This news conference. My name is norman solomon, im a cofounder of rootsaction. Org, which is hosting this event today. Rootsaction is the cosponsor of a Petition Campaign calling for no u. S. Were planes over syria. Together with five other organizations, veterans for peace, taylor daily kos, the nation magazine, will be on war, and watchdog. Net. U. S. Government began bombing syria nearly three years ago. That was back in september 2014. Since then, the killing from many sides has continued unabated. Meanwhile, during the last three years, tensions between the worlds two 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 was chair of the Senate Armed Services committee cosigned a letter recently and i would like to quote from it. It called for urgently pursuing practical steps now that can stop the downward spiral in relations and reduce real dangers, between russia and the United States. And, reducing military and other rests, yet, those risks continue to accelerate. That is the subject of this campaign and 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 this summer began, the u. S. Military shot down a Syrian Government jet, after which the russian government threatened to shoot down u. S. Planes over syria. More recently on july 30, the the New York Times reported that between the United States and russia now, except for in relationship to syria, 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 operating near the baltics and off the coast of europe, the chances for accident and miscalculation are high. The times also described the communication between the u. S. And russia about their activities in syria, as mutually suspicious and sporadic. What is at stake here, as the United States continues its military actions in syria, including in the skies over syria what is at stake includes the real possibility that conflicts in the air could escalate into military clashes between 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 countrys airspace. Today at this news conference, we will hear from four speakers on a wide range of vantage points. Former official of the Central Intelligence agency and a cia whistleblower, matthew ho was a marine who had two deployments in iraq and later became a state Department Officials. We have a Legal Authority on International Law as it pertains to armed conflict. And author and the director of the Organization World beyond war. We will start with this man who had major responsibilities with the angency. He served two years in prison as a cia whistleblower. Back in december of 2014, a headline over an article by Huffington Post really summed it up, one man jailed for cia torture tried to expose it. Thank you. President trump, just like president obama before him, seems intent on getting the United States involved in really what 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 easier enough to do, but there are consequences to these actions and republicans and conservatives celebration of this force notwithstanding, trump has put serious christians and christians in neighboring countries in jeopardy just as president obama and george w. Bush did in iraq. Both parties try to outhawk each other 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. There is certainly never any talk and congress for authorization despite the fact that the congress not asking for authorization is almost always a violation of the war powers act. Republicans wanting to goto war ought to be anathema to any politician of either party who considers himself or herself to be a christian. It is these military interventions that are having the effect of dooming the small Christian Communities left in places like iraq and syria. The problem for u. S. Politicians who fancy themselves as christians is that bassar alassad, like his father, whether you like their politics or not who have protected syrian christians for generations. Syrian christians make up 12 of the population according to the cias world factbook. But nearly a third of the countrys 600,000 believers have left syria since the start of the civil war in 2011 pushed out by terrorist groups like isis according to the New York Times. Before the war started, christians are just baited in all aspects of Syrian Society including members of the parliament, business core, diplomatic corps and business community. Even these Syrian Military is fully integrated rather than having separate christian units. Similarly in iraq, under Saddam Hussein he was a bad man, but even under Saddam Hussein, christians served in the parliament and cabinet. They practiced their faith really and openly and they were successful in business. Angst to george w. Bushs invasion of iraq, almost the entire Iraqi Christian Community has left for jordan, the u. K. , and the United States. The same thing is now happening in syria. There is a solution to all of this, but it is not sexy, quick or easy. It is something that many of us have heard about, but havent actually seen. It is called diplomacy. Whether trump likes assads politics or not, the only way to save the country is to sit at the table with all of the stakeholders including the syrians, the russians, and the iranians. We will have to accept the fact that assad is not going anywhere. Nor should he. Whether we like it or not, his 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 Alassad. Thank you very much. Mr. Solomon thank you. Our next speaker is matthew ho. Mr. Ho is a former state Department Official who resigned in protest from his post in afghanistan over u. S. Strategic policy and goals in that country. He resigned in september 2009. It is 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, he served two deployments as a marine in iraq. I should mention that matthew ho, like John Kiriakou is on the Advisory Board at the institute for public accuracy, which has been in this building in the National PressClub Facility for 18 years. I have been the director for 18 years. Here is matthew ho. Thank you. I want to begin my remarks by noting 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, what really is the most accurate way, our slaughter of many many people in the middle east has been the misrepresentation and 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 numerous occasions stated that this is a war about our way of life. However, in my positions, particularly in the state department with access to the interrogations of men who had joined, it was clear that the men traveling to afghanistan to fight us, as well as what we know from those people who have carried out terror attacks in europe as well as in the United States including the 9 11 hijackers in their martyrdom videos, or in their 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 are doing this because your girls are going to school or your women are wearing dresses above the knees. They are saying we are conducting attacks because you are bombing our countries, because