I argue that sovereignty is a concept that is negated by gross violation of human rights — death…
Kady M.
11

You’ve moved far beyond my initial position and are inflecting it with any number of practical alternatives and outcomes.

To repeat: I am voicing the principle of intervention under certain circumstances. We don’t even need to talk about Assad. It’s a principle.

Sovereignty is not important after certain conditions are met. At a certain point sovereignty becomes meaningless. The victims of genocide (not saying that’s happening in Syria) do not care about sovereignty.

Now, your fear for Christians and other minorities minus Assad is good and an interesting facet in this.

You seem to be arguing for the lesser of two evils. Assad is not as bad as the results of no Assad. But you also say there should be a popular vote. Let the people decide. But also you seem opposed to Assad being held accountable for his crimes. I would say that you are trying to be very pragmatic about this, and pragmatism has its virtues. But ultimately you are dismissing in advance the possibility of justice. The point of justice here is not simply to punish Assad by imprisoning him. It’s to assert to the entire world that war criminals will be held accountable.

The world is probably not consistent in bringing war criminals to justice. It is an imperfect system — Israel comes to mind. But it’s a principle that has to be asserted. Without it there is less stability. Leaders cannot kill civilians with impunity.

(I believe Bush and Blair should have been held accountable for Iraq. The world is not very consistent. there is as much cowardice as there is righteous indignation.)

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.