Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Staggering numbers on Syria..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Staggering numbers on Syria..

    And a useful reminder for those who suggest Assad is somehow a 'better answer' for Syria.

    Originally posted by HP
    How Will Syria's Assad Be Held Accountable For Crimes Against Humanity?

    Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. Today, we speak with David Crane, a Syracuse University professor involved in the impartial effort to catalog Syrian war crimes.

    The conflict in Syria has entered its fifth year. The death toll tops 220,000 and the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. In addition to fighting among rebel groups, Islamic State militants and government forces, there is proof of systemic killing of detainees by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

    The most tangible and shocking evidence of mass murder was presented last year in a report that included thousands of photographs smuggled out of Syria by a former military policeman who has been dubbed "Caesar." A report on these photos by top international lawyers and forensic scientists verified his account, and said there had been "industrial-scale" killing.

    One of the authors of the Caesar report was David Crane, who acted as chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone that indicted Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president now imprisoned for war crimes. Crane is now a professor at Syracuse University, where he is involved in the Syrian Accountability Project, an impartial body documenting crimes in the Syrian war. The WorldPost spoke with Crane about his work and the future of efforts to hold those responsible accountable.

    Can you speak to the scope of the crimes and the evidence that you’ve witnessed?

    The international crimes, which are still going on, are war crimes and crimes against humanity. We see no evidence of genocide, which is a specific-intent-crime, and you literally have to have a smoking gun to prove that. But war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed across the board by all parties.

    When I co-authored the Caesar report, we highlighted to the world that the Assad regime has been conducting a long-term industrialized killing of their own citizens for decades. The pictures coming out from Caesar -- that he smuggled out in his shoe -- these are high-definition, forensic photos that he took as a military forensic photographer of the deceased. The good thing about the photos is that they’re all numbered and verifiable, and we have the very person who took the photos able to verify them.

    War crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed across the board by all parties.

    We have Caesar safely ensconced in a country that is protecting him. We were able this time last year to capture as much as 50 percent of the original photos and put them in an evidence locker. In addition, we have a chain of custody, so we can establish legally the verifiable aspects of all these horrific photos.

    Something that was mentioned in your report was an estimate of 11,000 detainees that were killed.

    That’s correct. How we established that was we had a great team of very experienced individuals: two former chief prosecutors, the lead prosecutor for the [Slobodan] Milosevic case, chief forensic pathologist, forensic anthropologist and a photograph expert. We were able to determine scientifically that these 54,000 photographs probably showed about 11,000 deceased.

    The scariest part about this was that this was only from three detention facilities in and around Damascus, but the Syrian Accountability Project has found as many as 52 detention facilities. So what we may be looking at is the tip of a horrific iceberg.

    We have no idea how bad this is and I suspect that it’s going to be far worse than imagined.

    How does the Syrian Accountability Project get its evidence?

    We get our data from many sources. Open-source information gives us a sense of what’s happening, and then we also have agents in place on scene, including human rights and victims groups that are reporting directly to us.

    Our crime base matrix is now over 2,100 pages of Excel spreadsheet. The way we organize it is by listing the time, date, incident and alleged perpetrator. We also list specific violations of the Geneva Convention and specific violations of the Rome Statute. In addition, we translated the Syrian criminal code into English and list specific violations of Syrian law as well. This allows a future local or international prosecutor to take this and review which crimes they may charge or investigate.

    It's fascinating, 10 years ago we didn’t have any of this concept of social media. We used to have to go out and get all our evidence the old-fashioned way. Now it’s gone completely in reverse, and there is so much information that it’s a tsunami. In most cases, it’s important information, but useless in court due to legal issues such as verification and chain of custody. Our challenge now is building a case against all these parties, and we’re very careful about not putting anything on the crime base matrix unless it’s verifiable two or three times over.

    Is there a precedent for how social media might be used in court?

