Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, based on its contents and other AP reporting, puenerby the
Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence?
This
image provided by Shaam News Network on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, which
has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting,
purports to show dead bodies after an attack on Ghouta, Syria on
Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013. /AP/Shaam News Network
LONDON Prime
Minister David Cameron told British lawmakers Thursday that there is "no
100 percent certainty about who is responsible" for the apparent mass-chemical weapons attack on suburban Damascus on Aug. 21.
Nevertheless,
Cameron asserted that "from all the evidence we have," his government,
along with the Obama administration, had made the "judgment" that "the
regime is responsible and should be held to account."
Also
just like the Obama administration, however, Cameron's government has
yet to explain exactly what the evidence of Assad's culpability is, or
where it came from.
The Prime Minister spoke hours after the British Joint
Intelligence Organization (JTI) released a report claiming "a limited
but growing body of intelligence" showing that Assad's regime was behind
the Aug. 21 attacks, which left at least 355 people dead.
"Some
of this intelligence is highly sensitive," the chairman of Britain's
Joint Intelligence Committee wrote to Cameron in the open report, "but
you have had access to it all."
While Cameron has had
access to the intelligence, the rest of the world has not. He did offer
one further claim in Parliament on Thursday, however, saying there was
"intelligence that regime forces took precautions consistent with
chemical weapons use" in the immediate prelude to the Ghouta attacks. He
did not explain where that information had come from.
About
4,000 miles to the west, in Washington, the Obama administration was
putting the finishing touches on two reports -- the first a classified
assessment to be presented to members of Congress; the second, a
declassified version for the American public -- meant to lay out the
White House's own evidence that Assad's government used chemical
weapons.
The White House has claimed to have obtained intercepted phone calls
that provide further evidence against the Assad regime, and
administration officials also told CBS News that intelligence agencies detected activity at known Syrian chemical weapons sites the week before the Ghouta attack.
Similar
activity had been detected before, and the assumption was made that the
Syrians were moving things around for security reasons. But last week,
the officials told CBS News the most recent activity was being viewed as
possible preparation for Wednesday's attack.
With the
possible exception of the intercepted phone calls, and the claim by
Cameron on Thursday that regime soldiers had taken precautions typical
of chemical weapons use, the vast majority of the evidence of Assad
regime culpability presented by both Cameron, the Obama administration
and their allies in France, Turkey and other nations, is circumstantial
in nature.
It hinges largely on the argument, as Cameron put it Thursday, that there are simply "no plausible alternate scenarios."
Below
is a look at some of the often-reiterated circumstantial evidence
presented by the U.S. and U.K. governments, along with questions which
remain unanswered pertaining to that evidence and which skeptics of the
legal basis for a military intervention in both countries' legislatures
will likely be seeking answers to in the coming days. "No plausible alternate scenarios"
"There
is no credible evidence that any opposition group has used CW (chemical
weapons). A number continue to seek a CW capability, but none currently
has the capability to conduct a CW attack on this scale."
That
quote comes from the British JTI report published Thursday, but it
echoes the most often-used argument to pin blame for the Ghouta attacks
on Assad's government.
Chemical and biological weapons experts
have been relatively consistent in their analysis, saying only a
military force with access to and knowledge of missile delivery systems
and the sarin gas suspected in Ghouta could have carried out an attack
capable of killing hundreds of people.
But no official death toll has been given. The international aid
group Doctors Without Borders said it tallied 355 people killed and more
than 3,000 displaying symptoms typical of a nerve agent like sarin gas,
but no independent organization has yet confirmed that it was sarin gas
used in Ghouta. Nor has it been confirmed what the delivery method was.
The international community will hope for clarity on these
questions from the U.N. inspectors who have been on the ground in Ghouta
this week.
There are other chemical agents which have allegedly
been used in Syria since 2012, including far-less-potent
organophosphates, which are readily available in the form of industrial
insecticides.
It should also be noted that Russia claimed to have provided evidence in July to the U.N. which showed the rebels were behind a sarin gas attack in the village of Khan al-Assal in March 2012.
"It
was established that on March 19, the rebels launched an unguided
Bashar 3 projectile towards Khan al-Assal controlled by the government
forces," Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the United Nations, told
reporters, adding that he intended to share the evidence with the U.S.,
U.K and France.
The ambassador said the results of the analysis
of the gas-laden projectile indicated the Bashar 3 rocket "was not
industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the
samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in "cottage
industry" conditions.
The absence of chemical stabilizers, which
are needed for long-term storage and later use, indicated its "possibly
recent production," Churkin said.
The Russian's purported
evidence of rebel culpability for the Khan al-Assal attack was never
revealed, but neither was the West's purported evidence that the Assad regime did it. Assad has done it before
"We
have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14
occasions from 2012 ... A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been
established," declared the JTI report in Britain on Thursday.
U.S. intelligence concluded
"with some degree of varying confidence" that the Syrian government had
twice used chemical weapons, the White House and other top
administration officials said on April 25.
However, the officials
also said more definitive proof was needed and the U.S. was not ready
to escalate its involvement in Syria. The White House disclosed the
intelligence in letters to two senators.
"Our intelligence
community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the
Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria,
specifically, the chemical agent sarin," the White House said in its
letter, which was signed by Obama's legislative director, Miguel
Rodriguez.
No tangible evidence has been offered by either the
U.S. or Britain to demonstrate what lead to the conclusion that Assad's
forces must have been behind the previous suspected chemical attacks,
and the U.N. inspection team -- which had its original plans derailed by
the unexpected attacks in Ghouta -- has not reached any other sites.
Much like the Ghouta attacks, the intelligence behind the accusations
that Assad's regime was involved in previous chemical weapons incidents
has remained secret. Assad regime delayed inspections to destroy evidence
Less
than five days after the attack in Ghouta, an Obama administration
official told CBS News that the Assad regime had essentially blocked a
team of United Nations inspectors already in Damascus access to the
Ghouta site -- a delay the White House said would make any eventual
granting of permission "too late to be credible."
"At this
juncture, any belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN
team would be considered too late to be credible, including because the
evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the
regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last
five days," the official said.
Officials argued that the
suspected weapon in question, sarin gas, degrades too quickly and would
have been dispersed by the continued shelling in Ghouta to provide
useful evidence.
The JTI report issued by the U.K. on Thursday,
however, refutes that claim: "There is no immediate time limit over
which environmental or physiological samples would have degraded beyond
usefulness. However, the longer it takes inspectors to gain access to
the affected sites, the more difficult it will be to establish the chain
of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."
Also clashing with the
"too late to be credible" claim is the fact that the 20 scientists in
Syria to investigate claims of chemical weapons use for the United
Nations were only originally sent to inspect incidents which date back
as far as March. Those alleged attacks were much smaller in scale, and
the remnants of any CW used have had five months to degrade, but the
weapons experts still wanted to go and collect samples.
There is
also the fundamental claim that Assad's government delayed the
inspectors' visit to Ghouta. They have now visited the suburbs on three
separate days, and on Tuesday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem countered the accusations of a deliberate delay, saying his government only received the request from U.N. disarmament chief Angela Kane to visit the area on Saturday.
"Miss
Kane came on Saturday, on Sunday we agreed and on Monday, they (the
U.N. inspectors) went to Moadamiyeh (a town in Ghouta). We did not argue
about the sites they wanted to visit. We agreed straight away," said
Muallem. "How could we be accused of causing a delay?"
No comments:
Post a Comment