|
Banned
|
seaver, I see the core comments in your post are inaccurate, thus, so is your conclusion. Watatda was assured for months before he enlisted, that Saddam's Iraq was making and brandishing WMD at the rest of the world, aiding al Zarqawi and his "poison camp" at Khermal, deploying mobile biological weapons manufacturing "trailers", and that it was "pretty well confirmed" that the lead 9/11 hijacker, Atta, had met with an Iraqi government "agent" in Prague.
In September, 2006, the US Senate SCI, after a delay since Juky, 2004, revealed that:
Quote:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/08/D8K0PV600.html
Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties
Sep 08 12:51 PM US/Eastern
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.
The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.
.....
|
Just two days later, VP Cheney was still making the same, deliberately false statements, despite the senate SCI release:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006
Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
....Q But the President said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they are -- there are two totally different propositions here. And people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think -- there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.
So you've got Iraq and 9/11: no evidence that there's a connection. You've got Iraq and al Qaeda: testimony from the Director of CIA that there was, indeed, a relationship; Zarqawi in Baghdad, et cetera. Then the --
Q The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact, Saddam --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet --
Q But, Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- but the fact is, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02, and was there from then basically until the time we launched into Iraq.
Q The bottom line is the rationale given to the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, and we could have another September 11th. And now we read that there is no evidence according to Senate intelligence committee of that relationship. You said there's no involvement. The President says there's no involvement --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Tim, no involvement in what respect?
Q In September 11th, okay? And the CIA said leading up to the war that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was "low." It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the administration to link al Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Tim, I guess -- I'm not sure what part you don't understand here. In 1990, the State Department designated Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Abu Nidal, famous terrorist, had sanctuary in Baghdad for years. Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda. You had the fact that Saddam Hussein, for example, provided payments to the families of suicide bombers of $25,000 on a regular basis. This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a relationship with terror groups. No question about it. Nobody denies that.
The evidence we also had at the time was that he had a relationship with al Qaeda. And that was George Tenet's testimony, the Director of CIA, in front of the Senate intelligence committee. We also had knowledge of the fact that he had produced and used weapons of mass destruction. And we know, as well, that while he did not have any production under way at the time, that he clearly retained the capability.......
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042501554.html
Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A01
...The report, which refuted many of the administration's principal arguments for going to war in Iraq, marked the official end of a two-year weapons hunt led most recently by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. The team found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. sanctions had destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capabilities and that, for the most part, Hussein had not tried to rebuild them. Iraq's ability to produce nuclear arms, which the administration asserted was a grave and gathering threat that required an immediate military response, had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Investigators found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program.".......
|
<b>seaver....the war is illegal, not Lt. Watada's refusal to obey a deployment order. Read Cheney's preceding statement excerpt. The crime is in his words, seaver. Compare Cheney's comments to the senate committee conclusions and the Duelfer report on WMD....please stop posting things that cannot be supported, this is getting boring....it's old.....former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz compares his and Justice Robert Jackson's prosecutions of WWII crimes of "aggressive war", with the Bush - Cheney invasion and occupation of Iraq......the same thing, over and over, and none of it sinks in, you give not an inch, and you declare that refusal to follow an order to participate in a illegal "aggressive war" should be punished with a sentence, just short of execution of the US military officer who refuses to obey the illegal order from war criminals commanded by a war criminal, CIC. The definition of "crimes against humanity", and the criteria for prosecution of them, has not changed since the Nuremberg trials, sixty years ago, seaver. Only the perpetrators have changed, abd they mouth the same excuses..."they were only following orders".</b>
Quote:
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/08/news/story04.html
Watada: Like father, like son
During Vietnam, Bob Watada was able to avoid serving
>> Watada could face prison and discharge for defiance
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
More than four decades ago, Bob Watada, who lost a brother fighting in Korea, opposed the war in Vietnam.
Instead of running off to Canada, Watada approached his draft board in Colorado and was allowed to serve in the Peace Corps for two years in Peru.
He believed the Vietnam War was illegal.
Now his son, Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, has announced he will not serve in Iraq for the same reason.
The elder Watada said even after spending two years in the Peace Corps, the Pentagon tried to draft him when he returned home, but he did not have to serve because he was able to enter graduate school at the University of Northern Colorado.
Watada, former executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission, said he had many discussions about Iraq with his son before the younger Watada enlisted in 2003 -- the same month the U.S. invaded Iraq.
