Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

All the other 'justifications' meant nothing, as they weren't enough to go to war on. They weren't strong enough justifications for the aggressive invasion of a sovreign country.

Naturally, this is why the Bush admin pimped the WMD issue so hard. And at the time, I guarantee that was the reason we went to war. You're deluding yourself if you think any differently. I don't understand how you could; you were there. You remember what the reasons given were.

Lawyers can draw up documents to justify anything, if they like. Doesn't mean anything. We had no moral justification for what we did. Bush and his crew had to invent lies in order to convince people that there was a moral justification. You can't forget that part now that the lies have been exposed, even if you try.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

All the other 'justifications' meant nothing, as they weren't enough to go to war on. They weren't strong enough justifications for the aggressive invasion of a sovreign country.

Naturally, this is why the Bush admin pimped the WMD issue so hard. And at the time, I guarantee that was the reason we went to war. You're deluding yourself if you think any differently. I don't understand how you could; you were there. You remember what the reasons given were.

Lawyers can draw up documents to justify anything, if they like. Doesn't mean anything. We had no moral justification for what we did. Bush and his crew had to invent lies in order to convince people that there was a moral justification. You can't forget that part now that the lies have been exposed, even if you try.

Cycloptichorn

It is you who are deluding yourself, Cyclo. Conditions of ceasefire are not unlike conditions of parole in that when you violate the conditions; it may be revoked. Just take this tiny excerpt, for example:

Quote:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

I have trouble believing there is an intelligent being in the entire universe that honestly believes, our defeated foe doesn't violate the conditions of ceasefire by firing repeatedly at our forces (Let alone thousands of times). Nope; no one could be that dense. Idea

Roxxxanne wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Most of us now realize our aggression was a crime against a sovereign nation.
occom bill wrote:
Who is this "us" you refer to? Most of us, who are even vaguely aware of the facts know that is utter nonsense.

Since when does 24% equal "most?"

24%

Are you suggesting the other 76% believe it was a crime? There's plenty of room to believe it a mistake, even a horrible mistake, without regurgitating nonsense about it being a crime. Please source your stats, if you doubt the obvious truth in my rebuttal.

0 Replies

For one, Bush chased out the UN Weapon's Inspectors. For another, the War Crimes Tribunal declared it a "crime against humanity."

Crime against humanity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Crimes against humanity)
Jump to: navigation, search
In international law a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.[1]

The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion."[2]

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Watch Kofi Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

0 Replies

"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.

Nothing Bush and Blair, their cluster-bombing boys and their media court do now will change the truth of their great crime in Iraq. It is a matter of record, understood by the majority of humanity, if not by those who claim to speak for "us". As Denis Halliday said of the Anglo-American embargo against Iraq, it will "slaughter them in the history books". It was Halliday who, as assistant secretary general of the United Nations, set up the "oil for food" programme in Iraq in 1996 and quickly realised that the UN had become an instrument of "a genocidal attack on a whole society". He resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who described "the wanton and shaming punishment of a nation".

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3426&sectionID=1

0 Replies

"Shock and awe" was the language of the day when Bush initiated his illegal attack against a sovereign nation. People forget so quickly.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The hottest fires in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
(Edmund Burke)

If there's any truth in Edmund Burke's quote then you're really going to sizzle, Bill. You make a mockery of this quote. While innocents the world over have died and continue to die because of the greed of the USA, you do nothing but provide cover for these rapacious murderers.

0 Replies

Merry Fitzmas, everyone!

0 Replies

For God's sake Tak,
In order: Annan? Are you shitting me? His family wasn't benefiting from the biggest scam in history (oil for food)? Your next tidbit ignores the factual record of the ceasefire and undeniable violations of same. Then you bring Halliday, in bold print no less despite the FACT he's referencing the Embargo, not the attack (you know, the one Annan profited on before Bush and Blair ended it)? Pretty sloppy work, my friend. But you have a merry Christmas anyway. :wink:

0 Replies

http://www.bushcommission.org/Findings/Final%20Verdict.pdf

0 Replies

Under international law set by the Nuremberg precedent, crimes against humanity are distinguished from mere domestic crimes by virtue of their "scope," or "mass nature." Mass nature is defined by two criteria: (1) a large number of victims; and/or (2) a systematic state policy. Massacres also have a mass nature, but their tendency to happen via police action and/or under martial law usually make them count as war crimes (but see Prof. Kuper's 1981 notion of "genocidal massacre" which counts small-scale massacres as genocides). In addition to having the character of a mass nature, in order to qualify under international law as a crime against humanity, it must be shown that the targeted groups -- social groups, political groups, racial groups, religious groups, or other groups -- were targeted for mass murder because of their status as a group. According to some who equate mass murder with genocide (e.g., Gellately & Kiernan 2003), an act of genocide constitutes a crime against humanity, i.e., any use of the terms "genocide" or "mass murder" automatically imply all the Nuremberg criteria for a crime against humanity are fulfilled. However, it was not until 1948 that the term "genocide" found its way into the vocabulary of international law via the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which didn't go into effect until 1951, and then only after extensive lobbying by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. The US didn't become a signatory until 1988, and then only after adding a proviso that it was immune from prosecution without its consent, a proviso copied by 50 Other Nations which are Nonparties to the Convention. There are different ways different scholars have approached the definition of genocide (e.g., Harff's 1984 concept of "politi-cides;" Chalk & Jonassohn's 1990 sociological definition of "one-sided mass slaughter;" Rummel's 1997 concept of "democide" or government-sponsored killings other than capital punishment; and Power 's 2003 "race-murder" conception). Additional terms that can be found in the literature are ethnocide (a term commonly used by sociologists of race relations), culturecide (an anthropological term for the disappearance of a culture), and the phrase "cultural genocide" which presumably refers to the attempt to destroy the cultural heritage of a people. However, the 1948 Convention defines genocide as follows:

