War Crimes

[koan]

I expect this to be a very unpopular post.

I am not an American, nor am I an expert in politics. But I am a member of this race and, as such, have a concern for it. When the war on Iraq began I was devastated. I recalled Bush's administration trying to get support to attack Iraq "while they were there" after the hunt for Bin Laden began. Meeting with huge protest he slowly built his case for attack with a more thought out campaign. A campaign of what many, including myself, believe to be lies.

A group of Canadian lawyers formed LAW (Lawyers Against the War) and started a lawsuit against Bush for war crimes. The Canadian government squashed it by granting Bush diplomatic immunity the charges themselves could not be denied by the court.

I've been reading through articles by Noam Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm which chill my blood. Anyone with an opinion on this war should read what he has to say.

How America Determines Friends and Foes

Complete article here.

Every self-respecting president has a doctrine attached to his name. The core principle of the Bush II doctrine is that the United States must "rid the world of evil," as the president said right after 9/11.

A special responsibility is to wage war against terrorism, with the corollary that any state that harbours terrorists is a terrorist state and should be treated accordingly.

Let's ask a fair and simple question: What would the consequences be if we were to take the Bush doctrine seriously, and treat states that harbour terrorists as terrorist states, subject to bombardment and invasion?

The United States has long been a sanctuary to a rogues' gallery of people whose actions qualify them as terrorists, and whose presence compromises and complicates U.S. proclaimed principles.



Imperial Presidency

Complete article here

...

Going back to Gonzales, he transmitted to the President the conclusions of the Justice Dept that the President has the authority to rescind the Geneva Conventions -- the supreme law of the land, the foundation of modern international humanitarian law. And Gonzales, who was then Bush’s legal counsel, advised him that this would be a good idea, because rescinding the Conventions “substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution [of administration officials] under the War Crimes Act” of 1996, which carries the death penalty for “grave breaches” of Geneva Conventions.

We can see right on today’s front pages why the Justice Department was right to be concerned that the President and his advisers might be subject to death penalty under the laws passed by the Republican Congress in 1996 – and of course under the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, if anyone took them seriously.

Two weeks ago, the NY Times featured a front-page story reporting the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. It reported that “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.” An accompanying photograph depicted the scene. That was presented as an important achievement. “The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties.” And these “inflated” figures – inflated because our Dear Leader so declares – were “inflaming opinion throughout the country” and the region, driving up “the political costs of the conflict.” The word “conflict” is a common euphemism for US aggression, as when we read on the same pages that the US must now rebuild “what the conflict just destroyed”: just “the conflict,” with no agent, like a hurricane.

Let’s go back to the picture and story about the closing of the “propaganda weapon.” There are some relevant documents, including the Geneva Conventions, which state: “Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.” So page one of the world’s leading newspaper is cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law.



I cannot write like Chomsky nor likely ever could. I am glad he is here to write it and that he is fearless enough to do so.

[buttercup]

ooooooh koan, you have set the cat amongst the pidgeons there (britisism)

i daresay anastrophe will have something to say about it

i dont know enough about politics to comment other than when bush says he's going to do something, he does it

[anastrophe]

Chomsky wrote:



We may recall, by comparison, the war against South Vietnam launched by JFK in 1962, brutal and barbaric from the outset: bombing, chemical warfare to destroy food crops so as to starve out the civilian support for the indigenous resistance, programs to drive millions of people to virtual concentration camps or urban slums to eliminate its popular base.



this is one of the more peculiar things i've read in a long while. we fought a war *against* south vietnam? strangely, i thought we fought a war to defend south vietnam from the viet cong, who came from north vietnam. generally speaking, i think any war can be characterized as 'brutal and barbaric', though bombing, typically, is considered a 'normal' part of waging a war. the chemical warfare was implemented not to destroy food crops - i've never heard that perspective mentioned before. it was to strip heavy vegetation to deny the viet cong cover. have never heard of there being a program to 'drive millions of people to virtual concentration camps or urban slums' either.



bear in mind that i present none of this in justification of the war.

[anastrophe]

the list of terrorists harbored by the US is an awfully thin brochure. strikes me as grasping at straws.

[koan]

anastrophe wrote: the list of terrorists harbored by the US is an awfully thin brochure. strikes me as grasping at straws.


Yet if another country adopted the same justification for attack it could legitimately wage war on the US using America's own policy reasons.

[Accountable]

Koan, you must be a speed reader or something, but it is far too much for me to digest on one weekend (especially since I'm taking my darling out on her birthday :yh_party ), but here is my take.

I served my beloved US Air Force 21 years. On 9/11/01 I was still in uniform. I was at the dentist office waiting for my annual torture, watching CNN on the tube. A terrible accident had just happened in the twin towers and I was trying to catch up. Suddenly, I watched live as the second jet hit. I knew it was war.

Long story short, I was fully supportive, even thankful, when we decided to go after Bin Laudin in Afghanistan. But when the President said we should go for Iran rather than Syria (where they thought BL had gone) I was confused. He had been going on about how weak and useless the UN was, yet here he was saying he wanted to enforce the issues the UN itself was reluctant to enforce. It was similar to a town cop chasing down someone breaking state law while the state cops had better things to do. I just didn't understand the argument.

I am ambivalent and have many questions unanswered. Why not Syria? why not frame an argument against Iran only of evidence related to terrorism? Why not Syria? WHY NOT SYRIA?

I love my country. I love my Air Force. It is my family and I will always support it even when it is run by knuckleheads just as we all love our eccentric uncle with the gold lame' boxers( :rolleyes: but that's a different story altogether).

I would love some honest answers, no matter how distateful.

