Doctors Without Borders "warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence"

[deutsey]

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7033&cat=press-release

Response to Government References to MSF Syria Statement

August 28, 2013—Over the last two days, the American, British, and other governments have referred to reports from several groups, including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “undeniable” and designating the perpetrators.

MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent or to attribute responsibility.

On August 24, MSF announced that three hospitals it supplies in Syria’s Damascus governorate had reportedly received 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms, of which 355 died. Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.

MSF also stated that in its role as an independent medical humanitarian organization, it was not in a position to determine responsibility for the event. Now that an investigation is underway by United Nations inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action. MSF's sole purpose is to save lives, alleviate the suffering of populations torn by Syrian conflict, and bear witness when confronted with a critical event, in strict compliance with the principles of neutrality and impartiality.

The latest massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in Damascus governorate comes on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation facing the Syrian people, one characterized by extreme violence, displacement, the destruction of medical facilities, and severely limited or blocked humanitarian action.

[hollysmom]

1. it is important they stay non-politiacal to avoid being labeled as part of a government.

I had a friend who worked with them, he was a great guy. Died of AIDS he contracted in Haiti before it was known as a disease.

[deutsey]

2. Which is why people shouldn't try to enlist them to their particular cause imo

Both sides should back off using DWB to further their cause. Let's just contribute to this worthy organization as a sign of our appreciation of what they do.

[hollysmom]

3. absolutely! great organization, no negatives against them for me, just support.

[deutsey]

4. Same here

We should all be contributing to their efforts:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/overview.cfm?ref=main-menu

[deutsey]

5. And I am sorry to hear about your friend, btw.

That should have been my main point. Sorry.

[UTUSN]

6. So their role is to see/treat "massive influx...catastrophic"and save lives but not to bear witness

by contributing to STOPPING IT. It's not a matter of THEIR justifying "military action," it's a matter of their data being critical to WHOEVER's determining responsibility, and "neutrality and impartiality" are not moral when facilitating the atrocities.

[deutsey]

7. That's not their function

Never has been.

[tavalon]

9. Correct

Now they are giving their information to the independent research facilities that can determine what, where, how, etc. but DWB are there to help and to treat. They are not a political entity and must remain thus. As hard as it is to understand, were they at a death camp in Nazi Germany, their mandate would be to treat and try to save lives, not point fingers.

And no, I did not just Godwin. This is an important topic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Independent NGOs stick to neutrality

I know, a strange alien concept

[sabrina 1]

16. You want them to lie??? Like OUR Government? They don't know who did it, that is not their function.

They are not going to lie. Nor do they want to be used for political purposes. You know, the way Women don't like to be used for political purposes or anyone else for that matter.

This administration attempted to undermine the incredibly humanitarian work they do around the globe by USING that wonderful work, erroneously, to bolster their case for more killing and destruction of human lives.

Good for them for defending themselves.

[UTUSN]

39. what part of massive catastrophic is lying. nt

[sabrina 1]

40. What part of it says who was responsible? Go ahead, point that out for us.

We KNOW the Al Queda Rebels have used CW against the Syrian People. We KNOW the Al Queda Rebels we are supporting in Syria are currently driving the Kurds out of Syria, killing and torturing them before they flee by the tens of thousands.

We KNOW the Al Queda Rebels we are arming and funding in Syria are driving Christians, protected by the Syrian Government, out of their lands, terrorizing these peaceful people.

We also know that Doctors Without Borders always report on the kind of illnesses they are treating but NEVER get involved in politics. IF they did they would not be allowed to treat those who are victims of these conflicts.

It is stunning to see people here on DU trying to use this wonderful wonderful organization for their own motives, disregarding the harm it would do if they were to allow themselves to be used in that way.