"He knew that I had been given the option by the draft board to serve in the Peace Corps for two years in Peru," the elder Watada said. "He also knew I had a brother who died in Korea and what his death meant to the family."
He spoke yesterday at a state Capitol news conference that was supposed to include a telephone hookup with his son. However, Lt. Watada was ordered not to talk to the media while on duty, so he did not participate.
Still, supporters carrying light green placards with the words "Thank You. 1st Lt. Ehren Watada for resisting an illegal war" crowded into the Senate conference room yesterday.
Bob Watada told how of the 10 brothers in his family, seven served in the military, with an elder brother working as a Japanese interpreter at the end of World War II in the Military Intelligence Service.
Ehren Watada "knew that I had a brother who had died in Korea, and I was concerned about him going to Iraq. I didn't want him to come home in a box," his father said. "He told me that he was very proud of his uncle. He was willing to die for his country as his uncle had. He knew the risk.
"He was very, very patriotic. He was very much for his country. He didn't realize then that the president could lie."
Watada said both the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq were illegally done.
Like the anti-war protests of the 1960s, Watada said, pressure has to be placed on the Bush administration by those who are doing the fighting in Iraq.
Carolyn Ho, Ehren Watada's mother, said her son's decision is "an act of patriotism, and act of conscience. ... It is a message that blindly following an order is an option. It is a statement that voices of the people must supersede the voices of the politicians."
|
Quote:
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/08/news/story03.html
Watada could face prison and discharge for defiance
Refusing to report for Iraq could elicit a court-martial
>> During Vietnam, his father Bob Watada was able to avoid serving
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
A patriotic Eagle Scout who had hoped to make the Army his career, 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada says the war in Iraq is illegal and that he will not deploy with his Fort Lewis unit when it leaves in two weeks.
Watada, who turns 28 today, did not tell his mother he had joined the Army until after he signed enlistment papers in March 2003 just before he graduated from Hawaii Pacific University. He reported for boot camp in June.
The 1996 Kalani High School graduate said he enlisted because "I felt the pull of duty, service and patriotism" following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Watada, an artillery officer, said even after enlisting he did not believe that "an invasion was fully justified, but I believed the president's claims should be given a benefit of doubt. At that time, I never imagined that our leader could betray the trust of the people over something as serious as war."
Watada could face up to five years in jail and a dishonorable discharge if he is convicted at a court-martial for failing to join his 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Regiment, unit when it begins leaving for Iraq on June 23.
In a phone interview from Fort Lewis, Wash., Watada said his actions are now closely monitored. "My supervisors have been told to report me as 'failure to report' even if I am a minute late and to report me immediately."
Watada said he does not regret his actions. "I realize it is going to be a difficult and arduous path -- one with a lot of personal risk and sacrifices on my part. I don't think it is any more or any less than the soldiers who are sacrificing and risking their lives over in Iraq. It is what we signed up to do to protect and defend our nation's laws and its people. What I am doing is trying to uphold those principles and values."
Watada told the Star-Bulletin "there is definitely tension with people" in his 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment -- one of seven battalions that make up the 3rd Brigade -- the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team. But no one has confronted him.
To prepare himself for upcoming legal and other battles, Watada said he tries to remember "all the families of the soldiers who are dying for what I feel is a betrayal of trust and deception waged by the highest level of my chain of command. I think that when I chose to be a leader, I chose to set the example of making the right choice even if it was a difficult choice. It was a conscionable choice, and that is something I can live with for the rest of my life.
"I would rather do that than knowing what I know and then go to Iraq."
Watada's defense is that his participation "in this war is not only immoral, but a breach of American law" and that the 2003 invasion of Iraq violates a United Nations charter and the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter.
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/83.html
......On August 3, 2002, UK military spokesmen briefed the Pentagon and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the status of UK's preparation. The next day they briefed President Bush. Coordinated plans for the attack on Iraq continued, despite a reported private statement by Britain's Foreign Secretary Straw that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." His legal advisers in the Foreign Office had submitted a Confidential 8-page memorandum casting doubt on whether Security Council (SC) resolutions 678 (1990) or 687 (1991), that had authorized members "to use all necessary means" to restore peace in the area" could justify the forceful invasion of Iraq.
