Further Complications with the US Argument for 'Punishing' Syria for Chemical Attacks: Hypocricy and Lack of Foundation

So, yesterday I had a post pointing to a piece by Udo Schuklenk, rather convincingly picking apart the US case for military attacking Syria as a 'punishment' for the current regime's alleged chemical warfare attacks against civilians. Today, I found two further reasons against any such idea, besides the numerous ones presented by Udo:

1. Articles in The Daily Mail, making public solid evidence to the effect that the UK, whose prime minister David Cameron has apparently swallowed president Obama's argument for an attack whole and unchewed and made motions in parliament to gain support for this line (to no effect, so far), has for many years when Syria was suspected of stockpiling chemical weapons agents, like sarin, exported ingredients for manufacturing exactly such agents to Syria with the government's and relevant agencies' open approval and license. The ingredient in question is one that in other contexts is perfectly innocent or benign, namely sodium fluoride (an ingredient in almost all tooth paste and sometimes added to drinking water to boost population dental health), but as here described, also a necessary bit in the manufacturing of sarin, which is exactly the gas claimed by the US to have been used by the Assad regime (and famous since the terrorist attacks in the Tokyo underground in 1995). It wouldn't surprise me one bit if also other of those countries now contemplating jumping onto the US attack wagon, at least if UN support can be produced, similarly have exported this or some other part of the alleged Syrian chemical weapons arsenal – in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if also the US government can be found to have done the same.

The relevance of this for Obama's argument is the following: If the Syrian regime is to be punished by a military attack (that will most certainly kill lots of people having nothing to do with the matter, besides being unlucky enough to reside inside Syrian territory – nobody believes in the fairy tales about precision warfare anymore), then surely a proportional punishment has to be directed at those that have aided and abetted such a serious act. That is, if the alleged action of the Assad regime is to be seen as a crime worthy of such a degree of punishment (including foreseeable collateral damages of substantial proportion), surely aiding and abetting such a crime must be viewed as deserving a punishment in the same ballpark, although at a more moderate proportion in the same way that assisting a murder deserves less punishment than the murder itself. Note that the argument that the aiding was unwitting does not hold up to scrutiny, since the UK and the rest of the countries here viewed Syria as a danger from the chemical weapons perspective already in those times and were fully well informed about the military application of sodium fluoride.

So, it would seem, that the same legal logic invoked by president Obama to motivate attacking Syria would force him to the conclusion that if, say, Damascus is to be bombed in punishment for the alleged attack, then some more minor part of the UK – say Middlesbrough or Bristol – should be in for a similar treatment.And it doesn't end there, for it would also seem that David Cameron himself, as a matter of legal logic, would have to accept and support such a conclusion. Lovely, isn't it?

2. Now, and this is something that dawned on my today, there's a basic fault of the whole attempt to try to make a legal argument in support of a military attack aimed at punishing a country's leaders or its officer's at lower levels for an alleged crime. This argument requires that due process is applied, and what Obama has suggested is far from that. Due process would seem to require that those that are suspects in the crime are apprehended for subsequent inquiry and investigation by the International Criminal Court – not that Damascus or whatever other place is contemplated by the Washington hawks as a fitting target is reduced to a pile of rubble, possibly killing the Syrian leadership possibly responsible for chemical attacks together with a huge bunch of other people, without anything even resembling trial. There is only one problem: the USA, for entirely selfish reasons, is on record as actively working against the ICC and its underlying idea of installing a legally secure institution for punishing war crimes and crimes against humanity. In conclusion: Obama's argument relies on the idea of applying due legal process and rule of law, while what he suggests is the opposite. Not only that, he represents a country that is an active enemy of the very notion of such rule of law.

So, in the end, it would seem that, even discounting for the blind eye towards those who have made the alleged chemical attack possible and the hypocricy implied by that – the entire attempt of the US regime and president Obama to dress up in legal garment what is, I suppose, in the end the same old 'preventive self-defense' rubbish as usual, fails even more splendidly than argued by Udo yesterday.

