Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Since the end of hostilities with the Kurds, which was back in 1992, the ruling had been finished. There was a reason Powell spoke to the UN, and there was a reason the US tried to push the UN to invade. A new ruling was necessary to invade Iraq for WMD charges.
|
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The resolutions previously referenced have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraqs treatment of the Kurds. The only two SC resolutions passed in 1992 were 773 and 778, niether of which have anything to do with the Kurds. As I stated before, any attempt to push a resolution through the SC prior to the invasion of Iraq was done for PR purposes only, the legal justification already existed, it was only the moral justification we lacked (and still do).
Quote:
|
Misrepresenting intel on a country in order to reach a favorable ruling would have probably landed us off the security council.
|
And how would that have happened? Perhaps you need to re-familiarize yourself with the UN charter, but the only body within the UN that can pass binding resolutions is the Security Council, and since the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, it is very unlikely they would approve of themselves being removed from the council.
Quote:
|
That's not how it works. First, they laid down their arms and stopped their attack on the Kurds. There was a ceasefire. It wasn't permanent, but the council didn't require a permanent ceasefire. The weapons inspectors never found anything. The matter was closed, and it was just about sending inspectors in every now and then to make sure he wasn't a threat. He was an idiot and kicked them out now and again, but they never found anything.
|
Again, the Kurdish issue was not dealt with by the UN in any of these resolutions. There is a very good reason that all of the resolutions from 660 to 1557 are titled "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait ". This is not a coincidence. The UN understands that the entire chain of events is linked to the invasion of Kuwait and Iraqs failure to abide by UNSC resolutions. Resolution 687 stated that inspectors would be given free and unfettered access to all sites they deemed worthy of inspection. They never, NEVER recieved that access, so to casually state that they never found anything is sheer hypocracy, especially if your argument is founded on the (erronious) premise that the US is guilty of violating the UN charter.
Quote:
“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.. "Military Commissions Act of 2006".
Not only that, but:
"Originally Posted by Alberto Gonzales
The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000
This means that aliens or civilians are no longer protected.
|
First off, the statement by Gonzales is just that, a statement. It is not policy, and would not withstand judicial review if it were. Second, the MCA does not refer to aliens as whole, but those specifically detained as enemy combatants. This too has been overturned via judical review. So how does this compare, in even the most remote way to:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ermächtigungsgesetz
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.
Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.
Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.
The US invaded Iraq under the guise of WMDs and links to 9/11 and then the populace either actively participated in or turned a blind eye to the military conquest of Iraq, including rapes, pillaging, and the systematic murder of 600,000-1,000,000 Iraqis.
|
Quote:
Germany legally gave Hitler the power to do what he wished to do because he managed to trick everyone in Germany into thinking that Communists and Jews were behind terrorist attacks and used them as a way to enrage and make militant the populace....
Bush and Bushco lied to the public about who was responsible for 9/11 by linking it to Saddam, and said that Saddam had the capability to strike and kill Americans, and use them as a way to enrage and make militant the populace.
|
And JFK used the same fear and hysteria of communism to justify the troop increase in Vietnam in the early Sixties. Is he a Nazi as well?
Quote:
|
Not seeing the eery similarity does insulting to those who gave their lives in WWII to stop tyranny, tyranny like we're starting to see develop here in the US. No, this isn't WWII, but you can't ignore the glaring similitude.
|
I think you are far too quick to jump on the Nazi bandwagon, will. Throughout history there have been poor leaders who put thier nations to war for poor reasons and use hysteria as thier proschema. None of them, with the possible exception of Stalin and Tamerlane have risen to the the level of moral apathy (or outright evil) that the Nazis have, and to use them as a benchmark to measure the United States shows a carelessness in your reason, or worse, a agenda in your argument.