[email protected]. we take you live to a news conference also at the national press club. a group of organizers want the used remove all military aircraft from the syrian airspace and they are hosting this briefing to talk about the u.s. military role in syria. >> good morning and welcome to this news conference. my name is norman solomon. i'm a cofounder and coordinator of the online group roots action.org which is hosting this event today. roots action is a cosponsor of the petition campaign calling for, this is a title of the, no u.s. warplanes over syria. together with five other organizations, veterans for peace, dailykos, the nation magazine, world beyond war, and watchdog .net. u.s. government began bombing syria nearly three years ago. that was back in september 2014. since then they killing from many sides has continued unabated. meanwhile, during the last three years tensions between the world's to nuclear superpowers have escalated, and escalated sharply. in the process, russia and the united states have come closer to direct military warfare with each other. when addressing the overall tensions between the united states and russia, former senator sam nunn, who is chair of the senate armed services committee, cosigned a letter recently, and i'd like to quote from it. it called for urgently pursuing practical steps now that can stop the downward spiral and relations, and reduce real dangers, unquote, between russia and the united states. the open letter emphasized comic encoding, reducing nuclear and other military risks. yet those risks continue to accelerate. that is of the subject of this ongoing petition campaign, and that is the subject of our discussion here today. on june 19, u.s. and russian planes reportedly flew within five feet of each other over the baltic sea. also as the summer began the u.s. military shot down a steering government jet, after which the russian government threatened to shoot down u.s. planes over syria. more recently on july 30, "new york times" reported that between the united states and russia now, except for in relation to syria quote, there is virtually no military to military conversation of the kind that took place routinely during the cold war. and the times also said with russian and american forces both operating near the baltics and off the coast of europe, the chances for action and miscalculation are high. the times also described key medications between the russian and u.s. militaries about their activities in syria as, quoting again, mutually suspicious and sporadic. what's at stake here as the united states continues its military actions in syria, colluding in the skies over syria. what is at stake includes the very real possibility that conflicts in the air could escalate into military clashes the tween russia and the united states that could spiral into nuclear warfare. so the petition campaign that is ongoing is focused on addressing this escalating crisis. our petition so far to the u.s. congress and to secretary of defense james mattis has gained more than 50,000 unique signers, and the petition is very straightforward. it says we urge you to immediately remove all u.s. military planes from syrian skies and keep them out of that countries airspace. today at the newcomers will be hearing from four speakers will address their concerns, our concerns, from a wide range of vantage point. john, former official of the central intelligence agency is a cia whistleblower. matthew was a marine who had to deployment in iraq and later became a state department official. christie edwards is a legal authority on international law, as it pertains to armed conflict. and david swanson is an author and director of the organization world beyond war. so we will start with john. he was a cia official. he had major responsibilities with the agency. he went on to serve two years in prison as a cia whistleblower. back in december of 2014, headline over an article by the "huffington post" really summed it up, a very apt summary. it said the one man jailed for cia torture tried to expose it. john kiriakou. >> thank you, norman. president trump, just like present obama before him, seems intent on getting the united states involved in what h is an unwinnable civil war in syria. launching 59 cruise missiles, for example, against rundown syrian air bases in the middle of the night is easy enough to do. but there are consequences to these actions. and republican and conservative celebration of this use of force notwithstanding, trump has put serious patient and those christians in neighboring countries in jeopardy. just as president obama and president george w. bush did in iraq. neoconservatives and neoliberal ideologies took root in washington many years ago, both parties tried to out hawk each other on military and foreign policy to prove who was tougher, who was stronger, who is quicker to use military force. even in countries where the u.s. has no obvious national or vital interests. there never seems to be any discussion about whether this military intervention is even legal, let alone whether it is moral or ethical. and there's certainly never any talk in congress for authorization despite the fact that the white house not requesting authorization is almost always in violation of the war powers act. republicans knee-jerk support for military intervention in the middle east, whether it's in syria, iraq or elsewhere in the region ought to be anathema to any politician, any politician of either party who considers himself or herself to be a christian. it is these military interventions that having the effect of dooming