Straw made the interesting point that if the SC would again demand that Saddam allow UN inspectors to confirm that he had complied with earlier resolutions to destroy his WMD and, if the inspectors discovered that he had failed to do so, that might justify a renewed use of force. A refusal to accept inspection would also be politically helpful to justify the invasion. The best that could be achieved, however, was SC Res. 1441 of November 8, 2002, again demanding that Iraq disarm and allow UN inspectors to report back within 30 days. The Resolution ''recalled" that Iraq had repeatedly been warned that it would "face serious consequences as a result of its violations". The "decision" taken by the Council was to "await further reports" and then "to consider the situation." Troops were being mobilized for a combined massive military assault but there was still no clear agreement on the legal justification for such action......
.......Prime Minister Blair chose to rely on the summary opinion of his Attorney General rather than the views of the Foreign Office which, ordinarily, would be responsible for opinions affecting foreign relations and international law. On March 18, 2003, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned. Her letter of resignation, after more than 30 years of service, stated: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution..." She had, for many years, represented the UK at meetings of the UN preparatory committees for an international criminal court and was recognized as one of the foremost experts on the subject of aggression. Her letter stated..."an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."
Elizabeth Wilmshurst remembered that the Nuremberg trials had condemned aggressive war as "the supreme international crime" That decision had been affirmed by the UN General Assembly and followed in many other cases. She demonstrated Professor Tom Franck's concluding appeal in the 2003 Agora that "lawyers should zealously guard their professional integrity for a time when it can again be used in the service of the common weal."
Benjamin B. Ferencz
A former Nuremberg Prosecutor
J.D. Harvard (1943)
|
Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, acknowledged at a state Capitol news conference that Watada will face an uphill battle in making those arguments.
But Seitz said "there is a lot of support" for Watada. "There are a lot of people who are opposed to the war. There has been a crescendo of opposition against the war in the last couple of months.
"So we have a very, very favorable situation in my view for Ehren to take this position, although it is a very risky situation for anyone to place himself in."
Seitz was hired in April after Col. Stephen Townsend, 3rd Brigade commander, rejected Watada's Jan. 26 request to resign his commission.
Seitz said Watada's request for routine 30 days of leave in April before the June Iraqi deployment also was rejected.
In a written statement, the Army at Fort Lewis said, "For a commissioned officer to publicly declare an apparent intent to violate military law by refusing to obey orders is a serious matter and could subject him to adverse action. No decision regarding personnel actions involving 1st Lt. Watada will be made until a thorough review by his commander occurs in accordance with military law."
Watada, who reported to Fort Lewis in June 2005 after spending a tour in South Korea after he was commissioned in the summer of 2003, was supposed to be released from active duty in December. However, under the Army's stop-loss policy, that obligation was extended until early 2007 when the 3rd Brigade returns from Iraq.
In April, Watada again tried to resign his commission, but the Army rejected it, saying his unit was in the stop-loss category and that he still had not fulfilled his service obligation.
The Army said yesterday that Watada could take his case to the U.S. Forces Command at Fort McPherson in Georgia.
Seitz said Watada was never told that he had the option to make such a request. "That's something new," Seitz said. "We will do anything to avoid a confrontation."
Seitz said that until Tuesday the Army has not responded to any of his attempts to find a solution to Watada's situation, which included Watada's willingness to serve out his obligation in any Army unit not headed for Iraq.
On Tuesday, Townsend ordered Watada not talk to the media, especially while he is on duty. That forced Watada to cancel a news conference in Tacoma, Wash., and a planned teleconference in Honolulu during his duty hours. He did, however, hold a news conference in Tacoma after he was off duty.
Townsend also ordered Watada to "refrain from making statements that are disrespectful to the United States, the U.S. Army, the president of the United States and your commander in chief, other civilian and military leaders in your chain of command."
Bob Watada, former executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission, said his son began getting doubts about the Iraq war after he studied about the history of the area because his unit was being sent there.
<b>The younger Watada told the Star-Bulletin, "It was my responsibility as a leader to know everything about" where he was being deployed.
He said his research made him believe that "what we were doing there was wrong, and it also was illegal." He said he was "shocked and at the same time ashamed" that Bush had planned to invade Iraq before the 9/11 attacks. "How could I wear this honorable uniform* now knowing we invaded a country for a lie?"</b>
Watada has drawn the support from various anti-war groups and politicians such as former Gov. Ben Cayetano, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, former Lt. Gov. Jean King, former Rep. Sam Lee and state Sens. Clayton Hee and Clarence Nishihara.
|
|