    The information that’s coming on social media is just information, it’s not evidence yet. It becomes evidence when it’s verifiable. We’re confronted with a new phenomenon, and the legal rules of evidence require us to do certain things to verify it. It can be done, but it’s just a function of having to go back to the source -- just because it’s on YouTube means nothing to a court of law. It has to be authenticated.

    A lot of the data that is useless in a court of law is still important historically and for truth-telling, of course. It’s just not usable. As much as 98 to 99 percent of all the data coming out of Syria has no legal significance.

    What are the step-by-step processes of bringing accountability to these crimes when the conflict in Syria finally ends?

    Once the geopolitical aspect of this is solved, if it ever is, we can prosecute heads of state and henchmen for what they’ve done. We’ve done it before in the Charles Taylor case. It will be an international court -- probably not the International Criminal Court because of likely Russian and Chinese objections -- but we can create a hybrid international court like the special court I helped found in 2002. You may also see an internationalized Syrian domestic court or even just a Syrian domestic court. We’ve been building this trial package with the anticipation of any of that happening.

    I’ll leave you with this: 10 years ago, President Charles Taylor of Liberia was the most dangerous warlord in Africa and never thought he’d be held accountable. Ten years later, he has been convicted in an open court. His appeals have been run and now he’s spending the rest of his life in her majesty’s maximum-security prison in the northeast of England.

    It may seem that justice is slow, but justice is justice. The people of West Africa can look at this monster that destroyed over 1.2 million of them having been held accountable and serving the rest of his life in jail. Patience is important, and we need to keep moving forward.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6950660.html

  • #2
    There's always someone worse, he's probably better than ISIS.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by kentonio View Post
      And a useful reminder for those who suggest Assad is somehow a 'better answer' for Syria.
      Unless some country is willing to go in and get him, who cares.
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
        There's always someone worse, he's probably better than ISIS.
        He's almost certainly killed a vastly larger number of Syrians than ISIS. How do you define 'better'?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kentonio View Post
          He's almost certainly killed a vastly larger number of Syrians than ISIS. How do you define 'better'?
          I will help reg here

          Better as in - all the strata of Syrian society can live in peace, as long as they do not challenge his political position, women will have rights to work, to get an education, business to operate, education to continue, cultural heritage to be preserved, even other coutnries have a relatively reliable negoitiating partner and so on.

          With ISIS = none of that, and also working against islamic fundamentalists, in their "heartland" especially after the events in Iraq, do you get how hard is it to keep in power from all various elements that sprug up in the neigbourhood since 2003?

          Americans killed just as many of "them", innocents included, directly, so Assad is somehow worse?

          While Syria is not a beacon of "freedom", nor was it before 2003, it is certainly better than the alternative, especially if there was no war at all, but since we have one - it is still the better option.

          Do you think Libya today is better than the one with Gadaffi?
          Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
          GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

          Comment


          • #6
            i think onefoot has put it very well. assad may be a brutal dictator but one has to ask the question 'if he goes what comes next'. we've seen what comes next in diverse areas of syria and that alone should be enough to convince those who want a rebel victory to be careful what they wish for.
            "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

            "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

            Comment


            • #7
              The choice between bad and worse is still a choice. The trick is determining which is which.

              J

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                I will help reg here

                Better as in - all the strata of Syrian society can live in peace, as long as they do not challenge his political position, women will have rights to work, to get an education, business to operate, education to continue, cultural heritage to be preserved, even other coutnries have a relatively reliable negoitiating partner and so on.

                With ISIS = none of that, and also working against islamic fundamentalists, in their "heartland" especially after the events in Iraq, do you get how hard is it to keep in power from all various elements that sprug up in the neigbourhood since 2003?

                Americans killed just as many of "them", innocents included, directly, so Assad is somehow worse?

