0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Is there no attorney/cliient privilege in the U.K.?


It's called Legal (advice) privilege in English (and, I think, Scottish as well) law.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:02 pm
Does this not apply to the Prime Minister? It does apply to the U.S. President. A statement of "on advice of attorney" can be blown off as 'convenient for the speaker' but I don't think it can be legally challenged.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:07 pm
Well, the Lord Goldsmith gave this device in his function as a cabinet member and not as Blair's lawyer Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:08 pm
So if that is known, it must be known what Lord Goldsmith's opinion was. So what would be the problem? For that matter, we don't expect the president or his cabinet to divulge all of their private conversations either.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:12 pm
See some of the previous press releases here
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:23 pm
Oh lordy, Walter, I've read the press releases from both sides of the pond ad nauseum. The anti-war writers cite questions of illegality and impropriety and malfeasance. The pro-war writers don't. It's as simple as that. (Remember, I don't trust a lot of what I read in the newspapers any more.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:25 pm
Addendum to previous post: I acknowledge that some writers are only citing what enemies of heads of state are saying. That's why I asked the previous questions. Will Blair be guilty of illegality, impropriety, or malfeasance if he doesn't reveal private conversations that brought him to a particular decision? Or is this just a smoke screen for his enemies to damage him?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:34 pm
Well, today 32 Labour MPs voted against Tony, and within the Labor Party the opposition is even greater.

I really don't think these are his enemies, who want to damage him - they only think, he wasn't right to act as he did.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:39 pm
Transcript from the mentioned Press Conference:

Quote:
Question:

Can I ask, would you describe the parliamentary answer that the Attorney General gave on 17 March 2003 as a fair summary of his formal written legal opinion?

Prime Minister:

Well again I have got nothing to add to what the Attorney General said. He has been over these questions literally scores of times and the position, Gary, has not changed. I know you guys will want to go back into it, and back into it, and back into it.

Question:

But it was presented as a fair summary of his formal legal opinion, was it not?

Prime Minister:

Well that is what he said, and that is what I say.

Question:

... set it out.

Prime Minister:

Honestly Gary, he has dealt with this.

Question:

But he hasn't.

Prime Minister:

Yes he has dealt with it time, and time, and time again. Now I know that some people will not agree, and they are never going to agree about this, but I am sorry there is no point in thinking if ...

Question:

Inaudible.

Prime Minister:

I am sorry Gary, I have answered your question, that is enough.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:43 pm
Well going on nothing other than gut instinct in what was happening in that exchange, I'm going to take Blair's side. He answered the question.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:48 pm
Quote:
Attorney General Rejects Iraq Claims

By Gavin Cordon, PA Whitehall Editor


The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, tonight denied reports that a parliamentary answer he issued on the legal case for the war with Iraq had been drawn up in No 10 Downing Street.

In a written statement, he rejected claims that the answer had been drafted in No 10 by Lord Falconer of Thoroton - then a Home Office minister - and the Prime Minister's director of political relations, Baroness Morgan.

He said that the answer had been prepared in his own office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials and a QC, Christopher Greenwood.

The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was also consulted.

"I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer," he said.

"No other minister or official was involved in any way.
Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 02:55 pm
So what does that mean in your opinion, Walter?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 03:00 pm
I'm not sure, but I do have an unpleasant feeling.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 04:08 pm
February 25, 2005, 7:46 a.m.
Merchants of Despair
Sort of for the war, sort of...

Much of the recent domestic critique of American efforts in the Middle East has long roots in our own past ?- and little to do with the historic developments on the ground in Iraq

1. "It's America's fault."

Some on the hard left sought to cite our support for Israel or general "American imperialism" in the Middle East as culpable for bin Laden's wrath on September 11. Past American efforts to save Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan counted for little. Even less thanks were earned by billions of dollars given to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The Islamofascist vision of a Dark Age world run by unelected imams ?- where women were in seclusion, homosexuals were killed, Jews were terrorized, Christians were routed, and freedom was squelched ?- registered little, even though such visions were by definition at war with all that Western liberalism stands for.

This flawed idea that autocrats supposedly hate democracy more for what it does rather than for what it represents is not new. On the eve of World War II isolationists on the right insisted that America had treated Germany unfairly after World War I and wrongly sided with British imperialism in its efforts to rub in their past defeat. "International Jewry" was blamed for poisoning the good will between the two otherwise friendly countries by demanding punitive measures from a victimized Germany. Likewise, poor Japan was supposedly unfairly cut off from American ore and petroleum, and hemmed in by provocative Anglo Americans.

