Pardon me, but this is a little long, my response to the Op-Ed: "... to deter further massacres" - that's code for let's crank up the violence machine. What does it honestly matter if someone is killed by the Swine Flu, a .45 round, a chemical agent, a nuclear blast or a laser-guided 500 pounder? End result is that they're still dead. This kind of attack is sending the wrong message in that it's perfectly fine with us (i.e. the US) if you want to execute your citizens, but once you get into the "bad" weapons, you need your hands smacked by way of an escalation of violence and additional killing. "... moral reasons for disregarding the law" - Does that mean that we can disregard the sovereignty of other nations? On the flip side, does that mean that they can disregard the sovereignty of our nation? How would we feel about another country (or external NGO) commiting an attack on US soil because they have a difference of opinion about things like abortion or the death penalty? That's quite the can of worms you've got there. I think it's quite obvious that Kerry (and his State Department) is a rube here - the only reason he became Secretary of State was because Obama needed someone who could find the Middle East on a Mercator projection map while Hillary went off, got some rest, worked on her tan and prepped for 2016. Discussion as to what rules and international treaties Syria is bound is garbage. What realistically can we use them for in this situation? Capture Assad, bring him before the Hague and let them issue 5 slaps with a wet noodle? Or maybe simply look upon Syria with disdain for a period of 20 years? Let's get real here. This legal basis blathering is simply a way for those opposed to any form of action to get their warm and fuzzy about going in because of a "legal mandate" and after all, doesn't the United States stand for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" ? Propaganda, pure and simple. I love how Mr. Hurd brings in the idea of how Syria isn't party to the CWC of 1993 but then turns around and uses that a a barbed stick to poke at both the US and Russia. What good does that really serve? More smoke and mirrors. And follows that by bringing in the Geneva Convention in order to blacken the eye of the UN Security Council. “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” - So, states have to sit idly by and let things happen as long as the actions of another state don't interfere in their own sovereignty, a form of forced non-interference. That makes pretty good sense - let countries take care of themselves, don't interfere and prepare to defend yourself. The eerie thing gets into "responsibility to protect" - who's responsible to protect whom? At the rate things are going in the US, are the American people going to ask other countries to protect us from our own government? Wouldn't that be wild. Then we get into the discussion about NATO in Kosovo and how the action was illegal but legitimate. I'm not a lawyer here, no fin on this back, but just what can the UN Security Council do to NATO? Levy fines (who funds the UN and NATO again?) ? Stern looks? Again, it's smoke and mirrors. As the final move, Mr. Hurd seems to think that the allies (essentially NATO) should declare that international law has evolved and that the Security Council doesn't matter any longer. Take a minute to let that sink in, especially "the Security Council doesn't matter any longer". At that point, honestly, they've destroyed the credibility of the United Nations. What's the next step, disband the UN? I'm sure that would make some folks very happy (anarchists, for example), but that brings a whole new exponent to the amount of chaos going on in the world, in my opinion. And this writer teaches political science? Am I ever glad that I stuck with engineering and computer science. --- A On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM, John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > NYTimes alternate web site has the grotesque Op-Ed: > > http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/**28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-** > it-is-illegal.html?from=**opinion<http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?from=opinion> > > > >