                While Syria is not a beacon of "freedom", nor was it before 2003, it is certainly better than the alternative, especially if there was no war at all, but since we have one - it is still the better option.
                So we're ok with the '"industrial-scale" killing' of possibly hundreds of thousands of people, as long as they don't break the ancient monuments and as long as they continue trading with us? No, it is not a 'better option' as if we have to choose between one or the other. They are both the enemies of decency and liberty and any solution that leaves Assad in place is an affront to everything the west is supposed to stand for. It would be saying that we countenance genocide as long as the perpetrator is one of our choosing. We may as well rip up all international law and piss on the remains.

                Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                Do you think Libya today is better than the one with Gadaffi?
                Yes I do.

                Comment


                • #9
                  No one is willing to go in and take him out and take responsibility for the shattered remains of the nation, so we're left with the choice of a failed state which will be an ISIS safe haven or leaving him in power. The West appears to have chosen to leave him alone.
                  I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                  For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                    So we're ok with the '"industrial-scale" killing' of possibly hundreds of thousands of people, as long as they don't break the ancient monuments and as long as they continue trading with us? No, it is not a 'better option' as if we have to choose between one or the other. They are both the enemies of decency and liberty and any solution that leaves Assad in place is an affront to everything the west is supposed to stand for. It would be saying that we countenance genocide as long as the perpetrator is one of our choosing. We may as well rip up all international law and piss on the remains.
                    assad is brutal dictator and certainly a war criminal, but if he goes, what comes next?

                    Yes I do.
                    why? in what way have libyan people's lives improved since gaddafi's ouster?
                    "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                    "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                      assad is brutal dictator and certainly a war criminal, but if he goes, what comes next?
                      Chaos, turmoil and all the other things that are usually required for a natural order to come to fruition. A lot of people will probably die. Fortunately, a lot less than if we keep maintaining the strangehold of brutal dictators and watching the inevitable and endless cycle of oppression, revolution and counter revolution.

                      Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                      why? in what way have libyan people's lives improved since gaddafi's ouster?
                      They've begun the process of working out a future direction of the country that will hopefully result in something stable. We don't have the power to enforce stability unless you consider brutal oppression an acceptable method. Sometimes we have to remove the shackles on a country and let it find its own way, especially when we're largely responsible for those shackles in the first place. If the system they end up with is not of our liking then tough, it is not our job to enforce political systems on other countries that chose otherwise. If the whole of the middle east wants to form a giant caliphate, then as long as they aren't aggressive to us then that should be their own business.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "hundreds of thousands"

                        There are about 220k confirmed dead in Syria from all sides, it is doubtful that the govermnent even managed to get half that number, given that there are many sides killing each other, and I am pretty certain that most of those are combat numbers.

                        While I will not claim that Assad is not killing POW's and similar, as I have no proof, to claim "hundreds of thousands" is just as well a statement without proof, even the article above claims "10k" confirmed which may just as well be propaganda too, that "Ceasar" may be as reliable as "Curveball" was in the run up to the Iraq invasion, but nevertheless even if we take it at face value, 10k and 100k+ is quite a difference.

                        Noone is approving genocide here, as for the start there is no proof that genocide is going on, if anything there is proof that Assad being a secular dictator is fighting for a state where various ethnic and religious factions will be able to live in relative peace, as they were able to do before 2010, I think this is a point that you refuse to consider.

                        Last, the people that he is killing are mostly the same ones that US/the west is trying to kill, ie religious fundamentalists, no matter what side they come from, so while not an optimal method - it is war after all, didn't UK fire bomb Dresden to kill civilians for no reason other to "win", which they did, and would have without that atrocity? Not an excuse, but certainly a consideration is needed that wars are not won with flowers, and even better - it was not Assad who started it.

                        Assad also had 10/11 years to prove himself as a ruler before the war, and he did not commit genocide on any particular part of the population, but only was very harsh against political opponents.