[Junkdrawer]

42. [phone]

Thanks for that

[UTUSN]

46. "use...for their own motives" - who would that be, not I since I didn't ask that they

perform the investigations. I reacted to their objecting to their concrete data that atrocities occurred be used, period. But with your litany of things that you/WE KNOW, it appears the investigative phase is over, eh?

I'm putting out my point of view in a respectful way. I'm a lot less ideological and propaganda driven than the motives of "using" whomever. A lot of times I steer clear of flammable threads because of the projection of motives among posters who don't even know one another personally. My point is found in such a cliché as, "When good people stand by, bad people win."

[sabrina 1]

47. They did not object to their data being reported, THEY reported it. What they objected to was having

it used to imply that they were accusing Assad. They do not know who is responsible and they were correct to make that clear. They don't know nor does anyone else at this point.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. staying neutral is the only thing that keeps them credible, viable, and in

business. If they dared tried to say one way or the other who did it, it would not be long before they were not allowed to do what they do. And if they were not allowed to do what they do who would? They serve a much more imporant purpose than any government or political party. Most governments and political parties end up costing lives. They save lives.

[Iliyah]

8. They stay neutral

think of Rwanda

[tavalon]

10. One of the reasons I never joined up with them is because

I wasn't sure I could stay neutral and that is a central mandate of their existence.

[treestar]

11. Of course it should be used as evidence

Why did they bother to tell anyone else of it, then?

They are supposed to just treat and not "tell" on the fact that someone used gas on people?

[sabrina 1]

17. Utter nonsense. Of course they are honest about what is effecting their patients, they always are.

But please pay close attention!!!! They do NOT KNOW who is responsible! Do you understand that?? I'll say it again, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE! That is NOT their job.

You apparently are suggesting that they LIE to help the US go bomb some more human beings and create more War Crimes, as we are doing everywhere else in the world.

Doctors Without Borders have ONE function, to treat and try to cure those who are ill. Period.

Sorry you can't get ethical people to lose their ethics in order to start another war.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

30. A+++++++

Brilliantly put. That was an embarrassing statement from that poster.

[treestar]

48. It's still evidence that it happened

Not every bit of evidence must prove the whole case. How would they know who did it? Where did I suggest they say who did it? Unless they do specifically know something about that?

I was responding to the silly idea that they cannot have evidence.

It is "affecting" in that sentence, not "effecting."

[joshcryer]

38. Yes, the magnitude of the deaths...

...indicates the volume of necessary gas used to kill that many people.

Which has already been determined to be 50x what the original reports suggested.

Or something far beyond the expertise of rebels working in a lab.

So it was either stolen, used by rogue military without orders, or ordered, or done with an outside group who manufactured it in mass. Those are the only possible explanations. It clearly rules out the possibility that rebels made the chemicals.

[Catherina]

12. I don't think the governments (cough) who did this expected MSF to contradict them

I'm glad they did because their first Press Release was very clear. When Kerry mentioned them in that carefully parsed way where he implied proof came from MSF, several of us were so shocked. Thank you MSF.

[Iliyah]

14. I will ask the MSF, but the again

where they when millions died during the Rwanda attackes?

[Iliyah]

13. Ask the UN

[DeSwiss]

18. They didn't explicitly say......

...that it couldn't be used for starting just and humanitarian wars.

- That's what a Constitutional-lawyer President would say, I'm sure.....

K&R

[Iliyah]

20. Ok,

Somalia

[Iliyah]

21. Natives knew nature

in America, not him.

[hopemountain]

22. MSF needs a new pr frontperson

did they only release their press release to their website? or did they also release to published and on air media in addition to circulating to other aid organizations and governments where they provide resources/services?

i do remember reading/hearing the number of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms and their report of 355 deaths only during the first week of the bombing, which pbs and cnn are still quoting. however, on other media outlets i am only reading and hearing the 1400 deaths report along with 460 plus children.

question everything.

[Iliyah]

25. only 355 deaths

wow

[liberal_at_heart]

27. yeah, I've been hearing the 1400 number being quoted alot.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, deutsey.