By the late 1940s things had changed, and now it was the turn of the old Left, which blamed "fascists" for ruining the hallowed American-Soviet wartime alliance by "isolating" and "surrounding" the Russians with hostile bases and allies. The same was supposedly true of China: We were lectured ad nauseam by idealists and "China hands" that Mao "really" wanted to cultivate American friendship, but was spurned by our right-wing ideologues ?- as if there were nothing of the absolutism and innate thuggery in him that would soon account for 50 million or more murdered and starved.

Ditto the animosity from dictators like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. The Left assured us instead that both were actually neo-Jeffersonians whose olive branches were crushed by Cold Warriors, and who then ?- but only then ?- went on to plan their own gulags in Vietnam and Cuba.

2. "Americans are weak."

Before we went into Afghanistan, we were hectored that the country's fierce people, colonial history, rugged terrain, hostile neighbors, foreign religion, and shattered infrastructure made victory unlikely. We also forget now how the Left warned us of terrible casualties and millions of refugees before the Iraq war, and then went dormant until the insurgents emerged. At that point it resurfaced to assure that Iraq was lost and precipitate withdrawal our only hope, only to grow quiet again after the recent Iraqi election ?- a cycle that followed about the same 20-month timetable of military victory to voting in Afghanistan.

Now a new geopolitical litany has arisen: The reserves are "shattered"; North Korea, Syria, and Iran are untouchable while we are "bogged down" in the Sunni Triangle; a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq needs to be spelled out; there is no real American-trained Iraqi army; the entire Arab world hates us; blah, blah, blah...

In 1917, "a million men over there" was considered preposterous for a Potemkin American Expeditionary Force; by late 1918 it was chasing Germany out of Belgium. Charles Lindbergh returned from an obsequious visitation with Goering to warn us that the Luftwaffe was unstoppable. Four years later it was in shambles as four-engine American bombers reduced the Third Reich to ashes.

Japanese Zeroes, supposed proof of comparative American backwardness in 1941-2, were the easy targets of "Turkey Shoots" by 1944 as American fighters blew them out of the skies. Sputnik "proved" how far we were behind the socialist workhorse in Russia, even as we easily went to the moon first a little over a decade later. The history of the American military and economy in the 20th century is one of being habitually underestimated, even as the United States defeated Prussian imperialism, German Nazism, Italian fascism, Japanese militarism, and Stalinist Communism.

Nor in our more recent peacetime were we buried by stagflation, Jimmy Carter's "malaise," Japan, Inc., and all the other supposed bogeymen that were prophesized to overwhelm the institutional strength of the American state, its free-enterprise system, and the highly innovative and individualistic nature of the American people.

3. "They are supermen."

When suicide murderers dominated the news of the Intifada, followed by the car bombers and beheaders of the Sunni Triangle, many in the West despaired that there was no thwarting such fanatics. Perhaps they simply believed more in their cause than we did in ours. How can you stop someone who kills to die rather than merely dying to kill?

That Ariel Sharon in two years defeated the Intifada by decapitating the Hamas leadership, starting the fence, announcing withdrawal from Gaza, and humiliating Arafat was forgotten. In the same manner few now write or think about how the United States military went into the heart of darkness in Fallujah and simply destroyed or routed the insurgents of that fundamentalist stronghold in less than two weeks, an historic operation that ensured a successful turnout on election day and an eventual takeover by an elected Iraqi government.

So this paradox of exaggerating the strength of our weaker enemies is likewise an American trademark. Spiked-helmeted Prussians were considered vicious pros who would make short work of doughboy hicks who had trained with brooms and sticks. Indeed, the German imperial army of World War I may have been made up of the most formidable foot soldiers of any age. Still, it was destroyed in less than four years by supposedly decadent and corrupt liberal democracies.

The Gestapo was the vanguard of a new Aryan super-race, pitiless and proud in its martial superiority. How could soda-jockeys of the Depression ever fight something like the Waffen SS with poor equipment, little training, and a happy-go-lucky attitude rather than an engrained death wish? Rather easily as it turned out, as the Allies not only defeated Nazism but literally annihilated it in about five years. Kamikazes were also felt to be otherworldly in their eerie death cult ?- who, after all, in the United States would take off to ram his Corsair or Hellcat into a Japanese ship? No matter ?- the U.S. Navy, Marines, and Army Air Corps were not impressed, and rather quickly destroyed not merely the death pilots but the very culture that launched them.

4. "We are alone."

George Bush was said to have alienated the world, as if our friends in Eastern Europe, Britain, Australia, and a billion in India did not matter. Yet the same was said in 1941 when Latin America, Asia, and Africa were in thrall to the Axis. Neutrals like Spain, Argentina, and Turkey wanted little to do with a disarmed United States that had unwisely found itself in a two-front war with the world's most formidable military powers.