                        Lastly - you think that post Gadaffi Libya is better. Well - I am sure that being the country with highest HDI in Africa with Gadaffi was worse!?! than having a perpetual civil war since he was gone. Which is even recognized internationally as a civil war since last year

                        I will quote one paragraph for you.

                        As of February 2015, damage and disorder from the war has been considerable.[89] There are frequent electric outages, little business activity, and a loss in revenues from oil by 90%.[89] Over 3,000 people have died from the fighting,[32] and some sources claim nearly a third of the country’s population has fled to Tunisia as refugee


                        Better?!? while on the other hand you are condemning Assad for genocide that you cannot prove, here you are condoning ethinc clensing and civil war as a "better" solution because UK helped depose a dictator and did nothing in the aftermath to ensure a stable country (together with the others). However in your eyes it is "better", yes sure, especially for thousands of dead, their relatives and few millions of refugees, with collapsing economy and a very "bright" future ahead. They are free, to let themselves be killed, or to start killing some opponents as this is just about the choice that the west left them with.

                        To get this kind of assessment from a Brit, is not encouraging, as you do not have such a strong "ministry of information" in place as our US friends do.
                        Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                        GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                          Chaos, turmoil and all the other things that are usually required for a natural order to come to fruition. A lot of people will probably die. Fortunately, a lot less than if we keep maintaining the strangehold of brutal dictators and watching the inevitable and endless cycle of oppression, revolution and counter revolution.



                          They've begun the process of working out a future direction of the country that will hopefully result in something stable. We don't have the power to enforce stability unless you consider brutal oppression an acceptable method. Sometimes we have to remove the shackles on a country and let it find its own way, especially when we're largely responsible for those shackles in the first place. If the system they end up with is not of our liking then tough, it is not our job to enforce political systems on other countries that chose otherwise. If the whole of the middle east wants to form a giant caliphate, then as long as they aren't aggressive to us then that should be their own business.

                          Shackles on a country?!? - I am sure that removing "shackles" in Somalia worked wonders (they removed the shackles themselves), the country is a libertarian paradise, no government, no taxes, private enterprise is free to grow and they are all together letting the invisible hand of the market move it to prosperity and great riches.

                          The second part of your paragraph is at odds with you being in support of removing Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi in the first place. That part I agree with - our governments should get involved if you actually have someone to support (case in point - Mali) and not start the whole mess without an alternative (and clearly better) ending, as is currently the case in Syria.
                          Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                          GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                            "hundreds of thousands"

                            There are about 220k confirmed dead in Syria from all sides, it is doubtful that the govermnent even managed to get half that number, given that there are many sides killing each other, and I am pretty certain that most of those are combat numbers.

                            While I will not claim that Assad is not killing POW's and similar, as I have no proof, to claim "hundreds of thousands" is just as well a statement without proof, even the article above claims "10k" confirmed which may just as well be propaganda too, that "Ceasar" may be as reliable as "Curveball" was in the run up to the Iraq invasion, but nevertheless even if we take it at face value, 10k and 100k+ is quite a difference.
                            11,000 from 3 facilities. An estimate of at least 52 facilities operating.

                            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                            Noone is approving genocide here, as for the start there is no proof that genocide is going on, if anything there is proof that Assad being a secular dictator is fighting for a state where various ethnic and religious factions will be able to live in relative peace, as they were able to do before 2010, I think this is a point that you refuse to consider.
                            If the only way to enforce secularism is to industrially murder tens or hundreds of thousands of people, then no that isn't a price worth paying for secularism, and I say that as an athiest.

                            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                            Last, the people that he is killing are mostly the same ones that US/the west is trying to kill, ie religious fundamentalists, no matter what side they come from, so while not an optimal method - it is war after all, didn't UK fire bomb Dresden to kill civilians for no reason other to "win", which they did, and would have without that atrocity? Not an excuse, but certainly a consideration is needed that wars are not won with flowers, and even better - it was not Assad who started it.
                            The people he is killing now are not just religious fundamentalists, but rebel fights too. Not that it would make it any better either way. The religious fundamentalists gained the power they have because of the decades of oppression, not in spite of it.

