Skip to main content

View Diary: Radio intercepts convince German intel that Assad neither ordered nor approved the chemical attack (320 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If they're your guys, then you're responsible. (9+ / 0-)

    Either as the ultimate commander, or as the enforcer of discipline among your guys.  Maybe that should be the international community's demand: turn over all of those "brigade and divisional commanders" who been asking for permission to use chemical weapons to the ICC, since even asking your superiors to use them is itself a violation or so I'd assume.  If people want a creative "out" there's one for you.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:54:09 AM PDT

    •  So as noted (10+ / 0-)

      here, by your logic you would agree that Obama is responsible for everything the NSA does, never mind the DEA, the FBI, the IRS and every other executive branch entity, right?

      •  Yes, exactly. (5+ / 0-)

        If someone in those organizations does something illegal, it's Obama's responsibility as president to oversee a system in which illegality is confronted by judicial or administrative proceedings.  The current problem with those entities is that there is debate about whether they're actually illegal.  One of the problems of spending so much time on a progressive website is that one loses sight of the fact that much of what's obvious to us is highly contested in wider society.

        The better case to invoke, and it's been done already in the comments, is Abu Ghraib, where the illegality is unambiguous.  And in that case people the (military) legal system was invoked rather than overridden in a way that would make Bush criminally responsible.  (The bubble again--believe it or not, the idea that Bush isn't criminally responsible for Abu Ghraib is almost certainly a majority opinion in the US, and among actual jurists. Go figure.)

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:07:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's your logic again: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shotput8, lysias, cotterperson, Johnny Q
          The current problem with those entities is that there is debate about whether they're actually illegal.  
          Syria hasn't signed the CCW, so by your same logic there could be a debate about whether what it's done is "actually illegal."

          Fourth Amendment?  CCW? What's the difference?

          And please note.  I am not at all condoning the use of CW. But then again, I also don't condone the violation of the 4th amendment.  I'm merely demonstrating where your logic can go.

          •  But you're equating violations... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            goObama

            ...of the 4th Amendment with the use of chemical weapons, aren't you?

            You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

            by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:55:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not equating that at all. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RickD, TheMomCat, cotterperson, Johnny Q

              If you want to argue that a country that has not signed an international treaty is still acting in violation of that treaty if it doesn't abide by it, there are heads of states of many countries, including this one, that will disagree.

              Your argument about legality takes one to all sorts of places.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site