the small christian communities left in place like iraq and syria. the problem for u.s. politicians who fancy themselves as christians know is that bashar al-assad is literally the only person standing between syrian christians and their annihilation. it is assad like his father what you like their politics or not who have protected syria's christians for generations. syrian christians make up 12% of the population according to the cia's world factbook. but nearly one-third of the country's 600,000 believers have left series since the start of the civil war in 2011, pushed up by terrorist groups like isis and the al-nusra front, and that's according to the "new york times." before the civil war started regions participated in all elements, all aspects of syrian society including as members of parliament, as members of the cabinet, the diplomatic corps and the business community. they maintain their own court system, they're free to practice their faith openly in churches and cathedrals all around the country, and even the syrian military is fully integrated rather than having separate christian units. similarly, in iraq under saddam hussein, and saddam hussein was a bad man, but even under saddam hussein christian serve in the parliament and the cabinet took a practice their faith freely and openly and they were successful in business. thanks to george w. bush invasion of iraq and the subsequent civil war, almost the entire iraqi christian community has left for jordan, the uk and the united states, the same thing is happening in syria. there is a solution to all of this but it's not sexy or quick or easy. it's something that many of us have heard about but haven't actually seen. it's called diplomacy. whether trump likes assad's politics or not, the only way to say that country from becoming a failed state or an isis state is to sit at the table with all of the stakeholders, including the syrians, the russians, and whether we like it or not, the iranians are we going to have to accept the fact that assad is not going anywhere, nor should he. whether we like it or not, this is the internationally recognized government of syria. and that is no matter what trump and obama have said. we should respect that, and we should sit across the table from bashar al-assad. thank you very much. >> thank you, john kiriakou at our next speaker is matthew hoh, a former state department official who resigned in protest from his post in afghanistan over your strategic policy and goals in that country. he resigned in september 2009. it's worth noting that the council on foreign relations has cited his resignation letter as an essential document in the history of the war in afghanistan. prior to his diplomatic assignment, mr. hoh serve to deployment as a marine in iraq. i should mention that matthew hoh like john kiriakou and we just heard the advisory board of expose program at the institute for public accuracy which has been in this building here at the national press club facility for 18 years, and i'm the executive director of the institute for public accuracy. here now is matthew hoh. >> thank you, norman. i just want to begin my remarks by noting that we have a new chief of staff in the white house, and one of my concerns over these last many years of our campaigns, of our wars in the middle east, of what really is the most accurate way, our slaughter of many, many people in the middle east has been the misrepresentation and the misunderstanding of what drives many of the actors, many of the men and women who are fighting us in the middle east. general kelly has on a number of occasions stated that this is a war about a way of life however, in my position, tikka when i was in the state department with access to top secret information and access to the interrogations of men that we would capture who had joined the islamic state and iraq, it was clear that these men who were traveling to iraq and afghanistan to fight us as well as what we know from those people are carried out terror attacks in europe as well as in the united states, including the 9/11 hijackers, in their martyrdom videos or enter notes or what have you, their motivations are clear. they are not saying convert or die. they are not saying we hate your freedom. they are not saying we're doing this because your girls are going to school or because your women are wearing dresses above the knees. they are saying this, they are saying we're conducting these attacks because you are bombing our country's, because your military are present in our country's, because your supporting dictatorships, et cetera, et cetera et cetera. so there is this misunderstanding, this misconstruing. i think it's very intentional on some points. some of it is based on ignorance, and many of it, much of it is done to drive nationalism and to drive the spirit of war. i will say this also ties greatly into what norman was speaking about earlier, the dangers of it were between the united states and russia. and, of course, if anyone has been reading in the "new york times" recently you see the coverage in the "new york times" over the large u.s. military exercises, a large nato exercises being conducted on russia's a borders. we also remember russia has been the victim of three major invasions in the last 150 years or so, losing tens of millions of people. however, the "new york times" finds it fit to characterize russia conducting military training within its own borders as aggression. so that is the first of my concerns that i would like to address within my allotted time here about why it's so very, very important for us to get these