We previously discussed why the President's war crimes in Syria should be investigated.

There's another (dubious) theory that would have us (absurdly) believe there is no problem: The Americans and Syrians were secretly cooperating, and the Syrians permitted American military operations on Syrian soil.

Doesn't. Add. Up, just like the explosives in WTC 1, 2, 7; the Nigerian Yellow cake; and Iraq WMD.

This is another sham theory demanding a credible investigation, not anonymous sources from "well placed" Administration officials. Other "well placed" sources were outed in the DoD emails as conflicted and connected with propaganda, not reliable information.

The United States conducted illegal actions inside Syria. The new (false) twist is the Syrians and Americans were on the same page, and Syria cooperated with the American raid inside Syria. This assertion defies reason. 

Each American government official statement related to Syria is wholly at odds with any reasonable belief the Americans and Syrians cooperated on this raid into Syria.

Russia and other Syrian allies are poised to provide increased security assurances for Syria in exchange for short-term Syrian military restraint, as we saw after the Israeli attack on the Syrian facility.

American President's Geneva Liabilities Deepen

The United States and Syria hardly share a sold history of cooperation. Americans are alleged to be complicit with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister al-Masri.

The American President's continued silence on the American raid into Syria strongly suggests DOJ OLC knows it has a war crimes problem on its hand.

What's Happening: Americans Are Salvaging the (false) Cover Story

The Americans have re-crafted their original public explanations to incorporate the parts which cannot be denied, but assert more non-sense. Plan B is to salvage the raid into Syria, and accept the United States unilaterally acted, but without adequately explaining why the US did not continue to cooperate with the Syrians. The Americans' ruse is to claim - in secret, with anonymous sources - that the US and Syria, were in fact "cooperating" during the raid.  This new assertion defies reason.

War Crimes Evidence

Interested investigators are encouraged to look for the DOD General Counsel-DOJ OLC legal memoranda which discuss the legal risks if the United States deployed US-connected troops, but those troops were not clearly linked with the United States.  There appears to be some discussion within the intelligence community that the US-backed raid would be detected.

Irreconcilable Stories

Operationally, if the US and Syrian "cooperation" were real, there would be no dispute between Syria and the US - this many days after the raid - on the targets, details of the raid, or results.

Cooperation Should Resolve, Not Complicate Legal Issues

There is no reason to argue there was US Syrian "cooperation" if the legal arguments were valid. Invalid legal arguments mean the United States must twist the facts and law to accommodate illegal American actions in Syria.

The DOJ OLC legal arguments failed.  If the Syrian-US cooperation were real, there would be no reason for DOJ OLC or the President to stretch the Article 51-American nexus of self defense from the United States to American military actions in Syria. 

Rather than accept the American raid in Syria was illegal, the Americans have pretended there was a legal justification for the raid linked with self-defense. But self-defense only applies to the United States' military actions when the American military or the United States itself is being attacked. The supposed targets of the attack in Syria were not attacking the United States, nor engaged in combat. They were Geneva-protected civilians.

Another Geneva Problem Connected With White House, CIA, DoD, and DoJ

The buffoons working in the United States' Department of Justice and the CIA-affiliated contractors have a legal mess on their hands. Despite being told of real Geneva risks and foreseeable litigation over war crimes, the CIA failed to preserve war crimes evidence. The American's legal problems connected with the CIA include the illegal abuse of POWs, and false information provided to the Congress about the US intelligence community and contractor's complicity with illegal torture of three (3) Canadians in Syria.

Missing Evidence Problem: Irreconcilable Positions Cannot Stand Geneva Scrutiny

The trap for DOJ OLC-White House-DoD-CIA:

1. Justifying an unlawful raid; while
2. Explaining away why they have not captured and presented for the world community the supposed Al Qaeda operative;
3. Focusing on "cooperation" which should not require a legal defense; and
4. Distracting attention from the invalid legal justification for unilateral American action inside Syria.

Reason 1: Supposed Cooperating Should Yield Benefits, Not Continued Problems For Lebanon

If this "cooperation" between the US and Syria were real, then the US and Syria should jointly generate trust and benefits for their regional allies. Yet, rather than generate trust, the Americans appear more inclined to fuel tensions in Lebanon, not cooperate with Syria's plans in Lebanon, and support more US contractor weapon sales to Lebanon. 

Action Item -- HASC, SASC: Problem For President's Budget

If the US-Syrian cooperation were real , American weapon system sales to Lebanon do not have a new, real, imminent threat to confront. The contractor's mission need statement appears to have been conveniently crafted to incorporate the worst aspects of the security situation in Syria and Lebanon; but not fully embracing the supposed benefits the American President's "cooperation" with Syria should realize.