                            As for Dresden, it was a war crime perpetrated by a madman. Other attacks had military justification (horrible as that is) but Dresden was unjustifiable.

                            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                            Lastly - you think that post Gadaffi Libya is better. Well - I am sure that being the country with highest HDI in Africa with Gadaffi was worse!?! than having a perpetual civil war since he was gone. Which is even recognized internationally as a civil war since last year

                            I will quote one paragraph for you.

                            As of February 2015, damage and disorder from the war has been considerable.[89] There are frequent electric outages, little business activity, and a loss in revenues from oil by 90%.[89] Over 3,000 people have died from the fighting,[32] and some sources claim nearly a third of the country’s population has fled to Tunisia as refugee


                            Better?!? while on the other hand you are condemning Assad for genocide that you cannot prove, here you are condoning ethinc clensing and civil war as a "better" solution because UK helped depose a dictator and did nothing in the aftermath to ensure a stable country (together with the others). However in your eyes it is "better", yes sure, especially for thousands of dead, their relatives and few millions of refugees, with collapsing economy and a very "bright" future ahead. They are free, to let themselves be killed, or to start killing some opponents as this is just about the choice that the west left them with.

                            To get this kind of assessment from a Brit, is not encouraging, as you do not have such a strong "ministry of information" in place as our US friends do.
                            I'm just tired of people believing that there is much of anything we can actually do to force stability, other than inflict oppression. There simply isn't, as we've found over and over and over again. By this point it's like watching people just repeatedly smashing their faces against a wall and each time being confused by why the wall didn't break. We established false borders throughout the region, we installed brutal dictators to enforce economic stability to aid our interests and we cared not a jot about the people living there. Now we insist on those borders remaining in place despite the divisions and harm they cause, we cry every time there's internal disruption and insist that the violence be stopped by any means necessary regardless of whether that condemns the region to many more decades or centuries of division and inherent instability.

                            It's time to grow up and stop believing we have the power to impose our own form of order on people we've treated like **** for the last century. If you genuinely believe in self determination, then let them determine their own future. Sure we can offer support wherever its required to help nascent countries or governments prosper, but if we keep interfering in the way we have for so long, the problems will never, ever go away.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                              Chaos, turmoil and all the other things that are usually required for a natural order to come to fruition. A lot of people will probably die. Fortunately, a lot less than if we keep maintaining the strangehold of brutal dictators and watching the inevitable and endless cycle of oppression, revolution and counter revolution.
                              i'm a bit confused about the we here. 'we', presumably meaning the west, have been cautiously supporting the rebels by sending equipment and training their fighters on a limited scale, with more of the same in the pipeline. all of this prolongs the civil war of course, as the non-ISIS rebels are the weakest faction – despite their recent success in idlib - if they're not too fractious to even be called that.

                              They've begun the process of working out a future direction of the country that will hopefully result in something stable. We don't have the power to enforce stability unless you consider brutal oppression an acceptable method. Sometimes we have to remove the shackles on a country and let it find its own way, especially when we're largely responsible for those shackles in the first place. If the system they end up with is not of our liking then tough, it is not our job to enforce political systems on other countries that chose otherwise. If the whole of the middle east wants to form a giant caliphate, then as long as they aren't aggressive to us then that should be their own business.
                              the goal is stability? they had that under gaddafi, and the highest HDI in africa as well. now they have two 'governments', whose authority is almost non-existant, power being in the hands of various groups of armed men controlling small sections of the country and a civil war that is heating up. the chaos has also made libya a favourite spot for people traffickers to start their journeys to europe, brining even more human misery to an already thoroughly miserable situation. you don't appear to have mentioned one actual improvement, well one that isn't a euphemism for the horrors taking place there.
                              "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                              "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X