american aircraft out of the skies of syria. because we are on the brink of war with russia, and it is something that i don't think the people in washington, d.c., can quite understand what that war would be like. the second reason is more of, moral reason, more of a reason that has got to do with the fact so good that the united states air campaign, the united states air warfare, maybe in my estimation, is the greatest moral and human hazard of the last century. certainly if you start with considering this is at 72nd anniversary of the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima, something that nearly all american 4-star and five-star generals after world war ii said was not a military necessity, you know, was done strictly for political reasons. if you go into the understanding that most americans do not know but north korean serving of the american air force burned down nearly every village and town in north korea, that in vietnam we dropped more bombs on the vietnamese and we did on the japanese, or on the germans in terms of tonnage, and we conducted the largest chemical warfare program in the history of the world against the vietnamese, something that millions of people are still sickened with, something that they will be babies born today with deformities because of, if we fast food of course to the results of our air campaigns that the iraqis certainly are still paying for, certainly that the libyans are still paying for, that the afghans are still paying for, and for which there has been no results that anyone can point to to say this has been a benefit, and certainly how can anyone say that the air campaign being conducted by the united states is a sane, rational, or moral response. when i first started speaking public against the wars in 2009, i was asked you been a both come you served in both, you were in both, i hate saying served it, that's the incorrect word to use i feel, you in both iraq and afghanistan. what were the similarities? what with the differences between the two? i fell into that trap, but then after a bit of time i simple as that one of my doing? there's only one thing that matters. the united states military is in both locations, and you can only expect one outcome. you're absolutely insane if you think anything different is going to happen. and that is the same thing that will happen with the american air campaign in syria. if anyone thinks in think different will occur to the people of syria, from american air campaign, that's already been, as norman noted, three years in progress, then they are completely naïve, foolish, or have another agenda. and this is not to say that bashar al-assad has not been a dictator, does not come from, was not born from the father, you know, his father not a dictator, has not committed war crimes himself. this is not to excuse that. i'm not here as an apologist for the syrian government, but i am telling you that american airstrikes in syria are not the solution, and are continuing moral hazard for all people of syria. just as they have been for the people of korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, libya, pakistan, and interestingly enough, you've seen in the news recently the american military is now looking or is interested in launching airstrikes into the philippines. so nearly 120 years after we first began our military campaign against the filipinos, we are looking to continue it. so i appreciate you all being here today, and i thank you all for your time. >> thank you, matthew hoh. our next speaker is christy edwards. at the american society of international law, ms. edwards is a picture of the lever society on the law of armed conflict. she is an advisor to the center for civilians in conflict on international humanitarian human rights and gender issues. christy edwards. >> thank you so much, norman, for having me here. so i've been asked to provide the legal analysis for this topic, which is whether or not u.s. airstrikes violate international law based in syria. so this is a really broad question, and i'm going to take a look at a time to drill down into some more specifics in the international legal from a terabyte in order to answer this. so as venture of you are well aware, the u.n. charter is the definitive legal framework that applies here. this is binding international law on the united states as a signatory, an article to states countries or states have an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against a territory or the political independence of any states. seems like a pretty definitive prohibition but there is of course an exception in article 51 which states have a right of individual or collective self-defense but if any state does use this exception, that any actions must then be immediately reported to the security council. so i will look at two instances in the last few months to see how these legal principles apply pics of course april 6, the attack on the chemical weapons which occurred a few months ago, now the vast majority of legal experts all agree that the attack on april 6 violated the u.n. charter and/or was unconstitutional for several reasons. one, there was no security council resolution authorizing the attack. the u.s. did not justify its actions based on self-defense. there was a statement released afterwards saying that this is the basically for humanitarian purposes based on how heinous the crimes committed the syrian regime were, that these chemical tax on civilians. and then in addition, of course, there was no authorization from congress to use force in this circumstance. however, i think of going against