[joshcryer]

24. What does MSF think casualty numbers are?

They're just taking a neutral stance but they're not idiotic and don't think that once the release numbers everyone pretends they didn't. Absurdity.

[davidpdx]

31. I'm not even sure the numbers matter that much anymore

given the fact that the use of chemical weapons occurred and were used on civilians. The problem with numbers is that people are going to argue that one set is right and the other set is wrong. I heard actually getting an accurate count has been nearly impossible.

At this point I'm more worried about what is going to be done after Congress votes no to the strikes and the military options are put aside. It is hard for me to believe that the most of the world has the "it's not my problem" attitude and expects the US to intervene.

[joshcryer]

33. Of course, this will be denied until the UN releases its report.

As it so often is here.

I don't support any strikes at all, especially without the UN.

I actually think strikes would bolster Assad's brutal crackdown on people that is killing 150-170 people a day.

[davidpdx]

34. Call me skeptical

I think the UN report is going to get laughed at. There are going to be people who continue to deny chemical weapons were used.

[joshcryer]

37. It will just go from "they were used" to "who used them."

They are already trying to downplay the number dead.

[davidpdx]

26. I think the videos of people twitching violently were proof enough it occured

The real question is who did it, not whether it happened. The international community need to grow a set a balls and do something about it rather than expecting the US to.

[Little Star]

28. +1

[Iliyah]

29. As long it does not happen to us

who gives a eff. who cares....

[davidpdx]

32. I think we should care

But at the same time other options need to be looked at. The majority of Americans and other countries are against a military strike, so my question is "what's next?"

[truedelphi]

35. However, staged footage is a possibility.

I'm too scarred from too many years of this, going all the way back to Gulf of Tonkin to believe anything. In this day and age of green screen technology, I can't buy it.

CNN lost all credibility for me over the years, so that they can play this footage every hour on the hour for the next ten years, and I will simply change channels.

[davidpdx]

36. Just to let you know the same footage can be found on Youtube

So it wouldn't be CNN lying. I believe Al-Jeezera showed footage as well.

[Autumn]

41. Wait a minute. 355 people died? First time I've heard that

they were screaming it was over 1400.

[deutsey]

44. There are various estimates

The US estimate is, I believe, the highest.

Others are lower.


http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-casualties-20130904,0,681916.story

The death toll given by the Obama administration for an alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack is far higher than confirmed counts of two key allies and a main activist group, which said it was shocked by the U.S. figure.


http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/4/as_us_pushes_for_syria_strike

AMY GOODMAN: So, take us through these issues one by one. Talk, for example, about the numbers. The number that Senator Kerry—Secretary of State Kerry has referenced, how did the U.S. reach that tally of 1,429 people killed in a gas attack, including 426 children?

MARK SEIBEL: Well, we actually don’t know how they obtained that number. It is the highest number that’s reported by anyone, 1,429. It’s a very precise number. The U.S. intelligence summary doesn’t tell us how they arrived at it. It’s interesting because it is so much higher than even what the local coordinating committees, which is the Syrian opposition group on the ground, reports, and they reported 1,252. Again, a precise number, but much lower than the U.S. number. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is generally considered the most authoritative source for violence in Syria, they’ve figured about 502, maybe a hundred children, some number of rebel fighters in that number. The French, who have been the most transparent about how they arrived at a number, have reported 281. The French looked at 47 videos, according to their intelligence summary, and they counted the bodies in them. So, of course, they say it’s quite likely that there were more than 281 people killed, but at least we know where their precise number came from.

[deutsey]

45. CBS This Morning was pushing the 1400 number this morning

Perhaps the higher number has been confirmed, but I haven't seen anything about it.

[stevenleser]

43. It's essential that DWB/MSF not be politicized. They operate in some very hostile areas of the globe

and their mission would be completely compromised if the perception begins to take hold that they take political sides.