your military is in our country, because youre supporting dictatorships, etc. There is this misunderstanding i think is intentional. I think 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 a war between the United States and russia. If anybody has been reading the New York Times recently, you will see the coverage over the large u. S. Military exercises, the large nato exercises being conducted on russias borders. We also remember that russia has been the victim of three major invasions in the last 150 years or so and 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 time alloted here about why it is so important to get american aircraft out of the skies of syria, because we are on the brink of war with russia. And it is something that i dont think the people in washington, d. C. Can quite understand what that war would be like. The second reason is more of a moral reason, more of a reason that has to do with the fact that simply the United States air campaigns, United States air warfare may be in my estimation is the greatest moral and human hazard over the last century. Certainly if you start with this is the 72nd anniversary of the bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima, something that nearly all american fourstar and fivestar generals after world war ii said was not a military necessity, you know, was done for strictly political reasons. If you go into the understanding that most americans do not know, but know all north koreans certainly know, that the American Air Force burned down nearly every village in town in north korea, that in vietnam we dropped more bombs on the vietnamese than 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. There will be babies born today with deformities because of. If we fastforward to the results of our air campaigns that the iraqis are certainly still paying for, certainly that the libyans are still paying for, that the afghans are still paying for, and for which there have been no results that anyone can point to to say this is a 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 publicly against wars in 2009, i was asked you have been in both you were in both and i hate saying served, that is the incorrect word, i feel. You were in iraq and afghanistan, were the similarities and differences between the two . I fell into that trap. After a time, i said, what am i doing. There is only one thing that matters, the United States military in both locations you can only accept one outcome, you are insane if you think anything different happen and that is the same thing that will happen because of the air campaign in syria. If any one thinks that anything different will occur to the people in syria from the american air campaign, already three years in progress, then they are completely naive, foolish, or have another agenda. And this is not to say that Bashar Alassad has not been a dictator, does not come from, was not born from the father of a dictator, has not committed war crimes himself this is not to excuse that. I am 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 have seen the news recently, the American Military is interested in launching airstrikes into the philippines. Nearly 120 years after we first began our military campaign against filipinos, we are looking to continue it. I appreciate you being here today and i thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is ms. Edwards. The chair of the society on the armed conflict, advisor for the human rights and gender issues. Thank you so much for having me here. I have been asked to provide the legal analysis for this topic, which is whether or not u. S. Airstrikes violate International Law in syria. This is a really broad question and im going to take a little bit of time to drill down into some more specifics in order to be able to answer this. As im sure most of you are well aware, the u. N. Charter is the definitive Legal Framework that applies here. Article 24 states that countries or states have an obligation to restrain from a threat or use of force against a territory or the political independence of any state. It seems like a definitive prohibition, but there is an exception in article 51 which states that states have a right of individual or collective selfdefense, but if any state he use exception, any actions must be reported to the security council. I will look at two instances in the last few months to see how these legal principles apply. Of course, april 6, the attack on the chemical weapons, which occurred a few months ago the vast majority of legal experts all agree that the attack on april 6 violated the u. N. Charter and was on was unconstitutional for several reasons. The u. S. Did not justify actions based on selfdefense. There is a Statement Released afterwards saying that this is humanitarian purposes. In addition, there was no authorization from congress to use force in this circumstance. However, i think going against the majority of legal opinions that came out after the attack, a former state Department Advisor argued narrowly for a narrow affirmative defense for circumstances such as this based on necessity for humanitarian intervention. And he listed several criteria that would need to apply for this exception to take place, which i am happy to refer you to if any would like that argument in more detail. He did think because of the circumstances there should be a narrow exception in this case. As norman mentioned earlier, the june 18 instance where a syrian warplane was shot down by u. S. Forces. The u. S. And russia disagree with the facts and the law here. The u. S. Claims it acted in collective selfdefense of coalition forces, because the syrian plane was bombing Syrian Democratic forces, one of the antisyrian rebel groups in syria. The russians say the plane was abiding groundcover and that the u. S. Violated sovereignty and it constituted military aggression against the Syrian Government. Article 51 does allow or collective selfdefense of aids, but not necessarily nonstate armed groups. Just to be clear, the u. S. Has not claimed that the sds is a defacto organ of the United States. My colleague has suggested a novel legal approach here which says that the u. S. Could use necessary and proportionate force to defend Member States of the coalition and coalition nonstate armed groups against isis if defeating isis was its sole mission. That is a very narrow exception. And the law there is no right to noncollective selfdefense for regime change or other political goals. What makes it complicated is secretary tillerson and Ambassador Haley have indicated that the Syrian Regime change remains a u. S. Strategic objective. Here the fact that there could be mixed motives for both fighting isis, a strategic objective of the United States, and possible regime change, the mixing of these motives compromise the legal basis for military operations that have occurred and may occur in the future. I look f