the majority of legal opinions of the game after this attack, the former state department legal advisor harold coe argued quite narrowly for a narrow affirmative defense for sure consent to such as this based on necessity for humanitarian intervention. any listed several criteria that we need to apply for this exception to take place which am happy to refer you to if any of you would like that argument in more detail. but he did think that because of the circumstance in this case that there should be a narrow exception in this case. so then of course as norman mentioned earlier, the june 18 instance where a syrian warplane was shot down by u.s. forces. now come here the u.s. and russia actually disagree about the facts and a lot in the circumstance. so u.s. claims that it acted in collective self-defense of coalition forces, because the syrian plane was bombing the syrian democratic forces which is one of the anti-syrian rebel groups based in syria. now, russia, however, says the plane was providing air cover for syrian ground forces who were fighting isis. so u.s. action here violated syria's psalmody and international law and thus constituted military aggression against the syrian government. as i mentioned a few minutes ago article 501 does allow for collective self-defense of states but not necessarily nonstate armed groups like the syrian defense forces. and just to be clear, the u.s. has not claimed that the sdf is a de facto organization that the u.s. is providing some support to the sdf but is not claiming it is de facto organ of the us under his direction and control. now, my colleague has suggested perhaps a novel legal approach year which says that the u.s. could use necessary and proportionate force to defend the member states of the coalition, and the coalition nonstate armed groups against isis is defeating isis was sole mission. that's a very narrow exception here. and, of course, in the law there is no right to collect self-defensive nonstate armed groups for regime change or other political goals. what makes a complicated is that secretary tillerson's and ambassador haley on a couple of occasions have indicated that syrian regime change remains a your strategic objection, sorry, objective. so here the fact that there could be some next motive for both fighting isis, which is a strategic objective of the united states, and possible regime change, the mixing of these motives coppermine is the legal basis for military operations that have occurred and may occur here in the future. so i will look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you, christie edwards. and our last speaker before we have questions from the journalists present is david swanson picky is author of several books on war, the director of the world beyond war organization, in addition he is the campaign coordinator for rootsaction.org. >> thank you, norman. and it's an honor to speak after these speakers. i won't have time to list all of the reasons of what u.s. military planes and drones out of syrian skies, much less all the reasons people have noted in the comments on our petition which you can read it rootsaction.org but there is a question what my first reason is. although it is not a reason always given much weight here in washington, d.c.. these planes kill a lot of people. people all of equal value regardless of th their religionr ethnicity. the u.s. military casualty features of such a record of air that i would trust them about as far as i could throw up pentagon contract. arab wars identifies thousands of civilian deaths from u.s. and allied planes, 4734, in syria and iraq. such accounts generally turn out to be many times under the accounts that comprehensive post war studies arrive at. on top of which we have the problem of all the people killed were not counted by virtue of not being labeled civilian. always an empirically and morally iffy labeling process. then there are the entries are almost always outnumber the deaths, the homelessness, the extremely long-term effects of the u.s. use of depleted uranium by some of the planes we want out of those skies, the starvation that could have been prevented or a fraction of the cost of the planes. and, of course, the top kill of u.s. troops, suicide. the primary reason that what would otherwise be considered mass murder is given little heat is that it is understood to serve some higher purpose, and both moral and legal senses. but what purpose is served by u.s. planes over syria? is longer than most major wars of the past is a long enough to figure that out, how about a purpose served by bombing afghanistan or iraq or pakistan or libya are yemen? apart from selling weapons and creating more enemies for the next war, what has been accomplished? former cia bin laden unit chief michael scheuer says the morpheus fights terrorism, the more it creates terrorism. the cia's own july seven, 2009 report called best practices in counterinsurgency says drone killing is counterproductive. admiral dennis blair former director of national intelligence says the same. general james cartwright former vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff says drone strikes could be undermining long-term efforts quote, we are seeing that low back. if you're trying to kill your way to a solution the matter how precise you are, you're going to upset people even if they are not targeted. that is to whether or not the plaintiff as a pilot in it. maintaining the momentum of permanent war is obviously not a high moral purpose. the "new york times" on september 6 this past year reported quote for jerusalem the status quo horrific