In two successive articles, David Singer has laid out a solution to the contrived crisis in Syria that should have been obvious to anyone but was stalled on dreams of making the gas attack a pretext for devastating Syria’s defences and placing the population at the mercy of a bunch of murderous Al Qa’eda terrorists.

To do that required a schnell-schnell-schnell propaganda campaign to rush the world through the fateful door without pausing to consider if it was the right direction. The Yanks are practised at that. Last time they mounted a massive lie campaign, with fake evidence, traitorous leaders in Britain and Australia, a brazen George Bush and Colin Powell, a compliant German BND sabotaging its own government, and vilification of honest officials in America (Valerie Plame who was outed as a CIA officer after her diplomat husband challenged the lies), Australia (Andrew Wilkie the spook whose career ended when he challenged the lies) and Britain (David Kelly who was suicided after challenging the lies).

To his great credit, Mr Singer has focused attention not on nominating a culprit but on putting a stop to chemical warfare in Syria for once and for all. Indeed I would see in this an opening to a confrontation of all war crimes everywhere. It would require a binding global set of laws and procedures for the arrest and trial of any individual who has played any part in a deed proscribed as a war crime, punishment fitting the crime (rope), enough legal and technical experts to make sure all evidence is openly tested, and rules to confine trials to matters of truth as at Nuremberg, not Servatius-type legalisms

If there was a prima facie case against Mr Assad he would be subject to an arrest warrant that would remain in place until his capture or death. There are numerous Yanks who would be subject to a similar warrant for that or other war crimes.

And let's not forget the white phosphorus used on the residents of Gaza.
While I applaud the stance David has taken so far, I have grave reservations that he will allow his argument to travel far enough. Perhaps a third post would clarify his thinking on this.
For my thinking, for this to work, there can be NO exceptions.

"Indeed I would see in this an opening to a confrontation of all war crimes everywhere."

Emperor, would this statement also apply to Israel, one of the world's leading nations as far as war crimes are concerned?

Responding to the to posts above, an effective global response to war crimes should be related to individuals, not states. Everything possible should be done to eliminate time-wasting arguments about jurisdiction (global and universal), exemptions (blackmail or physical duress to defendant or relative a defence, but not status - Hirohito and Pinochet should have hanged), absolutely no weasel "I was doing my duty" or "It vos orders". Definitions should be simple and incontrovertible in their wording and should be updated as technology changes. They could I believe encompass bans on cluster bombs, phosphorus bombs, land mines and DU but a lot of thought would need to go into adopting each of these - e.g. it should not be criminal to toss a phosphorus bomb into the open door of a helicopter gunship engaged in aggression.

The reason for reference to individuals not states is that a state can't act autonomously and can't be brought to justice without arresting it (not easy to arrest America). The reason for warrants in perpetuity is e.g. that mongrels who committed murder during the war are now trying to grease out of penalties, like a Hungarian criminal in Australia (probably vos orders!).

The ultimate war crime definition should be aggression, which means violence to a country not itself engaged in aggression. Could be combined with the Nuremberg principle that obedience to a criminal order is a crime, and identify all the criminals who go to war to serve aggressive armed forces. Stalin rightly called for execution of all SS officers but Churchill and Roosevelt blocked it.

A lot to sort out but I reckon it could be done by extension of what happens at as at The Hague now but minus all the irrelevant legalistic quibbles. I believe Tony Bliar has to be careful where he travels even now – so probably should Howard.