Many contradictory accounts given by different parties of Syrian alleged sarin attack

(April 13) A US government report in a declassified intelligence assessment that it is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack using the nerve agent sarin.

The US report claims that the chemical agent was delivered by a Syrian Su-22 fixed wing aircraft that flew over the village of Khan Sheikhun at the time of the attack. The attack killed at least 87 civilians on the fourth of April including 31 children. The entire report can be found here.

The report presents evidence for Assad's responsibility that reads in part: "Additionally, our information indicates personnel historically associated with Syria's chemical weapons programme were at Shayrat airfield in late March making preparations for an upcoming attack in northern Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack." The report says its conclusions relay on satellite imagery, laboratory analysis of physiological samples from victims and a "significant body of open source reporting" that the report claims could not have been fabricated. The report says that not all available intelligence was released to protect sources but it affirms that the sarin gas was released from a pipe dropped from the air.

An unidentified senior intelligence officer said that the US intercepted communications between Syrian military and chemical weapons experts discussing plans for the poison gas attack in Idblib province. Of course the officer stressed that the US did not have prior knowledge of the tests. Yet if the talks were just discussing plans why were the talks discovered only after the attack took place? Given that the US knew that chemical weapons people were at the base, how is it they did not search for such communications right away and then they could have warned Assad what he could face if he carried out the attack? The US could have saved many lives.

There is some doubt about the story. The Russian Foreign Ministry has claimed that the chemical agents were dispersed as the result of an attack on a warehouse where the rebels stored chemicals. Recently Russian President Putin clamed that opposition forces had tried to frame the Syrian government by placing chemical weapons in civilian areas and then blame Assad's forces. Putin said: “We have information from various sources that similar provocations — and I have no other word for that — are being prepared in other regions of Syria, including southern suburbs of Damascus, where they intend to plant certain substance again and accuse official Syrian authorities of using it.” This may be said in order to forestall any rebel attempt to provide a justification for more bombing.

Syrian president Bashar Assad was also dismissive of the charge that he carried out the chemical attack: "Definitely, 100 percent for us, it's fabrication. Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack. " It seems highly unlikely that the attack was 100 percent fabrication. There is no doubt that over 80 were killed by whatever happened. There is simply disagreement as to how it happened.

Among the accounts contradicting the US official account is that of retired US intelligence officer Colonel Patrick Lang:The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. [prior to the Chemical Weapons attack] There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib and that the Russians believed it was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

Until we get an objective independent study of the event we are unlikely to find out what happened and it is quite probable that we will not find out even then as much of the evidence will have been destroyed, altered, or new evidence planted. Syria and Russia are asking for such an investigation but Russia vetoed the last draft resolution submitted by France, the UK, and the US on Wednesday. It is not surprising that it did so but that is another story. The US and allies can use the veto to claim that Russia and Syria do not want an objective investigation. The appended video shows an angry shocked CNN interviewer when a member of Congress expresses doubt about the official story.

UPDATE: Found this new article with an analysis by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. His main expertise is in ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.

Trump attack on Syrian airbase violated international law

(April 9) Very few commentators seem concerned about whether the actions of Trump in attacking an Assad regime air base in Syria were against international law. Most consideration of the legality of the action has to do with its constitutionality under U.S. law.

	1 of 2
The main debate in the U.S. appears to be about whether Trump needed authorization from the Congress for his actions. Almost all discussions simply assume that there is no question of Assad being guilty as in this article. The whole framing of discourse has been altered. The question of Assad's guilt has long been settled. The question now is how to punish him and what would be justified. I discussed this issue in a recent article.

Of course the bad guys such as the Assad regime, Russia and Iran deny that Assad is guilty and they see the missile attacks as obviously against international law:A Kremlin spokesperson said Russian President Vladimir Putin sees the missile strikes as an act of "aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law." Iran issued a similar statement. A Kremlin spokesperson said Russian President Vladimir Putin sees the missile strikes as an act of "aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law." Iran issued a similar statement.This may be mentioned in mainstream press reports but that is all. It can be safely assumed that this will automatically be rejected by the reader as what Iran and the Russians would be expected to say. One would expect that Trump would blame Assad but of course that is not to be used as a reason to reject what is said since Trump is a good guy, even though a few days ago many called him a liar, moron, clown, Putin puppet etc. He is punishing that ogre Assad for killing beautiful babies as he saw on TV. A recent article headline shows the situation: 'Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes —

Zero Are Critical'.

However, not everyone believes the issue of guilt is settled. In a recent article, Colonel Patrick Lang argues that there is plenty of evidence that the chemical attack did not involve sarin gas but chemical agents dispersed by an attack on a chemical warehouse in an area held by rebels, apparently rebranded Al-Nusra front rebels. The account can be found here. I found the account more persuasive than the Russian ministry statement. Lang argues that there was no sarin gas and this fits in with the testimony of technical experts that an attack on the warehouse would not likely produce any sarin gas. It also fits in with the fact that both sides admit that there was an attack by Syrian planes. It seems that the mainstream press have absolutely zero interest in talking about this issue. Lang's article no doubt could not be covered in one of the mainstream media just as has happened with articles from Seymour Hersh. Lang is not some wild conspiracy theorist. He is a retired senior officer who served in U.S. Military Intelligence and the U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He is highly decorated and a veteran of several U.S. overseas battles. Lang concludes:This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone.

Harold Koh, Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, has long argued that international law should protect human rights not just sovereignty. Trump could argue that he is simply protecting Syrian's right not to be subject to a chemical attack. However, there are numerous issues involved aside from the fact that the whole idea of humanitarian intervention in international law has its problems. If one were to use this principle then surely one would need an international investigation and finding of Assad's guilt. Nothing of the sort happened. Secondly if it is to be a humanitarian justification surely it must be justified by a UN resolution but no such resolution has been passed.

A Newsweek article argues:The U.S. strike may be legal under Article 51 of the UN charter, which says, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”But there was no armed attack against a member of the UN. Syria has not attacked the U.S. The section simply does not apply.

Self-defence in international law is discussed in this Wikipedia article. The original Caroline case was very restrictive but it did go beyond the UN provision that required an armed attack: "The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'" There was no such threat to the U.S. even if Assad did carry out the gas attack. President Obama decided that the U.S. would redefine "imminent threat":President of the United States of America Barack Obama and his administration has defined "imminent" to mean that (they) have 60 days to find and kill an individual human being. Under this theory of law "imminent" therefore means that a threat over, at least, up to 60 days (two months) in the future is considered "imminent".

Trump accepted Hillary Clinton's advice to bomb Assad's airbase. Given the Obama administration's definition of "imminent" he would likely take the advice too — although there is no evidence that Assad intended to attack the U.S. within 60 days. The evidence is overwhelming that the U.S. act is against international law but no one is overwhelmed except the bad guys.