as it may be from humanitarian perspective seems preferable to either a victory for mr. assad's, and his iranian backers or or strengthening of rebel groups increasingly dominated by sunni jihadists. this is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose but alicia don't want one to win. we will settle for a tie said a former israeli consul general in new york quote, let them both bleed. hemorrhage to death. that's the strategic thinking. .. the special operations chief army general raymond thomas, two weeks ago admitted this was illegal. claiming to defend us troops into syria against russian by syria is not a legal argument for defensiveness, but a declaration of lawless imperialism. of course, the stuff made up is not actually law. president obama's decision to our men trained proxies was against of the lot, against public opinion and against the report he had commissioned from the cia on whether such efforts succeeded in the past. president trump's announcement he will cease efforts and hence force fight on only one side of the work as a nod to reality, law and possibly decency given the account of his decision having followed his viewing of a video of cia fighters: a child to what this work continues to kill is children. this is all before mentioning the risk apocalyptic nuclear confrontation with russia as a result of russia also fighting in the immoral, illegal and counterproductive war in syria. that: as norman described his recent to remove every us plane or grown. this is also without considering the environmental damage done to syria and our atmosphere. you can drive your car all year, feel guilty about it, but you won't pollute the sky like one flight of one of these planes appeared there is the financial cost him a national priority project with the cost of the war on isis at $16 billion and counting, more than the un needs a annually to have clean drinking water everywhere on earth and more than half what the un says it would take to end hunger not just in syria but globally. this war serves as the top public justification for military spending that adds up to about a trillion dollars a year in the us. that choice of how to spend our resources kills more people than all current wars put together. because of where the money is not to spend. a fraction of that spending could be in fact-- could but far better affect. these alternatives have been available since they won and still are. the us spent years sabotaging un attempts at peace in syria. according to former president and noble peace prize laureate, the us dismissed out of hand a russian peace proposal for siri in 2012. of the us ruined last year's cease-fire by firing on syrian troops. nothing will quickly bring peace and prosperity to syria, the continuing to do what we know makes matters worse as to end. we have to give peace a chance. thank you. >> thank you, david swanson. we will now have question and answer session. we have a live microphone here for the journalists present, so when you do ask your question, please give your name and identify your news outlet. who would like to go first? there must be a question here somewhere. here comes the microphone. [inaudible question] >> go-ahead i think you're being heard. [inaudible question] >> please go ahead. >> i have question for mr. jones my question is regarding that assad is the only one person standing between christians. on from the region. on from there and christians have been living there for centuries now, more than 2000 years ago. actually christianity was created their. why do you think that only now-- [inaudible] >> i don't disagree with you. i think that christianity has done very well in a syria under assad took his politics aside, i'm not necessarily a fan of bashar al-assad. i think he is a dictator. i think he's an anti- democrat, but the truth is that with the players on the field now he's of the one that gives the christians the best chance of having a thriving community. if you look at the alternatives, never minding the notion that the united states promotes that somehow magically this is all going to come together and everyone will live in peace and harmony. it's simply not going to happen. what are the alternatives? isis for some outside related organization or assad and of those choices i think those are the realistic choices. of those choices, the best is as odd. time was maisie-- maybe as recently as 2012 or 2013 where there was talk of perhaps a syrian military pushing aside aside. there was the same talk in iraq through the 1990s that the best and most likely alternative to saddam hussein was a group of iraqi-- sunni iraqi generals. it hasn't happened and so on the choices that i think the community is facing now, their best bed-- that is with a solid. [inaudible] >> syrian crisis has been now going for more than six years and is more complicated to look at it from one perspective or when angle, which is minorities. serious one, though. killings have been the headline of any immunity, majority or minority. how i can justify for example the sunnis that you killing them in homes and all of that was to preserve the christian community. i mean, just one moment. of the argument for them will be so unfair. >> you are correct and i think you misunderstand my comments. my comments were aimed at neoconservative and neoliberal democrats and republicans in washington who think that anyone is better than assad, that assad is the problem in syria. that we cannot achieve peace with assad still in power in syria. it was to them i was addressing my comments. you are exactly correct. you can go to the sunni