0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 07:13 pm
icant and Bush wants "decmoracy" for Iraq, but we don't have democracy at home nor provide human rights to our prisoners. What are "we" fighting for?

Rice 'to talk tough on CIA claim'
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to go on the offensive over EU concerns that the US has operated secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.
According to media reports in both the US and UK, Ms Rice will tell European allies to "back off" over the issue.

Last month the EU wrote to Ms Rice expressing misgivings over the alleged jails and reports CIA planes carrying detainees had stopped in EU countries.

Ms Rice said she would respond to the EU before a visit to Europe on Monday.

Change of tack

The Washington Post newspaper first reported on 2 November that the CIA had been using Soviet-era camps in eastern Europe to detain and interrogate terror suspects.

In response to that and further media reports of possible violations of international law Britain formally wrote to the US, on behalf the EU, to ask for "clarification".


When it comes to human rights, there is no greater leader than the United States of America, and we show that by holding people accountable when they break the law or violate human rights
White House spokesman Scott McClellan

"It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this,'' a European diplomat, who has been speaking to the US officials drafting Ms Rice's response, told the New York Times. "They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly."

Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern told the New York Times that Ms Rice told him in Washington that she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses.

The US has refused to confirm or deny the reports and according to the Washington Post, Ms Rice has no plans to acknowledge the prisons.

Solidarity call

According to the daily, Ms Rice will insist that intelligence co-operation between the US and Europe is necessary to prevent future terror attacks and call upon European governments to do more to emphasise this to their citizens.

"The key point will be 'We're all in this together and you need to look at yourselves as much as us,' " one official said to the Washington Post, on condition of anonymity. "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."


A day after news of the alleged prisons emerged Human Rights Watch said it had evidence indicating that the CIA transported terror suspects captured in Afghanistan to Poland and Romania.

Poland and Romania have denied ever playing host to the alleged prisons.

A US rights group, the American Civil Liberties Union, announced on Friday that it was taking the CIA to court over what it said was the violation of both US and international law.

The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.

Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.

German claims

On Friday White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the US does not violate human rights.

"When it comes to human rights, there is no greater leader than the United States of America, and we show that by holding people accountable when they break the law or violate human rights," he said.


On Saturday, Germany emerged as the latest country suspected of being used as a landing spot for secret CIA flights.

The German government has a list of at least 437 flights suspected of being operated by the CIA in German airspace, according to a German magazine.

Der Spiegel said the aircraft had made landings in Berlin, Frankfurt and the US airbase at Ramstein.

Two planes alone accounted for 137 and 146 uses of airspace or landings in 2002 and 2003, the magazine reported.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4497006.stm

This after Bush wanted congress to approve torture of prisoners.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 07:50 pm
Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, notes 75 and 76.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


One more time: No connection between al Qaeda and Saddam in any attacks on the USA.
Quote:
... But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.


But that of course does not contradict or preclude tolerance for (i.e., harboring) al Qaeda camps in Iraq as of December 2001:
Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam ...


The USA invaded and destroyed the Ansar al-Islam camps after we invaded Iraq.
Quote:
"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
... Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists,
...
... Special Forces ... leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:01 pm
echos come off the canyon walls seemingly for an eternity? we really won in Vietnam, didn't we?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:03 pm
Hey Ican, always keep your nose up and remember dead reckoning means those maps are flat, you can ignore the mountains.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:15 pm
dyslexia : you really calls them as you sees them , dont'cha ? damn you !
i say the earth is flat ! hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:15 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
... but we don't ... provide human rights to our prisoners.

Our terrorist prisoners, before their capture, did not provide human rights to the civilians they or their cohorts murdered. They did not provide human rights to the civilians they or their cohorts captured and murdered. They did not provide human rights to the combatants they or their cohorts captured and murdered. They do not recognize the human right to life. They thereby sacrifice their own humanity and any and all the attendant rights of humanity.

Our prisoners deserve to be exterminated (i.e., killed) and not captured and not provided food, clothing, shelter, and Korans. The only reason for keeping these prisoners alive is to interrogate them when and whereever we want in the hope of learning what we need to know to stop their cohorts from murdering more civilians and more prisoner combatants -- and to help exterminate their cohorts too.

It's a very simple equation. These murderers will kill humanity if humanity doesn't kill these murderers first. These murderers are not mere criminals; they are a malignancy of humanity.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:21 pm
does it follow from that , that a murderer is not entitled to due process under the law and the protection under it ? hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:23 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Hey Ican, always keep your nose up and remember dead reckoning means those maps are flat, you can ignore the mountains.
Laughing
I use all the navigation aids available to my nose, including my own eyes and brain. That works for me and my nose.

What works for your nose?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:24 pm
The only malignancy in this world is people like you who would be judge, jury and executioner - without any rights to legal representation nor basic human rights and dignity. You are a sad excuse for an American.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:45 pm
hamburger wrote:
does it follow from that , that a murderer is not entitled to due process under the law and the protection under it ? hbg

No! It doesn't follow for, apply to, all murderers. It applies just to those murderers and their abettors who have actually declared war on civilians everywhere, declared their intention to murder civilians everywhere, and are in process of killing civilians everywhere, and/or are abettors of those in process of killing civilians everywhere.

