The United States, and the entire world, now face a critical question, whether to use force against the Syrian government for their alleged use of chemicals weapons, specifically, the nerve agent Sarin.
The answer is actually quite simple, NO. The argument is also simple, the U.S. does not have sovereign global jurisdiction to determine violations of international law unilaterally, as President Obama now asserts. That assertion is itself justification for war, against the United States, not just by Syria, but also by any state which perceives this action as a credible threat to their sovereignty. Whether other bodies, most notably Al Qaeda also have that right, is a valid point of debate, one that I will not address in this essay.
However, the United States does have a completely valid argument, and case, against Syria and its President, Bashar al-Assad. That case should be considered deliberately, not just by every nation state, but also by its constituent citizens – including yours truly, in this writing. It is also the case that the U.S. is not without culpability in this current situation and that this matter must bear heavily in any full consideration of the matter at hand and the simple fact that the U.S. is an aggressor party to this matter and their self righteous assertion of being the savior of the situation does go considerably to their credibility.
The history of U.S. war justification credibility in the Middle East is a huge issue, most notably the so-called ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ used to justify the Iraq war. The ‘WMD’s were a complete fiction. This current matter could be viewed as an attempt by the US to prove they really do exist, even though no direct link between Syria and Iraq in this matter is directly asserted. I cannot evaluate the specifics of the United States current claim myself, however it is also quite possible that Assad is aware of this weakness and is playing to it, calling the bluff against the U.S. in this high stakes game that is fought not only with guns, but also with opinion, intelligent and otherwise.
If nerve gas was in fact used, this established element of international law must be balanced against the aggressive, and massively duplicitous, actions of the US Government. I continue to deliberate on this matter – whether self defense trumps international law considering chemical weapons. Regardless of the answer to that question though, the US must be accountable for its own actions regardless of how small, or how massively malicious.
The current position of the US is to assert a moral high ground on the single issue of weapons usage and, implicitly, claiming a ‘might is right’ immunity for their own actions – something that is systemic in the practice of internal U.S. law and in direct violation of the United States Constitution. This argument is, frankly, quite creepy, more so it evidences the very font of malicious behavior, including violent pedophile rape, the very start of the cycle of abuse by which every nation is plagued.
As I am not an expert in the details of chemical warfare and cannot speak to the veracity of the United States case on this aspect of the matter I am also not an expert in international law. I do however have a lay knowledge of legal principles and my argument for the advancement of same internationally in the context of global history is relevant in the development of this practice.
Although I do not have formal court ‘standing’ in this case it should be noted that I assert that I am a victim, domestically, of these exact same practices as they are exercised over the entire scope of its authority, at the most fine grained level. These personal concerns are preliminarily addressed in a Pro Se procedure now before the United States Supreme Court, as Docket #13-5779 – which, at some point I may need to appeal to the larger international community.