community and to say that the deaths in their community are less important than and any other community. same with the kurdish community. i don't think any deaths are any less important than any others. it's just that my comments were really geared toward capitol hill more than anything else. >> wait for the microphone, please. >> thank you for your very powerful and thoughtful comments this morning. regarding the mixed motive that were mentioned, the compromise legal basis for the us intervention in syria. you mentioned a couple arkansas undermine the claims of humanitarian intervention such as regime change goals and fighting isis perhaps. and wanted to ask, would you or any of you consider the us ally partnership with saudi arabia from a notorious human rights abuser, but with regard to syria as also something that might undermine the humanitarian motive claim. the other question was does the removal of assad if that were to happen a lot of people have expressed fears of seeing another libya or iraq or a vacuum that could be filled with people worse than assad. is that something that you can speak to? >> i hope others will answer the question as well. these are good questions, but i would point out when the us purchase a page in a war in yemen, in partnership with saudi arabia and violates not only the un charter, but also the us law which is says you can only support another nation in mass murder when that other nation does not violate human rights. now how you conduct mass murder without violating human rights, i'm not a lawyer as i can answer that, but that is an additional way in which us operations in yemen are illegal. on top of which you know, you get into this question in yemen, well, can under filed dictator will create legality by inviting other nations to attack his country, so when donald trump is removed and living on his private island and he invites china to bomb washington dc army we would accept that is legitimate, no, it's nonsense. these are nonsense arguments for work just as the argument for russia's actions in syria being legalized by the syrian government. there is nothing in the un charter or any basic understanding of morality that says war is okay if a dictator asks you to help with it. so, you know, the us is committing a crime in syria and so is russia. >> i think certainly your concerns about the removal of a sawed in the vacuum that you certainly seen that in libya and other locations as far as relationship of the us to saudi arabia, ya the hypocrisy is, you know, there's lots of slang i could use back from new jersey. there's lots of slang and curses i could throw at you to describe the type of level of hypocrisy. i mean, we provide the fuel and the bombs, the intelligence that allows a saudi arabia to commit those atrocities in yemen, let alone what saudi arabia is like anyway in terms of its own human rights violations. in the last week of the attacks on-- excuse me, but i can recall the name of the city that saudi arabia-- yeah, saudia arabia is attacking internally, so yes. the hypocrisy has always been first and foremost then american, i mean, come on. go back to the american constitution, i mean, the quality was only for white male property ors, i mean, that's what freedom was met. there's never been, i mean, this real standard of non- hypocrisy in american speech, and thought, in political you know ideology anyway. there has always been hypocrisy in everything america has not and so this notion of talking about syria, but then coordinating with saudi arabia, i mean, particularly with going back to it was brought up before about this notion of sabotaging efforts in 2012 and syria, i mean, that's about the same time that we were utilizing the turkey qatar and saudi arabia, their efforts with groups such as the islamic state to try to overthrow the assad government took you know, the notion we could try to use those groups for our purposes in syria while trying to keep them at bay within iraq, i mean, this is how the us government operates. we know all of this because declassified reports, so not only are we hypocritical, but we are also bipolar in many ways because we think we can not just be two-faced, but we think we can also manage certain situations in a way that just defies reality. so, and of coarse coming back to it all is the very people whose live in these places who are being burned to death and ripped apart and i think it's very easy for us to forget that and as we talk about this as i stand here in my suit and tie and a drink my cup of coffee and everything that as we speak about this american bombs are ripping apart men, women and children as we speak, so it's not abstracted all. >> one thing i forgot to mention was that-- oh, i'm sorry. of the number of people mentioned with the reliance on airstrikes is a big part of the us strategy. with that also not undermine war crimes not undermine the syrian argument as well? that the final part of my question. >> absolutely and in the other thing is i recall there being a report that was released by the united nations last year, last fall and i was reminded of this yesterday by a colleague about our sanctions on syria and the united nations reported our sanctions on syria and the eu sanctions on syria that affected has on the syrian population and how deadly those sanctions are because those sanctions prevent the pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, food stuffs, things that people need to survive let alone the things hospitals need, i mean, so yes there is this notion we are somehow involved in humanitarian needs, but that's all nonsense, i