By the 1950s we seemed to have defeated Germany and Japan only to have subsequently "lost" China and Eastern Europe once more. Much of Asia and Latin America deified the mass-murdering Stalin and Mao while deriding elected American presidents. The Richard Clarks and Joe Wilsons of that age lectured about a paranoid Eisenhower administration, clumsy CIA work, and the general hopelessness of ever defeating global Communism, whose spores sprouted almost everywhere in the form of Nasserism, Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Castroism, and various "national liberationist" movements.

5. Why?

Why do Americans do all this to themselves? In part, the nature of an open society is constant self-critique, especially at times of national elections. Our successes at creating an affluent and free citizenry also only raise the bar ever higher as we sense we are closer to heaven on earth ?- and with a little more perfection could walk more like gods than crawl as mere men.

There are also still others among us who are impatient with the give and take of a consensual society. They harbor a secret admiration for the single-mindedness of the zealot in pursuit of a utopian cause ?- hence the occasional crazy applause given by some Americans to the beheading "Minutemen" of the Sunni Triangle or the "brave" "combat teams" who killed 3,000 on September 11.

Finally, the intellectual class that we often read and hear from is increasingly divorced from much of what makes America work, especially the sort of folk who join the military. They have little appreciation that the U.S. Marine Corps is far more deadly than Baathist diehards or Taliban remnants ?- or that a fleet of American bombers with GPS bombs can do more damage in a few seconds than most of the suicide bombers of the Middle East could do in a year.

It is wise to cite and publicize our errors ?- and there have been many in this war. Humility and circumspection are military assets as well. And we should not deprecate the danger of our enemies, who are cruel and ingenious. Moreover, we should never confuse the sharp dissent of the well-meaning critic with disloyalty to the cause.

But nor should we fall into pessimism, when in less than four years we have destroyed the two worst regimes in the Middle East, scattered al Qaeda, avoided another promised 9/11 at home, and sent shock waves of democracy throughout the Arab world ?- so far at an aggregate cost of less than what was incurred on the first day of this unprovoked war. Car bombs are bad news, but in the shadows is the real story: The terrorists are losing, and radical reform, the likes of which millions have never seen, is right on the horizon. So this American gloominess is not new. Yet, if the past is any guide, our present lack of optimism in this struggle presages its ultimate success.

A final prediction: By the end of this year, formerly critical liberal pundits, backsliding conservative columnists, once-fiery politicians, Arab "moderates," ex-statesmen and generals emeriti, smug stand-up comedians, recently strident Euros ?- perhaps even Hillary herself ?- will quietly come to a consensus that what we are witnessing from Afghanistan and the West Bank to Iraq and beyond, with its growing tremors in Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, and the Gulf, is a moral awakening, a radical break with an ugly past that threatens a corrupt, entrenched, and autocratic elite and is just the sort of thing that they were sort of for, sort of all along ?- sort of...
.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200502250746.asp
     
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 04:52 pm
This is a bit off the subject but is food for thought and discussion among lovers of democracy and freedom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 25, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Thrown to the Wolves
By BOB HERBERT

OTTAWA

If John Ashcroft was right, then I was staring into the malevolent, duplicitous eyes of pure evil, the eyes of a man with the mass murder of Americans on his mind. But all I could really see was a polite, unassuming, neatly dressed guy who looked like a suburban Little League coach.

If Mr. Ashcroft was right, then Maher Arar should have been in a U.S. prison, not talking to me in an office in downtown Ottawa. But there he was, a 34-year-old man who now wears a perpetually sad expression, talking about his recent experiences - a real-life story with the hideous aura of a hallucination. Mr. Arar's 3-year-old son, Houd, loudly crunched potato chips while his father was being interviewed.

"I still have nightmares about being in Syria, being beaten, being in jail," said Mr. Arar. "They feel very real. When I wake up, I feel very relieved to find myself in my room."

In the fall of 2002 Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined.

Mr. Arar was surreptitiously flown out of the United States to Jordan and then driven to Syria, where he was kept like a nocturnal animal in an unlit, underground, rat-infested cell that was the size of a grave. From time to time he was tortured.

He wept. He begged not to be beaten anymore. He signed whatever confessions he was told to sign. He prayed.

Among the worst moments, he said, were the times he could hear babies crying in a nearby cell where women were imprisoned. He recalled hearing one woman pleading with a guard for several days for milk for her child.

He could hear other prisoners screaming as they were tortured.

"I used to ask God to help them," he said.

The Justice Department has alleged, without disclosing any evidence whatsoever, that Mr. Arar is a member of, or somehow linked to, Al Qaeda. If that's so, how can the administration possibly allow him to roam free? The Syrians, who tortured him, have concluded that Mr. Arar is not linked in any way to terrorism.