The President should be challenged for offering this contradictory budget justification for planned contractor weapon sales to Lebanon. Relying solely on the Administration statements, the contractor baselines should be shifted to the right.  Those OSD funds should be freed for higher priority programs.

Reason 2: Supposed Syrian-US Cooperation Trumping US-Iraqi Alliance: US-Syrian Trust Greater Than US-Iraqi Trust?

Syria has always considered the US presence in Iraq as meddling interference. It defies reason for the Syrians to reverse itself and embrace or welcome US military action in Syria. 

The timing of the raid jeopardizes the Iraqi-US security pact negotiations.  The status of forces agreement has details on Iraqi-US joint military operations.  The President, if the US-Syrian cooperation were real, should have included the Iraqis within the raid to show the US was serious about including the Iraqis in operations that would be governed by the Iraq-US security agreement.

Yet, the White House and Pentagon would have us (absurdly) believe the US would rather cooperate with Syria and exclude the Iraqis; and that the US (by excluding Iraq) trusts the Syrians more than the Iraqis. The Americans have failed to explain away, despite previous Syrian-US cooperation along the US border, why the Syrians were not involved with the Iraqis in this American operation.

Reason 3: Russians Calls For International Mandate in Iraq

If there were genuine Syrian-US cooperation, the Russians would not worry whether the (American) troops in Iraq were or were not under an International Military mandate through the United Nations. Russia wants an international military presence in Iraq because it does not trust the United States. Syrian cooperation with the US on this raid does not reconcile with the Russian position to still demand an international mandate in Iraq.

Reason 4: President Fails To Take Credit For Supposed Breakthrough

The United States has implicitly admitted Syria was helpful, but contradicted itself by falsely saying the Syrians cooperated with the raid. If so, the President cannot explain his silence, and this "breakthrough" that should have beneficial results for Israel, Lebanon, and Middle East Peace. The only reasonable conclusion is the supposed "cooperation" is illusory.

Reason 5: US-Syrian "Cooperation" Does Not reconcile With US Supposed Concerns Over Syria's Nuclear Issues

The United States includes Syria on the Non-Proliferation act. However, if the US and Syria were cooperating, there would be no reason for the United States to be concerned whether the (US influenced) Syria did or did not have nuclear weapons. 

The new excuse, if true, would highlight (illusory) inconsistencies within DOJ OLC legal memoranda and DOJ policies: There would be no reason for the DOJ, with limited resources to investigate and prosecute white collar crime, to spend "scarce resource" attempting to charge companies for sending technology to Syria under the non-proliferation act.

Any US-Syrian "cooperation" runs the risk that American personnel were violating this act. DOJ OLC would have expressed in writing concerns, especially in the wake of the mistake of US nuclear fuses being transferred to China. DOJ OLC would not have a contradictory position on Syria: Concerns about nuclear issues; but cooperation on an attack.

The asserted "cooperation" is inconsistent with the US withdrawal of the US ambassador to Syria.  If the "long standing" cooperation between Syria and the US were true and the US and Syria had enough trust to "cooperate" on this military incursion into Syria, the United States should have long ago sent an American Ambassador to Syria.

Reason 6: Israel's Barak Political Position Undermined

The supposed "cooperation" between Syria and US would, if true, undermines Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's claim that he could settle the issues with Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon.  The US claim -- of active Syrian intelligence cooperating with the American raid into Syria -- if true, would make the Syrian-Israel "tensions" evaporate along with Barak's claim that he is best positioned to solve this tension.  Yet, the tensions continue, and the American leadership has not publicly taken credit for this (supposed) breakthrough, much less comment on the raid into Syria.

A secret agreement with Syria would send a signal to the Israelis that the Americans were working more closely with Syria than Israel. This defies reason. Also, Barak's continued insistence that he is "the" solution means the US claims about Syrian-US cooperation are illusory. The US would not do an end-run around Israel, cooperate with Syria, but leave Barak hanging in the wind. There is a real problem between Syria and Israel, but the US action in Syria has complicated these problems for Barak.

US Concerns With Russia In Syria Belie Supposed US-Syrian "Cooperation" on this Violation of Syrian Sovereignty

If the United States and Syria were cooperating, there would be no reason for the US to be concerned that Russia has a military port in Syria. Under the new US-Syrian (supposedly secret) "cooperation" plan, the Syrians would be (absurdly) proxies not of Russia, but the US. Yet, the US is concerned enough with Syrian-Russian cooperation to withdraw the American Ambassador. If the cooperation were real, the US should be sending the US Ambassador to Damascus thanking the Syrian President for creating a bridge to resolve all disputes involving Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Palestine. This hasn't happened because the Syrians do not view the US as part of the solution, but the problem.