mean, you don't have to look much further than going back a couple weeks to the "washington post" where michael vickers who has been in the cia and the department of defense for a long time was involved in the-- he was very much involved in the american efforts in afghanistan in the 80s against the soviet union, but clearly in that op-ed the "washington post" ran he states that in the syria, in the syrian civil war weeks on opposition to strike a blow against iran by removing assad to cut off iran's relationship with hezbollah, i mean, so this is a very senior american official who's been in both republican and democratic administrations. they may talk about humanitarian reasons, but for many, many, many people in the national security positions in washington dc as well as politicians what they do, what they see and i have seen this. i was fortunate to be in senior positions in washington dc in both the state department and pentagon for many of these people it is like a game of risk. they look at the map and they want to turn different countries the colors they want to turn them. you can see that in vickers column in the "washington post" from a couple weeks ago, clearly they want to turn different colors-- different countries different shades and that's how these people view the world. anything i say about humanitarian reasons, that's just a good pr. that's just a smart way to address the smart thing to say. [inaudible] >> i also want to address some of the legal frameworks that apply here. when we talk about human rights law the right to life which is embodied in the un charter and every human rights treaty basically created, the right to life is an invaluable, one of the major major themes of human rights law. now, when we talk about international humanitarian law, which is what governs how war is conducted whether or not the war was illegal to begin with or how we got into the war while there the circumstances were correct or not in international humanitarian law there are humanitarian principles that apply. although, the right to life under human rights law is the norm and the standard, it is allowable under internationally humanitarian law to kill and to even kill-- you cannot target's millions, but civilian deaths are allowable. in order for civilian deaths to be allowable there has to be a very very strict analysis of distinction, proportionality, military necessity and there is this calculus that goes on. what is your military objective and can you achieve that military objective and can you achieve it with the least amount of civilian deaths possible? that's what military commanders are responsible to do every time they commit any military action. now, if they have other justification besides military necessity such as humanity, that's also absolutely necessary. but, what we are looking at and what many organizations look at is the us and any other acting in this context, are they doing everything that they possibly can to eliminate completely or to cause the fewest amount of depth, fewest amount of deaths in any action they take. i hope that answers your question. >> we have a few more minutes for questions. yes, please, go ahead. >> thank you. i truly enjoyed the presentations. focusing on the military aspect of the us strategy in the middle east, i believe the narrative should be refocused on the entire us strategy in the middle east per se and that is its engendered in regime change. now, only the last week secretary rex tillerson got out of the state department and clearly stated the us is no longer seeking regime change in north korea. will, if that is true that is truly commendable work however, if it's okay and north korea to retain current regime, but it's not okay to maintain current regime in syria. why should it be the us business anyway to change regimes? i think this is the narrative that people are looking for. it's not just the aspect of the defined policy, which is whether it's syria, iraq, afghanistan or other areas, but it's the us policy of regime change that has brought us through several conflicts to this stage. thank you. >> well, briefly i agree with you a thousand%. no one has given the us legal authority to decide the fate of other nations by any means and since world war ii, the us has interfered as we know in at least 80 to four elections, though in the bad russian weight, presumably. also bombed over 30 countries. no one appointed the us to this role. this is not a legal, it's not enforcing law. this is violating law. so, it has to end and the us public is not the driving force here and in the us public put donald trump in the white house after he campaigned against this practice and said we are done with over throwing governments and to whatever extent he starts to actually abide by that so much the better. to talk to become unacceptable in the us to continue down that road. i would just add that when this discussion of killing as few people as possible in the process, when the us military says bombing that spot where isis stores its money's worth up to 50 civilian deaths, that's not actually fewest possible. that's naming a pretty large number and there is nothing empirical about it. i can go back and say i studied and it's actually only 45, no, it's 300 and eight, is not empirical just rhetoric. it's immoral and illegal and the world didn't ask for it and the few studies last week of 38 countries found that the majority of them viewed the us more than russia and china as the biggest threat including places like turkey and south korea and japan and the gallup poll a few years back had a similar result with the us the biggest threat of any country to peace in the world. so the global policing is not appreciated by the people policed and it ought to end. