Chemical Weapons Convention--Should It's Rules Govern Our Actions In Syria?

The following article makes us ask a question, should attacking Syria be our first response if it is determined that the Assad government actually used chemical weapons? Isn't the convention on chemical weapons designed to settle issues such as this?  Why is the use of military weaponry seemingly our first thought?

We have said from the beginning that we should first determine who used the weapons and then take action against them through the United Nations or the Arab League. The US SHOULD NOT be the enforcer of rules as it will backfire on us.

In our mind there has been a jump to the conclusion that Assad used these weapons and that he must be punished for it. As we have mentioned previously, we do not like Assad, however, for us to become involved in a) a civil war and b) on evidence that we find questionable and c) from an administration that does not have a reputation of being forthright and honest, brings us up short.  

There is something that stinks about the whole operation and we continue to think it is all about saving "face" for Obama.  That is a poor excuse to commit our military to another venture which might be another "Gulf of Tonkin" mis-adventure.

Conservative Tom

What if it is "confirmed" that Assad did use chemical weapons?

Submitted by ockhamsliberty on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 00:11

in

• Politics, General + Law(s)

Let's suppose that the UN inspection confirms that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Now let's suppose that a classified "intelligent" report is released that gives credence that indeed the Syrian government did order a chemical weapons attack.

The question is now what? I figure this is what really the debate will come to... leaving aside the trustworthiness of the various "intelligent" reports that are offered up by our government.

I hope that a majority of congress take the position that EVEN IF the Syrian government used chemical weapons that does not mean we must start a war with Syria by sending in missiles... indeed sending in missiles would be doing the opposite of what our government is claiming they want to do (i.e., preserve international norms and laws).

The war hawks are making the argument that Assad used chemical weapons therefore if we do not punish Syria by sending in missiles then there is no purpose to the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

So they are claiming either we take military action or we are not upholding international norms and laws... however this is clearly a false. Taking immediate military action would not be upholding international norms and laws. The international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has a procedure of what to do in the event of a states non-compliance. I am not sure where all the relevant treaties are, however, I think we can be certain that NONE of the treaties and agreements say the next action is to make a military strike in the case of a states non-compliance.

There is a section of the articles from the convention titled, "Measures to Redress a Situation and to Ensure Compliance, Including Sanctions", it lays out a procedure which our government is not thus far even attempting to follow!

Here is that section from the "Chemical Weapons Convention":
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/art...

Leaving aside the real possible reasons why our government seems so desperate to start a direct military war with Syria... our government is nevertheless currently not even following the agreed on Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention even though they are pretending they are seeking to uphold the treaty.

The members of congress who oppose a war with Syria I hope make it clear that EVEN IF a case can be made that Assad did use chemical weapons then there are nevertheless a host of other options besides sending in bombs! By taking direct military action without even attempting to follow the agreed procedure our government would be proving that preserving "international norms and laws" is not at all what their concern is.

This seems to be an extremely important vote... to say the least... I hope we all continue to make our voices heard!