And the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a sometimes-clownish outfit that seems to have helped set this entire fiasco in motion by forwarding bad information to American authorities, is being criticized heavily in Canada for failing to follow its own rules on the handling and dissemination of raw classified information.

Official documents in Canada suggest that Mr. Arar was never the target of a terror investigation there. One former Canadian official, commenting on the Arar case, was quoted in a local newspaper as saying "accidents will happen" in the war on terror.

Whatever may have happened in Canada, nothing can excuse the behavior of the United States in this episode. Mr. Arar was deliberately dispatched by U.S. officials to Syria, a country that - as they knew - practices torture. And if Canadian officials hadn't intervened, he most likely would not have been heard from again.

Mr. Arar is the most visible victim of the reprehensible U.S. policy known as extraordinary rendition, in which individuals are abducted by American authorities and transferred, without any legal rights whatever, to a regime skilled in the art of torture. The fact that some of the people swallowed up by this policy may in fact have been hard-core terrorists does not make it any less repugnant.

Mr. Arar, who is married and also has an 8-year-old daughter, said the pain from some of the beatings he endured lasted for six months.

"It was so scary," he said. "After a while I became like an animal."

A lawsuit on Mr. Arar's behalf has been filed against the United States by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the center, noted yesterday that the government is arguing that none of Mr. Arar's claims can even be adjudicated because they "would involve the revelation of state secrets."

This is a government that feels it is answerable to no one.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 05:27 pm
YES, WE'RE A FLAWED PEOPLE, BUT .............

These are the facts of Iraq:

1. The Iraqi people risked their lives to establish a democracy of their own design;

2. The Iraqi people want the US to help end Iraqi dependence on US troops for securing Iraqi democracy;

3. The US is eager for the Iraqi government to ask the US to remove its troops from Iraq;

4. When the Iraqi government tells the US to remove its troops from Iraq, the US will remove its troops from Iraq.

The Iraqi people will establish a democratic government that:

1. Is the Iraqis' own design;

2. Doesn't murder civilians in Iraq;

3. Prevents murderers of civilians in other countries from locating in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 05:36 pm
Operation River Blitz continues with help from Iraqi citizens

CAMP BLUE DIAMOND, Iraq

Iraqi and U.S. forces continued increased security operations by raiding a mosque, detaining 17 suspected insurgents and seizing several weapons caches throughout the Al Anbar province as Operation River Blitz rolled on for a fifth day.

Those detained Feb. 24 bring to 104 the number of suspected insurgents detained since Operation River Blitz began Sunday.

In Haqlaniyah, Iraqi soldiers from the Freedom Guard Battalion, Iraqi National Guard, and U.S. Marines from Regimental Combat Team-7, 1st Marine Division, conducted a joint raid on a mosque that produced six detainees and insurgent propaganda at approximately 12:30 p.m. The Freedom Guards cleared the mosque as U.S. Marines provided security outside.

North of Ar Ramadi, a local civilian directed a U.S. Marine combat patrol to an improvised-explosive device, which consisted of four 105 mm artillery rounds that were daisy-chained together in a brown bag hidden underneath a pile of leaves at approximately 10:00 a.m.

At approximately 11:15 a.m. in the central portion of the city, insurgents shot an Iraqi citizen in the abdomen when they fired a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire at U.S. Marines. The Marines provided medical treatment to the injured civilian after immediately returning fire at the insurgents, who fled the area.

In southern Fallujah, an Iraqi civilian guided a U.S. Marine patrol to a weapons cache, which consisted of one 82 mm mortar round, seven 57 mm rounds, three 23 mm rounds and one 30 mm round at approximately 1 p.m. Earlier in the day, another Iraqi civilian guided another U.S. Marine patrol to a weapons cache in the southeastern portion of the city that consisted of one missile warhead, 100 pounds of TNT and one 120 mm mortar round.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20050217.txt
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 05:51 pm
JW, It will require the involvement of Iraqi's to get their control under security for their own citizens. That's the only way it will work, because any other way will be seen as an occupation by all Arabs/Muslims.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 05:56 pm
c.i. - Yes, it's encouraging to read reports such as this, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 06:33 pm
JustWonders wrote:
c.i. - Yes, it's encouraging to read reports such as this, isn't it?

NO, actually it's not. You see I'm a liberal and there just seems to something in me that desires chaos, mayhem and rioting in the streets, so you see I'm very disappointed when I see things going well anywhere. It's to the point where I won't even read anything with a postive slant, it just ruins the day for me. Well, here's wishing and hoping that every damn arab dies a violent death, the children starve the women are stoned to death and all the young men and women engage in homosexual marriage eliminating the possibility of further progeny. I can't help myself I'm sure it's genetic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 01:32:31