By the way:
Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; ...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 08:58 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The only malignancy in this world is people like you who would be judge, jury and executioner - without any rights to legal representation nor basic human rights and dignity. You are a sad excuse for an American.


I've never killed or injured anyone, let alone murdered anyone. I would kill in self-defense or defense of those I love. (Believe it or not, those I love include, but are not limited to, people like you who repeatedly mis-state my position.)

One more time: Those people and/or their cohorts and/or their abettors, who have declared war against civilians, and who have declared their intention to murder civilians, and who have murdered civilians, do not have any rights whatsoever "to legal representation nor to basic human rights and dignity."

Those who think otherwise are either fools or frauds.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 09:16 pm
Nor has George W. Bush, but he's also a malignancy just like you!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 09:18 pm
I hold:

That all people are created equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Among government's just powers are those powers that enable it to stop those people from doing so, who have declared or are declaring they will deny, other persons their unalienable rights.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 09:24 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nor has George W. Bush, but he's also a malignancy just like you!

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 09:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:

But that of course does not contradict or preclude tolerance for (i.e., harboring) al Qaeda camps in Iraq as of December 2001:
Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam ...




Saddam's treatment of al-Anser, (a militant fundy group in northern Iraq), proves that he hated bin Laden.

Saddam was fighting the Kurds. al-Qaeda had an ally in Iraq, (al Anser), which was also fighting the Kurds. Even though al Anser was fighting the same Kurds that Saddam was, Saddam was still attacking al Anser because al Anser was bin Laden's ally. That's right. You would think that strategically, Saddam would lay off al Anser, since they had a common enemy. But Saddam fought al -Anser merely because he was allied with bin Laden.

Finally, bin Laden struck a deal with Saddam, Lay off al Anser-who is fighting the same enemy you are, Saddam-and I will cease giving money and aid to other groups who are fighting you.

Since sl Anser was fighting the same Kurds that Saddam was, Saddam found it strategically useful to make the deal, and he laid off bin Laden's ally.

But Saddam so hated bin Laden, that he was willing to attack bin Laden's ally in Iraq-even though bin Laden's ally was fighting Saddam's enemy, the Kurds.

Far from proving ties between Saddam and bin Laden, Saddam's treatment of al-Anser proves that bin Laden and Hussein were sworn enemies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 10:23 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Saddam's treatment of al-Anser, (a militant fundy group in northern Iraq), proves that he hated bin Laden.
...
Far from proving ties between Saddam and bin Laden, Saddam's treatment of al-Anser proves that bin Laden and Hussein were sworn enemies.


ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

If you have any EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, it should include specific chapter and page and/or note references at:
9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

I eagerly await your response. I encourage you to post copies of whole sentences and/or paragraphs as appropriate, and not merely clauses out of context. If you don't, I will.

Also, please remember, I am talking about Ansar al Islam and not al-Anser. Ansar al Islam was established in Iraq with bin Laden's help in December 2001, after 9/11/2001 and after USA invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 12:00 pm
Sorry, the 9/11 commission isn't a trusted source. They didn't find out the truth about anything, except for the fact that some buildings got blown up and apparently noone was at fault. I don't buy it.

In other news:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001614034

Quote:
AP Shocker: Iraq VP Disputes Bush on Training of Forces


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 12:41 pm
You know I've been very critical of the inept handling of the aftermath of the invasion by American leadership. But the situation down south in Basra under "control" of the Brits is an absolute farce. We invade with too few troops. To help us subdue the sunni ba'athist insurgents we enlist the help of the shi'ite militia. We give them police cars and weapons, and they actually did quite a good job, there is not much trouble around Basra. But thats only because the government of Iran doesnt want to cause much trouble just now. The British forces stay on base or occasionally patrol out, if they get permission from the civil authority, and most of the time, Tehran grants it. No wonder their new President is grinning from ear to ear and announced today they are going ahead with building a second nuclear facility to produce fissile material.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 12:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sorry, the 9/11 commission isn't a trusted source. They didn't find out the truth about anything, except for the fact that some buildings got blown up and apparently noone was at fault. I don't buy it. ...

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 12:56 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
... the situation down south in Basra under "control" of the Brits is an absolute farce. We invade with too few troops. To help us subdue the sunni ba'athist insurgents we enlist the help of the shi'ite militia. We give them police cars and weapons, and they actually did quite a good job, there is not much trouble around Basra.
Rolling Eyes
Whoa! Wait a mo'! Which do you prefer:
1. The coalition doing little policing of Iraq and the Iraqis doing much policing of Iraq?
2. The coalition doing much policing of Iraq and the Iraqis doing little policing of Iraq?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
... But thats only because the government of Iran doesnt want to cause much trouble just now. ...

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegation is at best your baseless opinion, and at worst your compulsive fantasy.
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2025 at 10:36:39