killing members of a group

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group

Deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3040/3040lect06.htm

0 Replies

You're still ignoring the simple historical fact of the ceasefire and the undeniable violations of same. Unless you consider the original response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a crime... or the ceasefire illegal; it is preposterous to suggest that firing on our forces repeatedly (let alone thousands of times) is anything but a violation of same. Now stop citing irrelevant history, and enjoy the holidays.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're still ignoring the simple historical fact of the ceasefire and the undeniable violations of same. Unless you consider the original response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a crime...

It likely was, Bill. Whenever the USA is involved in something you can be pretty much assured that there are nefarious dealings going on. And certainly, many of the things that went on during that conflict were war crimes.

See;

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... or the ceasefire illegal; it is preposterous to suggest that firing on our forces repeatedly (let alone thousands of times) is anything but a violation of same. Now stop citing irrelevant history, and enjoy the holidays.

Here's some relevant history that illustrates how hypocritical the USA is.

http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're still ignoring the simple historical fact of the ceasefire and the undeniable violations of same. Unless you consider the original response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a crime... or the ceasefire illegal; it is preposterous to suggest that firing on our forces repeatedly (let alone thousands of times) is anything but a violation of same. Now stop citing irrelevant history, and enjoy the holidays.

Your argument was effectively rebutted almost three years ago. Have you learned nothing since?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're still ignoring the simple historical fact of the ceasefire and the undeniable violations of same. Unless you consider the original response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a crime... or the ceasefire illegal; it is preposterous to suggest that firing on our forces repeatedly (let alone thousands of times) is anything but a violation of same. Now stop citing irrelevant history, and enjoy the holidays.

Your argument was effectively rebutted almost three years ago.

Sez you. I thought then, as I do now, that Georgeob1 adequately rebutted your rebuttal.

joefromchicago wrote:

Have you learned nothing since?

I couldn't say decisively that I've learned more than I've forgotten but no, I haven't learned nothing since. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're still ignoring the simple historical fact of the ceasefire and the undeniable violations of same. Unless you consider the original response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a crime... or the ceasefire illegal; it is preposterous to suggest that firing on our forces repeatedly (let alone thousands of times) is anything but a violation of same. Now stop citing irrelevant history, and enjoy the holidays.

Your argument was effectively rebutted almost three years ago. Have you learned nothing since?

Joe - you recall the old saying: "Against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain". Quit arguing with that dimwit!

You may also recall that Ms. Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and NOC service was admitted by the (since reformed) old Sovs to have been delivered to them (i.e. to their blood-brothers in Tel Aviv as well) by Aldrich Ames. There can be no question of any blown covers on that one.

0 Replies

I'm glad to see I'm on the same side as JTT, joe, and HighSeas on this one.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sez you. I thought then, as I do now, that Georgeob1 adequately rebutted your rebuttal.

That, I'd really like to see.

joefromchicago wrote:

Have you learned nothing since?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... but no, I haven't learned nothing since.

That has been abundantly clear from your postings, Bill.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're still ignoring the simple historical fact of the ceasefire and the undeniable violations of same. Unless you consider the original response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a crime... or the ceasefire illegal; it is preposterous to suggest that firing on our forces repeatedly (let alone thousands of times) is anything but a violation of same. Now stop citing irrelevant history, and enjoy the holidays.

Your argument was effectively rebutted almost three years ago.
Sez you. I thought then, as I do now, that Georgeob1 adequately rebutted your rebuttal.

That's how I remembered it as well.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sez you. I thought then, as I do now, that Georgeob1 adequately rebutted your rebuttal.

You really haven't learned anything in those three years.

But if you really think that breaching the cease-fire (in 1999 or so) was sufficient justification for launching a preemptive invasion in 2003, then surely you can identify the document or international agreement that permitted the US to enforce that cease-fire on its own.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

You may also recall that Ms. Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and NOC service was admitted by the (since reformed) old Sovs to have been delivered to them (i.e. to their blood-brothers in Tel Aviv as well) by Aldrich Ames. There can be no question of any blown covers on that one.

What???

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know