in terms of its workings is the security council. and that has got us -- got to seem a little bit strange. it has to seem a little bit strange for two distinct reasons. one is, all of us, watching the news these state -- these days and see things like syria unfolding and the security council, the inability of it to come together in order to resolve these kinds of major humanitarian disasters that involve a vicious dictator slaughtering people. and from the look of that, you think of this has to be the worst part rather than the best part. but the reality as the security council is operating to a fair extend as its framers intended. meaning that they had a pretty good idea when they created this in 1945, they knew what they were trying to fix. what they were trying to fix is the pre-world war two league of nations in which everybody got the same vote, everybody got the same voice, everyone had the same impact, big countries, both countries, powerful countries, not so powerful, the good, the bad, the whole thing. and it was a disaster.

of the of the security council members and without that you don't have the international legitimacy that's going to allow this sort of intervention to bring this to a close look kind of intervention should there be if i can stay with you marc. sure i i think probably the best option is of course the sation of hostilities and by that i mean the attacks by this the syrian military against the population of syria a peaceful transition of power to a transitional government where and you could have free and fair elections later on and that may require some sort of i think in best case un mandated peacekeeping presence i think bosnia provides a particularly good model but my assumption here is that you can bring the security down to a level where the active fighting has largely been concluded before any sort of peacekeeping force would be able to enter syria john what do you think about that well you know the problem here with getting sides to cease hostilities and perhaps negotiate with each other. is that both sides are backed by foreign powers you know this is a problem there's actuall

security council even the un security council itself although it is not a democratic body by any means it has permanent seats people countries with permanent seats and rights of vetoes where you run doesn't even have a presence in the council but beyond that it doesn't have a mandate to go beyond international law at no point has there been any evidence even when iran halted nuclear enrichment for three over two years and implanted the additional protocol which goes far beyond what most countries in the world do no evidence had ever been found that iran's nuclear program as i said they don't in any way a letter where the enemy the domino as we know it in that we could we can this argument i think he is very good from the very start he was very much in the american camp ok tom go ahead jump in what mohamed let's let's just i want to make one slight correction to what. and that is that iran is quote implementing its additional protocol in fact it never brought it into force in. it's not acting under it it was provisionally applied for sometime very early on and just as us in two thousand

of the of the security council members and without that you don't have the international legitimacy that's going to allow this sort of intervention to bring this to a close look kind of intervention should there be if i can stay with you marc. sure i i think probably the best option is of course the sation of hostilities and by that i mean the attacks by this the syrian military against the population of syria a peaceful transition of power to a transitional government where then you could have free and fair elections later on and that may require some sort of i think in best case un mandated peacekeeping presence i think bosnia provides a particularly good model but my assumption here is that you can bring the security down to a level where the active fighting has largely been concluded before any sort of peacekeeping force would be able to enter syria john what do you think about that well you know the problem here with getting sides to cease hostilities and perhaps negotiate with each other. is that both sides are backed by foreign powers you know this is a problem there's actual

security council even the u.n. security council itself although it is not a democratic body by any means it has permanent seats people countries with permanent seats and rights of vetoes where you run doesn't even have a presence in the council but beyond that it doesn't have a mandate to go beyond international law at no point has there been any evidence even when iran halted nuclear enrichment for three over two years and implemented the additional protocol which goes far beyond what most countries in the world do no evidence had ever been found that iran's nuclear program as i said wait on it and wait a minute wait a minute i am an as we know it that we could we i think he is very he from the very start he was very much in the american camp ok tom go ahead jump in well let's let's just i want to make one slight correction to what. that is that iran is quote implementing its additional protocol in fact it never brought it. to force and it's not acting under it it was provisionally applied for sometime very early

security council had mysteriously disappeared before the vote. some claim he arranged. to disrupt the ballot. the possibility. that i don't think i'm in a position to say in front of cold feet that he betrayed me or anything. intelligent. with. british intelligence accused. but he is convinced that it was in fact. obviously lying we have all the records of little interrogations they contain no mention of anything like that that means this was a. security for the t.v. . control. it was already exposing his former chief. pay sixty million rubles to anyone who would give putin away because he allegedly came to power illegitimately and that was complete nonsense it makes absolutely no sense. over time. oppositionist became the butt of many jokes. of power in russia even prompted the british authorities to issue a warning that his political asylum status could be reviewed. six or seven years ago. he said and i still the country's principle. still being demonized. and this is what i said to. you want to hear you say yes i'm guilty you argue. and he walked off to buy some pict

security council so there are you know the question is where this is two questions one is the violation such that it. becomes a war crime the second question is how do you draw the line about war crimes when franklin roosevelt did rescue the jews in the second world war is that a war crime when obama is not intervening in syria is that a war crime i mean it's a very very much he said look when talking about the violation of international law international criminal court we're looking at law established international criminal court will will of eventually be the arbiter of these kind of issues but this is something that it is going to take some time to make clear what how how you define it ivan eland how you define it which defined. well i think you know i think we often in the united states define terrorism and war crimes and all this other stuff too to. you know alleviate our own government of some blame of course you know you know in the in the terror bombings in world war two we always kind of forget about those but nations can commit acts of terrorism and in fact of kill more people

. >> if you with are in the security council, it looks like everything tom and i are saying is probably true. but don't you have to plan for the prospect that they might actually launch one of these missiles and they probably can't get to the u.s. or get to guam or something like that, or japan? what do you do? >> you plan for it.

where many states feel that the security council composition should be changed in the veto should be dropped or it should be expanded but the fact is is the other commentator points out power realities to play an enormous role in defining what is considered a war crime and what isn't considered a war crime and we do have to recognize that even as we pursue the ideal which is to have an international criminal court be the arbiter of these kind of situations i believe and so do we need law then international law. if no one's going to be held accountable well yes it well i think it would help the problem that you have with the international criminal court is in a situation in of sadat conflict is if these if these dictators think that they're going to be thrown in the in before the court and thrown in jail for the rest of their lives are going to fight more so there are downsides to the international court but i think there are also upsides but of course you know i mean here is what happened britain in the us invaded iraq and even killing rebels what we would call some terrorists that w

security council's deadlocked or largely because of disagreements in russia and china and the rest of the of the security council members and without that you don't have the international legitimacy that's going to allow this sort of intervention to bring this to a close look kind of intervention should there be if i can stay with you marc. sure i i think probably the best option is of course the sation of hostilities and by that i mean the attacks by this the syrian military against the population of syria a peaceful transition of power to a transitional government where then you could have free and fair elections later on and that may require some sort of i think in best case un mandated peacekeeping presence i think bosnia provides a particularly good model but my assumption here is that you can bring the security down to a level where the active fighting has largely been concluded before any sort of peacekeeping force would be able to enter syria john what do you think about that well you know the problem here with getting sides to cease hostilities and perhaps negotiate with each