If this Syrian-US-Iraq cooperation were real, this would mean there is a (dubious) "cooperation" zone between the Syrians, Iraqis, and Americans. There would be no reason for the US Army to have any marks on any equipment; by contract, if the cooperation were real, the US, Syrians, and Iraqis should have jointly conducted the raid. The failure of the US to include Iraq within this supposed "US-Syrian cooperation plan" tilts the scale away from the Americans.

Reason 7: American-Syrian Cooperation Should (In Theory) Reduce Syrian Fear of Democracy

Syrian fear over democratic movements means the US-Syrian cooperation on this violation of Syrian sovereignty is illusory. If the US-Syrian "cooperation" were real, the Syrians would not be concerned about US backed "democratic" efforts in Syria. The democratic reforms would not be needed because the US and Syria, through their cooperation, would demonstrate the benefits of cooperating. The truth is Syria view the "benefits of American democracy" as linked with international instability.

The US cannot explain why the Syrians, despite this supposed US-Syrian cooperation, contradict themselves by fearing democracy but supposedly working with the United States in this incursion into Syria. The Syrian opposition to democratic efforts -- calling for an end to the Baath Party -- should not be relevant if the Syrian government were cooperating with the source of the democratic forces: The United States.

More PNAC Agenda

For the above seven (7) reasons, it's reasonable to conclude this is a policy-driven action, not based on a serious analysis of legal or national security interests of the United States, Israel, or her allies. The DOD emails highlight the problem for the President, and showcase why the President is repeating in Syria what he did with Iraq.

A. From the Iraq WMD Playbook: The American President has shifting positions on whether he will or will not work through international forms to achieve peace.

The President before the UN would have us believe - indirectly - that Syria was not able to control its border, and the Untied States needed to intervene. However, if the supposed US-Syrian "cooperation" were real, then the US has no reason to invoke Article 51, and the President should have pointed to the Syrian cooperation with the "collective' US-Syrian effort to safeguard Iraq's border.

The American President's silence is noteworthy. As with the pre-Iraq invasion statements, the American President is publicly using the platform of the UN to appear to have the legal high ground, but behind the scenes, he knows there is not a solid legal justification for his unilateral action in Syria.  The similar approaches to Iraq and Syria are consistent with the DoD emails.

B. Stretching the Law Because the Syrian-US Cooperation Is Illusory

If the raid were genuinely a cooperative Syrian-US effort, there would be no reason for the US to invoke any legal justification for its actions. The Syrians would have "cooperated" with the new Iraqi-Syrian-US joint cooperation zone. This zone is illusory. If it were real, then the US should have invited the Iraqis and Syrians to observe.

The DoD emails showed us when the WMD did not appear, the legal justifications shifted to something else. This is similar to how the United States is approaching her legal problems with the illegal raid inside Syria.

As with the FISA violations and Iraq WMD, the DoJ and DoD emails show how the Administration attempted to repackage the public justifications to fit within an (illegal) expansive view of the law.

The law is written and established. However, the Administration has, as with POW abuse, violated the law, and attempted to adjust its "view of the law" after being caught. The goal is not to legalize anything, but to avoid legal consequences.

This shows Administration legal counsel is not (as is required) attempting to meet their legal obligations under Geneva, but serve a lesser agenda of political ambition. This nexus reasonably and foreseeably invokes the Nuremberg Justice Trial where legal counsel and judges were adjudicated with war crimes for failing to enforce the laws of war, as required. The failure of the Justice Department and courts to release this information under the crime-fraud exception would suggest the information is (illegally) being suppressed under (another) dubious shield, or the (war crimes evidence) E-mail traffic has been (illegally) destroyed.

C. Syria Could Execute Non-Uniformed US Military Personnel Caught inside Syria

It's a war crime for American troops to deploy without uniforms. The President agreed to use uniformed US military in a CIA-connected activity because the President knows that Syria, if they caught the Americans on Syrian soil, could have executed the US troops for not wearing the Geneva-required military insignia. 

The implicit DOJ OLC double standard on Geneva suggests DOJ OLC is more concerned about Syrian legal actions against non-uniformed military personnel, than in respecting Syria's Geneva-recognized protections to sovereignty and non-interference.

This result would damage the American prosecutions in Guantanamo using the "they were not uniformed" as a legal justification for prosecuting non-uniformed Pakistanis for war crimes. Never mind that under the laws of war, defenders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, because of the speed of the US invasion, were not required to wear uniforms under the principle of levee en masse.

The use of uniformed DoD personnel inside Syria indicates DOJ OLC also knows it has a legal problem. This means that the US could not rely on Syrian-Iraqi silence. If there were true cooperation between the US and Syria, the US and Syrians could have deployed non-uniformed personnel, conducted a joint operation, or used contracted forces within the (illusory) "zone of cooperation" between the US, Syria, and Iraq. This was not done.