Syria Case Study
A. Provide 2 options to stop Syria from continuing its crimes against humanity
Option 1: The U.S. provides weapons and training to the Syrian anti-government rebels .
Option 2: The U.S. puts political pressure and imposes strict political & economic sanctions. Threaten Syria with total political & economic isolation
B. Evaluate the pros and cons of these options.
1) Option 1
Pros:
Supporting the rebels is a much better alternative than bringing boots on the ground which would lead to more bloodshed. Training and weapons from the U.S. will make Syrian rebels more capable to defend themselves and might enable them to overthrow oppressive regime and bring some peace to the region. Once the oppressive regime is overthrown people behind the atrocities could be brought to justice in the international court.
Cons:
Supporting Syrian rebels would …show more content…
Why weren't any Americans every prosecuted for the explosion described in the video (7 Indian nationals were prosecuted in 2010, almost thirty years after the explosion)
UCC chairman Warren Anderson escaped prosecution in India by fleeing to the U.S. He was indicted by an Indian Court and charged with manslaughter, but the U.S. refused to hand him over. One can argue that in this case the U.S. chose to prioritize its sovereignty and was unwilling to surrender it to other state, even though it would have helped to prosecute an international criminal.
2. Where should a trial for any American who might have been responsible for the explosion taken place? Why?
I think any American who might have been responsible for the explosion should have been extradited to India and tried there. The catastrophe has happened in India and Indian people were its direct victims. Refusing to extradite to India anyone responsible for the tragedy, regardless of their nationality robs the victims of their chance to seek justice and, in this case in particular, promotes the image of unaccountability big
Option 1: The U.S. provides weapons and training to the Syrian anti-government rebels .
Option 2: The U.S. puts political pressure and imposes strict political & economic sanctions. Threaten Syria with total political & economic isolation
B. Evaluate the pros and cons of these options.
1) Option 1
Pros:
Supporting the rebels is a much better alternative than bringing boots on the ground which would lead to more bloodshed. Training and weapons from the U.S. will make Syrian rebels more capable to defend themselves and might enable them to overthrow oppressive regime and bring some peace to the region. Once the oppressive regime is overthrown people behind the atrocities could be brought to justice in the international court.
Cons:
Supporting Syrian rebels would …show more content…
Why weren't any Americans every prosecuted for the explosion described in the video (7 Indian nationals were prosecuted in 2010, almost thirty years after the explosion)
UCC chairman Warren Anderson escaped prosecution in India by fleeing to the U.S. He was indicted by an Indian Court and charged with manslaughter, but the U.S. refused to hand him over. One can argue that in this case the U.S. chose to prioritize its sovereignty and was unwilling to surrender it to other state, even though it would have helped to prosecute an international criminal.
2. Where should a trial for any American who might have been responsible for the explosion taken place? Why?
I think any American who might have been responsible for the explosion should have been extradited to India and tried there. The catastrophe has happened in India and Indian people were its direct victims. Refusing to extradite to India anyone responsible for the tragedy, regardless of their nationality robs the victims of their chance to seek justice and, in this case in particular, promotes the image of unaccountability big