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> to questions. my first question is, words are bad and killing people and you don't want the us to intervene in other countries policy, okay. about, syria is like a chess aboard and wars are reality in international relations are another reality. if the us takes its aircraft from syria, don't you think that the us will lose its ground in syria? international policy or international relations and leave the space to russia, iran and the other countries? >> >> that's a hard question and i will preface this by saying i'm not an attorney. you are, but i'm not. but, it's my understanding that legally if the internationally recognized government of syria invites another country to come and help it, that other country as they are legally. the russians have been invited by the syrian government. of the us has not been invited by the syrian government. i'm all for humanitarian assistance if we can provide medicine or humanitarian relief, food, water even safe passage out of the country for refugees. that's great. but, it's my understanding that anything more than that at this point in syria is illegal. we are supposed to be a nation of laws in this country. would like to tell people and we like to tell other countries that we are this shining beacon of respect for human rights and civil liberties and the role of the and democracy and its simply not true. its rhetoric. it's propaganda. so, if we were serious about this being true, we would live that policy and we don't. we just want other countries to. >> do you think that russia and iran take their soldiers from syria also correct no, i don't think so at all. no, i don't think so at all. i'm not sure that that's really though the most important thing to worry about in this scenario. i think that there are bigger issues of respect for human rights and respect for human rights and civil liberties and peace in the region. >> do you want to add a something on this issue? >> yeah, i mean, i look at it this, the us has been heavily involved in the middle east or seven decades now. about five or six years ago princeton university did a survey or a study and found that since jimmy carter's presidency the us has spent $10 trillion policing the persian gulf region and i would say in my lifetime nearly every country from the edge of the mediterranean sea through afghanistan with the exception-- no, that's not true including iran has been destroyed. every city has been raised to the ground more or less in my lifetime. i was born in 1973 and a that's with the us having spent $10 trillion in the region having had a massive military presence. i see no reason why the us should remain in that region. it has provided no help to anyone in the region and has wasted vast amounts of sums of american money, wasted and millions of people are dead, so i see no value in it and i can't see any explanation for how or any reason for how things would have been better-- i'm sorry how things would have been worse if we had not been there. .. i'd like to size that the campaign the no us planes over syria is continuing. anyone can sign them participate and be part of the national campaign by going to the web, by visiting action .org, i'd like to acknowledge and thank all six organizations have made this a nationwide in international campaign. action .org, veterans for peace, nation magazine, watchdog .net and world beyond war. thank you all for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> secretary of state rex tillerson is in asia today in thailand for a annual gathering on north korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs. secretary tillerson met with the counterpart to the southeast asian nation and they also talked about regional security matters in trade. tonight on c-span2, booktv is in prime time with a look at memoirs. how to be a muslim. sisters jenna and barbara bush talk but their childhood and formative years in the white house in their book sisters first. former congressman trey talks to his memoir demo crazy. former dallas police chief david brown shares stories from his 33 year long career in the book call to rise. christian recalls his life as a member of a neo-nazi skin had gained in his book romantic violence. booktv and prime time starting at eight eastern all this week on c-span2. >> sunday night on q&a. >> when you look at every major insurrection that has risen up in the united states when black people have abandoned peaceful protest and taken to the streets in newark, baltimore, ferguson, los angeles -- it has always been because of something the police have done. >> george turn professor paul butler takes a critical look at the us criminal justice system and its impact on african-american men in his book chokehold: placing bachman. >> when we look at who ought to be afraid of black men the number one victim is other black men. if a white person is very concerned about being a victim of crime the main person she ought to be concerned about is her intimate partner or her husband because statistically that is the person most likely to cause or harm. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> to members of the us joint chiefs of staff into members of japan's defense ministry came together for a panel discussion last month to discuss the future of us japan and military alliance. >> good afternoon. i am glad to see our audience survived the flash flood warning. senior vice president for asia and professor of