White House Briefing on Syria; British Lawmakers Debate Syria; Case Against Military Action in Syria
MALVEAUX: The crisis in Syria has triggered intense debates in major capitals around the world, as you can imagine. British lawmakers took a stand against striking out just yet. I want you to listen to some of this debate. This is beginning with comments from the British prime minister himself, David Cameron.</s>DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The question before the House today is how to respond to one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century, slaughtering innocent men, women and children in Syria. It is not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict. It is not about invading. It is not about regime change or even working more closely with the opposition. It is about the large-scale use of chemical weapons and our response to a war crime, nothing else.</s>ED MILIBAND, BRITISH LABOUR PARTY LEADER: We have to assess, over the coming period in a calm and measured way not in a knee-jerk way and not on a political timetable, of whether the advantages of potential action, whether it can be done on the basis of legitimacy in international law and what the consequences would be.</s>UNIDENTIFIED BRITISH PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Listening to this speech, any reasonable human being would assume that the gentleman is looking to divide the House for political advantage. What has happened --</s>UNIDENTIFIED BRITISH PARLIAMENT MEMBER: What has happened to the national interests?</s>MILIBAND: I have to say that intervention is not worthy of the honorable gentleman.</s>MALVEAUX: The move in the U.K. was driven by the public because lawmakers were flooded with e-mails and phone calls urging for some space to find out more events -- more about the events that are actually taking place inside of Syria. Right now, this is still a war of words but the U.S. seems to be inching closer to some kind of military action against the Syrian regime. In the capital, Damascus, things may look normal enough. Today, President Assad meeting with a delegation from Yemen, giving the impression that it is business as usual. This is the first time that we have seen the Syrian president since allegations of the chemical attacks against the rebels that surfaced last week. Also today, in an open letter from the speaker of Syria's parliament to Britain, he is warning against joining any kind of attack against the regime. He said it would, quote, "automatically strengthen our common enemy, al Qaeda, and its affiliates." President Obama says he has not yet made a final decision on using military action against Syria. But he is convinced that the Assad regime gassed its own people and should pay.</s>BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about, but if we are saying, in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow, saying "stop doing this," that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long-term and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not used again on innocent civilians.</s>MALVEAUX: So we have looked at why the U.S. might hit Syria but what would be the down sides of any type of military action? "Reason" magazine senior editor, Peter Suderman, has written a provocative piece called "Eight Reasons Not to Go to War in Syria." He joins us from Washington. Peter, good to see you, as always. Map this out for us, the case you're making for us not to get involved.</s>PETER SUDERMAN, SENIOR EDITOR, REASON MAGAZINE: There are several reasons why we should be weary of any kind of strikes in Syria. One is there is really no end game. The White House just has not articulated a clear plan for what happens after the limited strikes that we've heard about. Another is that it is not clear what the actual effect of limited strikes that we've heard about would really be. You know, even President Obama admitted in the interview yesterday that it wouldn't stop the Assad regime from killing civilians in his own country. And the final reason is that it is really not clear that the United States has any interest in either side winning. The rebels here have close links to al Qaeda. The Assad regime is closely linked to anti-American forces in Iran and would increase Iran's influence in the region if they were to win. So the United States just doesn't have an interest in getting involved.</s>MALVEAUX: So, Peter, explain to us here because the president says that there is this international norm, if you will, that it is unacceptable to gas its own people, to use chemical weapons in the case of Syria, and that there is a point to be made in that. Do you think that is legitimate here, that even sending a signal or a message is important?</s>SUDERMAN: I notice he is talking about international norms, not international law. There are serious legal questions about strikes here as well. But remember, that this red line talked about of chemical weapons on civilians is really more of a gray area. As we saw at the White House press briefing recently, just a few minutes ago, the White House actually thinks that Assad has used chemical weapons before, so it is not clear why this instance would not deciding factor. It is very, very murky line to draw.</s>MALVEAUX: The White House would argue -- I think Jay Carney and the president would argue it is on a much grander scale, a much larger, massive scale than previously seen. But I want to ask you this: What would be the alternative here? Do you think there is a plan where you would have, instead of sticks, carrots to the Assad regime that would bring him back to the negotiating table in some way with the Syrian rebels?</s>SUDERMAN: It is really hard to say, you know, what the United States could do to help there, but the thing that we could do is not intervene in a way that would hurt, in a way that is not likely to stop the killing of civilians in the country, and it is not likely to further any clear American interests either. The thing that we can do is we can condemn the horrible actions we have seen, the killing of civilians, and we can look for alternatives rather than striking, which is likely to make the situation worse.</s>MALVEAUX: Peter, do you think that the U.S. has any credibility, any kind of cache with either Russia or China to work more closely with them, to push them in some way to get involved because, of course, they are the strongest allies that the U.S. at least has relationship with to Syria?</s>SUDERMAN: They may prove to be routes where we can at least get communication through, but the U.S. relationships with Russia is, of course, quite fraught right now, and any attempts to negotiate with Russia or to negotiate with Syria through Russia are obviously going to be pretty complicated.</s>MALVEAUX: All right. Peter, appreciate your perspective. Still ahead, we all know texting while driving, not good, but now you can actually be charged even if you are not behind the wheel. We're going to explain up next. And here is a look at what you're going to see on Saturday in "The Next List."</s>DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This week on "The Next List," we talk to two remarkable innovators. Ben Kaufman, the founder and CEO of quirky.com. Kaufman is passionate about giving would-be inventors a way to get product ideas to market.</s>BEN KAUFMAN, FOUNDER & CEO, QUIRKY.COM: It is human nature to invent. What stops people is to actually do that and execute on all of those ideas. It is really freaking hard.</s>GUPTA: He is using the talent of a half million online vendors to do it.</s>KAUFMAN: You are now a Quirky inventor.</s>GUPTA: And Saul Griffith, an inventor, scientist and winner of the coveted MacArthur Genius Award.</s>SAUL GRIFFITH, INVENTOR, SCIENTIST & WINNER, MACARTHUR GENIUS AWARD: Sometimes you just have an idea and you're like, oh, no, I've had the idea and now I have to do it.</s>GUPTA: Griffith and his team are revolutionizing robotics and creating a whole new field of soft machines.</s>GRIFFITH: When fully pressurized, an arm could lift a human an arm's length.</s>GUPTA: This Saturday, 2:00 p.m. eastern on "The Next List."