|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Of course they don't...because a fair number of leftists support the insurgents.
America = bad for using sleep deprivation
Insurgents = good for sawing off people's heads on video.
What's so pathetically funny is that the people that the idiot-fringe far left are supporting are the ones who treat women as chattel, think of homosexuality as a crime punishable by stoning to death or hanging, and who want to eradicate the free press.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/321936.shtml
Warning: This link contains pics of homosexuals in distress, shortly before they were executed for being gay. |
daswig, please back your statement about leftists "supporting insurgents" with examples of Americans who support enemies of the U.S. who are not natives resisting on their own home territory, with small arms and improvised explosives, against an illegal <b>(see bottom of post)</b> American military invasion/occupation force and it's subcontractors.
As to who initiated the advocacy for the "beheadings" (it's been awhile since I've had the opportunity to counter the US administration's apologists and propagandists with these "shocking" examples of "our side's" track record....)
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7761272/
NBC News MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, May 8, 2005
Guests: Gary Schroen, former senior CIA agent, Author of “First In: How seven CIA officers opened the war on terrorism in Afghanistan;”
James Carville, political strategist;
Mary Matalin, political strategist
Moderator: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: This man, the third ranking al-Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj Al-Libbi, is captured. Why is this man, Osama bin Laden, still on the loose?
And will this man, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, sell nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda or use them to blackmail the world?
With us, Gary Schroen, a CIA officer for 32 years and author of "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan."...........
...........MR. RUSSERT: On September 1, 2001, you began a 90-day phaseout retiring from the CIA. Then came the horrific day of 8:46 AM, September 11, 2001. All our lives changed. You were asked to stay on at the CIA. On September 13th, you were summoned to the office of Cofer Black, the head of counterterrorism for the CIA. What did he tell you? What was your mission?
MR. SCHROEN: The mission was to--the first part of it was to go in and link up with the Northern Alliance, formerly headed by Ahmed Al-Massoud, and to win their confidence and their agreement to cooperate militarily with us. They were the only armed force on the ground in Afghanistan opposing the Taliban. The second part of it was, once the Taliban were broken, to attack the al-Qaeda organization, find bin Laden and his senior lieutenants and kill them.
MR. RUSSERT: Kill them?
MR. SCHROEN: Kill them.
MR. RUSSERT: Wasn't it illegal for us to kill foreign leaders?
MR. SCHROEN: I don't think at that point that the--I think the administration had gotten to the point where bin Laden and his guys were fair game.
MR. RUSSERT: As part of war?
MR. SCHROEN: As part of war.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Black gave you specific instructions on what he wanted you to bring home.
MR. SCHROEN: That's true. He did ask that once we got bin Laden and killed him, that we send his head back in a cardboard box on dry ice so that he could take it down and show the president.
MR. RUSSERT: Where would you find the dry ice in Afghanistan?
MR. SCHROEN: That's what I mentioned to him. I said, "Cofer, I think that I can come up with pikes to put the heads of the lieutenants on," which is the second part of what he wanted done. "Dry ice, we'll have to improvise.".......
|
Quote:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../14/wbin14.xml
Bin Laden alive and threatening attack on Britain in terror tape
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 14/11/2002)
..............Six days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr Bush declared that bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive". The previous day, his Vice President Dick Cheney had said that he would willingly accept bin Laden's "head on a platter".
Some senior Bush administration officials were dismayed at the comments, believing they personalised the war against terrorism and opened Mr Bush to criticism should bin Laden prove more elusive than hoped..................
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20010916.html
............MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn't mind having his head on a platter.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I would take it today. ................
|
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. .................
.........'Valid'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.".............
|
Quote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...urplace15.html
Friday, July 15, 2005
War in Iraq violates international law
By TOM KREBSBACH
GUEST COLUMNIST
More than two grueling years have passed since U.S. and coalition forces stormed into the sovereign nation of Iraq. Still there has been little discussion in this country about the legal standing of the invasion.