Now, should Obama change his mind and accept, as EU leaders now seem keen on, that an ICC-based due process handling of the alleged chemical attack of the Syrian regime is applied, as would seem logical in view of the legal argument made, such a due process would also have to include, of course, the crime of aiding and abetting such alleged criminal behaviour, which in turn would seem to imply that David Cameron and relevant ministers (of security, defense and foreign trade) should, at the very least, be held for questioning and possible a number of other governments should be in for the same treatment. A little something for the EU council of ministers to contemplate in their further musings on this matter.

David Cameron Loses It over UK Riots: Totalitarian Ideology and Collective Punishment

The riots in various cities of the UK during the last weeks are not easy to comment intelligently upon and, frankly, I have some sympathy for the panicky way that the UK government and police is responding. It has to be admitted that this came "from nowhere" (which is not to say that there aren't explanations, I'm talking about predictability here). And riots are exactly that: chaotic outbursts of collective and unsystematic violence where the worsts sides of human beings come to the surface; order, moderation, common sense and logic is simply not to be expected - on either side. However, society and the state bears a responsibility which the uncoordinated collective of rioters does not: It is one, organised institutional agent, committed to uphold certain basic standards and values. Among these are, of course, public order and peace, legal security, justice for victims of crime and – in the wider frame – a society where people are generally content to live (and thus not very prone to rioting). These are elementary building blocks of any well-functioning society that everyone should be able to agree on, whatever other political or ideological leanings you might entertain.

But the response of the UK government, in particular as expressed publicly by prime minister David Cameron these last few days are in this respect quite worrying. Rather than finding inspiration in the long and strong tradition of English liberal democracy, Cameron seems to turn to surprising sources for inspiration.

First, we have the notion of restricting access to internet and wireless communication – especially social media (here, here, here, here) for a rather ill-defined collective of people (those suspected of plotting riot activities). While not amounting to closing down mobile phone networks or the internet á la Syria or North Korea, it does come close to the thrawling of internet and wireless traffic in the hunt for potential dissidents and the barring off of substantial parts of the internet championed by the People's Republic of China. Now, I would not have had much complaint if all that Cameron wanted to do was to have the police use the analysis of mobile phone and internet traffic as a part of preparing arrests and prosecutions. After all, those people who have been causing mayhem during the riots are indeed criminals – and it has to be admitted that the criminal acts they have committed are made more serious due to the context of a riot. But Mr. Cameron obviously wants to go to greater lengths than that, creating a legal loophole (which some legal experts indeed claim is illegal, see the links above) for law enforcement to act proactively against a large mass of people, many of which are perfectly innocent.

Second, yesterday Cameron announced that he wants to see the entire families of (convicted?) rioters who are living in public housing estates to be evicted from their homes (see also here) as part of the punishment of the rioters. Now, here's a novel concept, to say the least, for a political conservative of a Western liberal democracy: collectively punish not only those convicted of crimes, but also their parents, their siblings and their children. This is a sort of tactics that we know from the most draconian of totalitarian societies: Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and North Korea come to mind. What is more, even if the assault on freedom of information and speech involved in the measures against social media could, with some good will, be squeezed to fit into the frames of a minimally decent liberal democracy, to punish people who have done nothing against the law for the criminal actions undertaken by other people cannot. Period.

Neither will making large masses of people homeless help to secure that people in the future will not be very keen on rioting. Making people end up in a situation where they have nothing to loose is never a good recipe for upholding public order and peace. Causing such outcomes in a way that violates basic tenets of legal security and responsibility will hardly help either.

Now, parallel to this, Cameron is facing some harsh criticism for his (let's be honest) ranting in TV about how the police should have been acting tougher (see also here). Criticism, it should be noted, that comes from the police itself. Apparently, those that actually know anything about law enforcement also know that escalating spirals of collective violence is never an effective strategy in the long run for securing the standards and values of a decent society. Let's just hope that this spirit will prevail and that Mr. Cameron will revisit the basics of his political beliefs and come to his senses.

Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Legal Security Out the Window in New Utah Law that Criminalises Miscarriage

Yes, indeed you read correctly! The US state of Utah has adopted a bill according to which women who suffer miscarriage are to be assumed guilty of murder, unless proven innocent. In reports from inside and outside the US, the flabbergasted reactions have taken up the themes of the so-called Pro Life movement now showing its true face ("so now we see, they're after women after all"), and the problematic or at least uncertain implications in relation to the classic Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade from 1974, that paved the way for legal abortion in the Unites States. But, in my view, the problematic aspects of this case go way deeper than that, and has little to do with the moral or legal status of abortion. This bill assaults basic principles of legal security that are a necessity for any country that wants to label itself minimally civilized, whatever regulation of abortion, pregnancy, etcetera, one then might want to adopt.

The bill originated in a case where a 17 year old pregnant woman that had passed the time limit for legal abortion allegedly hired some guy to assault her physically in the hope of thereby inducing a miscarriage. This did not happen, so the guy was convicted for something else than murder, presumably some form of attempt. The woman (technically rather a girl at the time of the event), however, turned out not to be possible to convict for anything. Horror!!! Hence the new bill.

I wonder if it is only us non-Utahits that find this reaction particularly twisted? First, the desperation of the 17-year old girl clearly says something quite salient of the situation that the authorities of Utah leave underage, involuntary pregnant females in. Perhaps doing something about that, huh?! But I presume that the morality underlying the bill would prevent anything in that vein - "Helping a slut? What's the matter with you?!", is the expected reaction. Another case of what becomes of the message of love when unattended to by secular reason - something I have commented on before. Second, an online-acquaintance's spontaneous reaction - as my mother's - to the news about the bill was a hands on analogy with the Taliban rule of Afghanistan, and this strikes me as dead right. This perverse obsession with punishment rather than prevention out of compassion is as clear a sign as anything of the supporters of the Utah bill sharing with the Talibans the same brutal idea of how to react to the plight of others. But this is not my main point.

Neither is my point about this case being another in a quite disturbing trend in developed nations to use the pregnancy as an excuse to treat women as instruments for one thing only: the population of the earth. This recent incident from Florida may remind readers about what I'm talking about. In my work in health care ethics, I have noticed a clear rise in enthusiasm among medical staff regarding the possibility of submitting pregnant women to treatments against their will for the sake of the fetus. Conclusion: women, when pregnant, are to be treated as means only and the worry about where to draw the line is of minor consequence. But let's do what philosophers often do: let us lend the supporters of such ideas the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume for the sake of argument, as the saying goes, that actions of women that endanger fetuses are indeed to be viewed as a potentially criminal offense.

On this assumption, my point is this: the Utah bill prescribes society to apply a principle of presuming all pregnant women undertaking any sort of action that may pose some danger to the health and well-being of the fetus they are carrying as guilty of an offense. It is not society that carries the burden of proof of demonstrating the actual occurrence of this offense, it is the accused. First of all, unless some rather vast changes (that will never pass even the first round of an appellate court and even less the supreme court) in the Utah criminal code are undertaken this implies that men and women are judged according to different basic legal principles. If that does not violate the US constitution, I wonder what does! But this is not all. The whole idea of presuming people guilty of crimes, in particular crimes that may be followed by harsh punishment, violates the most basic principle of a fair, just and sustainable legal system that is to be found. For, comically as it would be had it not been for the brutal stupidity of it all, as people like Stalin have proven beyond reasonable doubt, the only consistent application of this principle is the incarceration of the entire population. For, of course, men will have to be judged by the same standard, and as we know, one of the main threats to the health and well-being of women is the actions of men.

And here's the real irony of it all: the bill seems to imply that the entire population of political representatives that voted in favor of the bill, as the public servants that will be enforcing it, have to be prosecuted for exactly the crime described by the very same bill! One needs just a minimum of empathy and imagination to understand the effects of the Utah bill on the pregnant women of Utah. Whatever they do, they will risk having the police banging on the door, dragging them off on a presumed murder charge. For, as we know, anything a pregnant woman does may have effects (given the circumstances) that makes more probable some downside for the fetus. So, the main effect of this new policy will be the inducement of severe fear and stress on pregnant women - a factor well-documented to pose a serious health risk to both woman and fetus. So, come on you Utah law-makers, let's have it all out and see you in court!