This war is illegal!
- Thread starter trader556
- Start date
WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI on Friday to investigate forged documents the Bush administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein and his military ambitions in Iraq.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he was uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program.
An investigation should "at a minimum help to allay any concerns" that the government was involved in the creation of the documents to build support for administration policies, Rockefeller wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...y,0,5863094.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
yeah right and if Shrub and Co allows this investigation to go through I got a bridge for sale
-Cheney's energy policy papers refused too when GAO asked for them--ahahaha ofc Ken Lay was heading the advising committee
hehehehe I'll be taking bets in the office come Monday who's gonna respond here. It's all in good fun tho.. right? 
Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he was uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program.
An investigation should "at a minimum help to allay any concerns" that the government was involved in the creation of the documents to build support for administration policies, Rockefeller wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...y,0,5863094.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
yeah right and if Shrub and Co allows this investigation to go through I got a bridge for sale
-Cheney's energy policy papers refused too when GAO asked for them--ahahaha ofc Ken Lay was heading the advising committee
hehehehe I'll be taking bets in the office come Monday who's gonna respond here. It's all in good fun tho.. right?
From the Council on Foreign Relations, March 3, 2003
Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, says that eight of 10 international law experts would say that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would violate international law if it took place without solid Security Council authorization. And even if the United States can make a valid claim for legal authorization without a new resolution, it would be preferable to wait a month or so and "hang in [at] the Security Council until we got approval."
Slaughter, the current president of the American Society of International Law, says that a great deal of the worldwide opposition to the United States "could be reversed if we showed ourselves willing and able to stay with the multilateral process and to use it not only to go to war, but in the aftermath."
Slaughter was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on March 3, 2003.
more: http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/mustreads030403.html
but hey who gives a f%$k about international law
ok ok ok we obey/enforce the law ONLY when it serves the pocketbook right???
Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, says that eight of 10 international law experts would say that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would violate international law if it took place without solid Security Council authorization. And even if the United States can make a valid claim for legal authorization without a new resolution, it would be preferable to wait a month or so and "hang in [at] the Security Council until we got approval."
Slaughter, the current president of the American Society of International Law, says that a great deal of the worldwide opposition to the United States "could be reversed if we showed ourselves willing and able to stay with the multilateral process and to use it not only to go to war, but in the aftermath."
Slaughter was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on March 3, 2003.
more: http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/mustreads030403.html
but hey who gives a f%$k about international law
ok ok ok we obey/enforce the law ONLY when it serves the pocketbook right???
Quote from trader556:
ok ok ok we obey/enforce the law ONLY when it serves the pocketbook right???
Yes, that is the correct reading on international law.
When anything supports our national interests, we favor it. When it goes against our national interests, we ignore it.
That is why most practical people think the concept of international law is a joke.
All countries will pay no attention to any law, unless there is a means for enforcing it. People, for the most part, have to be afraid of the consequence of violating a law in order to comply with it. When there is no consequence to violation, why comply?
Agreed, but don't start complaining when the chicken come home to roost, it will be wayyyyyy too late for all 99.9% of us.
During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.
1972-2002 sample vetoes from us. The vetoes were respected and no action taken by UN/World.
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=43361&group=webcast
Quote from trader556:
Agreed, but don't start complaining when the chicken come home to roost, it will be wayyyyyy too late for all 99.9% of us.
During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.
1972-2002 sample vetoes from us. The vetoes were respected and no action taken by UN/World.
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=43361&group=webcast
"A man, convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
"The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it is open."
Your mind is made up son, no sense in arguing with a fanatic. If your life of trying to "prove" points by cutting and pasting only one side of the story serves you, so be it.
Personally, I don't need to read propaganda from either side to know that all hands in this situation are dirty.
Yup, very true, but some hands are more dirty than others...
And some are more sinful than others, but all sinners end up in the same hell.