Perhaps that is because most Americans are reluctant to admit this inconvenient but certain fact: The United States/United Kingdom invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression, a crime against the peace as defined by the Nuremberg Principles.
Various legal experts employed by the coalition governments will dispute this. But their arguments are incredibly weak and are not taken seriously by an overwhelming majority of scholars of international law in the world. These independent legal scholars, such people as Sean Murphy of George Washington University, Mary Ellen O'Connell of Ohio State University and Philippe Sands of University College London, all hold that the invasion was a blatant violation of international law.
There are only two cases in which a nation or group of nations can legally undertake armed intervention against another nation: in self-defense against an armed attack or if the United Nations Security Council authorizes a coalition of nations to intervene militarily to maintain peace and security in the world.
Contrary to what the Bush administration would like the world to believe, the invasion of Iraq can be justified neither on the basis of self-defense nor because it was sanctioned by the Security Council.
These are the facts that outline the legal status of the war:
# The primary grievance against Iraq was the claim that it had weapons of mass destruction and ongoing illicit weapons programs.
# The U.N. weapons inspection team was invasively and thoroughly determining whether such weapons or weapons programs existed in Iraq.
# The U.N. Security Council was not willing to grant authority to invade Iraq while the U.N. inspection team was handling the illicit weapons problem peacefully.
# President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq anyway, in contravention of the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. Charter. Without Security Council authorization, the invasion was illegal and must be classified as a war of aggression.
Should Americans be concerned about international law? It is quite clear that Bush has little regard for it. Yet, the United States was founded on the basis of the rule of law. Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties, which this country has signed and ratified, are the "supreme law of the land."
The U.N. Charter is such a treaty, and it was created in large part because of the efforts of this country following World War II. For this country to so egregiously transgress the charter's prohibition on the use of force is not only a violation of international law, it is a violation of our Constitution and a repudiation of much of what this country stands for...............
|
Quote:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/agfran.../msg00140.html
The Chicago Tribune May 23, 1999
WAR CRIMES LAW APPLIES TO U.S. TOO
By Walter J. Rockler
Rockler, a Washington lawyer, was a prosecutor
at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial
........At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the
prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive
war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the
American prosecution staff, asserted "that launching a war of
aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can
justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in violation of
treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does
them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to
lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would
not be willing to have invoked against us."...............
|
[quote]
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...431645,00.html
Why Bush Struggles to Win UN Backing
Inspections have found Iraq in violation of disarmament requirements, but have not confirmed Anglo-American claims of an imminent danger. Can the President still convince the UN?
By TONY KARON
Posted Thursday, Mar. 13, 2003
The Bush administration has always insisted it doesn't need UN permission to invade Iraq. President Bush has never left any doubt that the outcome of Security Council deliberations won't stop him from acting to eliminate what he perceives as an imminent threat to U.S. and allied security. When Bush first raised the issue at the UN Security Council last Fall, he did so in the form of a challenge to the international body — follow us to war, or render yourselves irrelevant...............
....................This week's failure by the U.S. and Britain to win backing for a UN ultimatum to Iraq authorizing force if Baghdad fails to meet a 10-day disarmament deadline underscores the fact that the UN process has, if anything, weakened rather than strengthened international support for a war........
...................The reason for the administration's difficulties may be, in part, the nature of the evidence revealed by the UN process. The Bush case for war against Iraq is premised on the idea that not only has Saddam failed to complete the disarmament required of him by the Gulf War truce, but that he is actively pursuing new chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs; and that these, together with what Washington insists is an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda, represent a clear and present danger to U.S. security.
But the inspection process has tested some of these claims, and in the process undermined the Bush administration's case. The inspectors found that Iraq has failed to destroy or account for substantial the stocks of chemical and biological weapons left over from its war with Iran, but they have found nothing to back claims of current, active chemical, biological or nuclear programs. Inspectors have made clear to the Council that they have investigated a number of U.S. and British allegations and intelligence tips, which came to naught...........
|
|