noting that while Saddam Hussein was eventually hung for the Dujail Massacre, during that the trial hundreds of other crimes were in the queue to be brought forward, including the Halabja chemical attack.

But since he was executed for that earlier crime, the pending issue of putting him on trial for the Halabja chemical attack became moot.

"Red line" nontroversy[edit]

The August 20, 2012 press conference:

"Q: Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you're confident that the chemical weapons are safe?

THE PRESIDENT: On Syria, obviously this is a very tough issue. I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.

What we’ve said is, number one, we want to make sure we’re providing humanitarian assistance, and we’ve done that to the tune of $82 million, I believe, so far. And we’ll probably end up doing a little more because we want to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are fleeing the mayhem, that they don’t end up creating -- or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of Syria’s neighbors.

The second thing we’ve done is we said that we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place, and what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights and human rights. And that consultation is taking place.

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Q: So you're confident it’s somehow under -- it's safe?

THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly."

The Red line press conference.

"First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war."


Any adult without an axe to grind and reads what was said in context can figure it out. He isn't 'denying' anything, he is correctly pointing out that the universal ban on the use of chemical weapons wasn't something he came up with. It was adopted by the United States, the world and even Syria itself long before President Obama started grade school.

When was line drawn?[edit]

When was the line drawn forbidding the use of chemical weapons under international law?

So the line was drawn against the use of chemical weapons in 1925.

Was Barack Obama alive in 1925?

Argument timeline[edit]

The world set the red line forbidding the use of chemical weapons in 1925 (which even your fellow traveler Schultz admits to)

The President repeats that red line in August 20, 2012.

The President points out that the red line was drawn in 1925 on September 4, 2013.

Howenica again lies about what the President said about the red line 4 hours ago on September 7, 2013.

Thread derailing[edit]

No, the subject is Boehner refusing to argue and support his own position to his caucus on military strikes on Syria for their violating the Geneva Conventions ban on the use of chemical weapons.