1
   

Not As Important As Terri Schiavo But....

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 06:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
What were they warning about? It certainly wasn't that Saddam did not have any WMD's.

They were warning that the evidence the US brandished and Colin Powell eventually brought to the UN about how Saddam purportedly did still have WMD, was unconvincing and inconclusive. That we didn't know for sure whether he still had them, and thus should give the inspectors more time. Remember the German Foreign Minister turning to Rumsfeld, in public, at an international summit, and telling him, "I am not convinced"?

Well, it turns out they were right to be unconvinced.

McGentrix wrote:
There also were no countries that did not have their own self-interest as motivation to opposing the war in Iraq.

No? Out of the 14 UN Security Council members at the time, only four had declared their support for the resolution the US was then still planning to bring to authorise war. Not just France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria were against; a coalition of remaining members that the US was still wooing turned against it too. Mexico, Angola, Chile and Pakistan instead came up with a compromise proposal that also insisted on a further waiting time while the inspectors kept on inspecting. The American government instantly rejected it.

(But then again you know this already, because we went through exactly the same conversation, you and me, back in January and before that, in September 2003.)

What would you say was the self-interest of, say, Chile, Mexico or Angola in opposing the war?

Outside the SC, a country like Greece opposed the war too (to just pick a random one). So did Norway and Finland I believe. And Austria. And South-Africa. And ... well, stop me before I rattle off a list of European, Asian, Latin-American and African countries. And their self-interest would be?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 10:46 pm
I was always convinced it was about oil and the never-ending series of changing reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq confirms that. But in a perverse sort of way I can see the problem.

How can anyone stand up and say to their population "we're low on gas, we need to get gas and the biggest gas station in the world might not give it to us. So we're gonna get it. We're gonna invade and occupy the gas station. We're gonna get rid of the manager and we're gonna replace him with one that WILL give us gas. Now you have to understand, the gas won't be cheaper, in fact it will be more expensive but we will at least have it. What say you?"

I mean who's going to say no? But you can bet that if that was said then someone would have blabbed to the rest of the world. So there had to be lies - plausible lies of course.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 06:48 am
As it turns out the only gas were getting from Iraq is the kind that rumbles in your stomach.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 10:32 am
Quote:
Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions



'Unaccountable' Judiciary Raises Ire

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A07



Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable.

In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.
"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."

Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

Liberal activists criticized Cornyn's remarks, and compared them to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments last week following the death of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. DeLay (R-Tex.) rebuked federal and state judges who had ruled in the Schiavo case, saying, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said last night that Cornyn, "like Tom DeLay, should know better. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and could be seen by some as justifying inexcusable conduct against our courts." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called the senator's remarks "an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are 'unaccountable' to the public."

Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart declined to speculate on what instances of violence the senator had in mind. "He was talking about things that have come up and concerned him," Stewart said.

In his speech, Cornyn criticized the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on March 1 that said it is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. "In so holding," Cornyn said, "the U.S. Supreme Court said: We are no longer going to leave this in the hands of jurors. We do not trust jurors. We are no longer going to leave this up to the elected representatives of the people of the respective states."

In a recent New York Times article, John Kane, a senior judge in the U.S. District Court for Colorado, wrote: "Since 1970, 10 state and federal judges have been murdered, seven of them in job-related incidents. Those who threaten judges are almost always disturbed individuals seeking revenge. . . . Of the three federal judges killed in the last quarter-century, all were killed by men disgruntled with their treatment from the federal judicial system."



It would seem that this senator is condoning or at the very least justifying the violence visited against the judiciary of this nation. To begin with the judges have a far more difficult job than any senator. They have to make a lonely decision while this senator only has to go along with the herd.
In addition remarks such as this only fosters violence. I would add the senator needs some help in understanding that there are three branches of government each charged with it's own responsibility and power.
0 Replies
 
Prospero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 03:21 pm
I find, in my experience, that, generally speaking, politicians charge judges with "judicial activism" and being unaccountable and similar sins when they do not approve of the decisions.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 03:48 pm
I'm stunned that this bloke could say these things as he is a former Texas Supreme Court judge and Attorney-General. Just proves that some politicians leave both their memory and their principles at the chamber door.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 02:22:45