[koan]

I want answers too. I want the truth. I'm crazy. How will we ever get the truth?

All I know is things do not add up. How do you catch a liar when they get to make up all the rules? There is a mentality that can be created in the masses to encourage them to follow bullies. People can be manipulated. This is not conspiracy talk. It is reality. I take the red pill. I want to know the truth...whatever that truth may be. If it was my own government I would want to know even more. If it was my own child I would have to know.

That was my little emotional speech for the moment.

[anastrophe]

but what truth, specifically, are you after?

that the war in iraq was started based upon either bogus or mistaken intel? that's been established.



that the US military, in the course of the resulting war, sometimes makes mistakes in prosecuting that war? that's been established.



koan wrote: A group of Canadian lawyers formed LAW (Lawyers Against the War) and started a lawsuit against Bush for war crimes. The Canadian government squashed it by granting Bush diplomatic immunity the charges themselves could not be denied by the court.


i'm baffled by the above. first off, any prosecution for war crimes must go through the hague, the internation court, does it not? and if the canadian government prevented the lawsuit, then "the charges themselves could not be denied by the court" doesn't really mean anything. The charges themselves could not be confirmed by the court, either. if it doesn't go before the court, then there's no determination.

[koan]

Lawyers Against the War

article

The Canadian government used a claim of diplomatic immunity Monday to block torture charges laid under the Canadian Criminal Code against President George W. Bush. The charges had been laid by Gail Davidson of LAW [Lawyers against the War] on the occasion of Bush’s visit to Canada on November 30. They concerned the well-known abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, photos of which shocked the world earlier this year, as well as similar abuses at Guantánamo Bay that have emerged more recently. On behalf of LAW, Davidson was seeking to fix a date for a hearing into the charges and came armed with evidence, but Judge William Kitchen acceded to the Attorney General’s objections and declared the charges ‘a nullity’.



“Of course, they’re not a nullity”, said Professor Michael Mandel, co-chair of LAW, who criticized the decision as “irregular in procedure and wrong in substance.” “These charges were properly laid and backed up by powerful evidence. The government didn’t deny that evidence because it couldn’t deny it. Diplomatic immunity is purely procedural. It doesn’t affect the validity of the charges, only whether they can be proceeded with, for the time being, in a foreign court, in this case a Canadian court.

The "truth" I want is to know if, indeed, the justification for war was bogus and if it is, in fact, a war crime.

[koan]

in regards to Chomsky's view on Vietnam (of which I know nothing beyond what I've seen in the movies) I looked through another article from '72 and think it explains where he is coming from.

In November, 1964, Ambassador Maxwell Taylor argued that even if we could establish an effective regime in Saigon, to attain US objectives it would not suffice to "drive the DRV out of its reinforcing role." Rather, we will not succeed unless we also "obtain its cooperation in bringing an end to the Viet Cong insurgency." We must "persuade or force the DRV to stop its aid to the Viet Cong and to use its directive powers to make the Viet Cong desist from their efforts to overthrow the government of South Vietnam" (III, pp. 668-9).

Replace "DRV" by "USSR" and we have, in essence, the Nixon-Kissinger policy today. In 1964-1965, the indigenous NLF forces had essentially won the war in South Vietnam. Therefore the United States shifted to a larger war, attacking North Vietnam directly. In this larger war, it subjected South Vietnam to intense bombardment and send an occupying army there to destroy the NLF forces. The US government hoped to force the DRV to "make the Viet Cong desist." Instead, it drew the DRV into the war directly, as, in fact, had been anticipated during the planning (cf. William Bundy, November, 1964, III, p. 616).

In 1972, the "enemy"”the DRV/PRG”is apparently on the verge of winning the war. Once again, the Administration is shifting to a still broader, global confrontation in which it hopes to prevail. The President warns the USSR to stop supporting the DRV/PRG and to cooperate so as to enable him to achieve his objective of a noncommunist South Vietnam, oriented toward the West.

He is very consistent in his references to South Vietnam. If it is a new take on the war for you, cool. Something new...that doesn't happen often. Might be worth reading more about. I am more concerned with the current war.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: Lawyers Against the War



article



The Canadian government used a claim of diplomatic immunity Monday to block torture charges laid under the Canadian Criminal Code against President George W. Bush. The charges had been laid by Gail Davidson of LAW [Lawyers against the War] on the occasion of Bush’s visit to Canada on November 30. They concerned the well-known abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, photos of which shocked the world earlier this year, as well as similar abuses at Guantánamo Bay that have emerged more recently. On behalf of LAW, Davidson was seeking to fix a date for a hearing into the charges and came armed with evidence, but Judge William Kitchen acceded to the Attorney General’s objections and declared the charges ‘a nullity’.





“Of course, they’re not a nullity”, said Professor Michael Mandel, co-chair of LAW, who criticized the decision as “irregular in procedure and wrong in substance.” “These charges were properly laid and backed up by powerful evidence. The government didn’t deny that evidence because it couldn’t deny it. Diplomatic immunity is purely procedural. It doesn’t affect the validity of the charges, only whether they can be proceeded with, for the time being, in a foreign court, in this case a Canadian court.



The "truth" I want is to know if, indeed, the justification for war was bogus and if it is, in fact, a war crime.
i'm confused. the war crime LAW was attempting to have bush indicted for was the prison abuses at abu ghraib, not whether the justification for war was valid or not.



the justification for the war, whether bogus or valid, is not a crime punishable under war crimes. the torture is punishable under war crimes, but they'd have to prove that bush ordered it to try him on it, and frankly i don't think that will be provable. that higher-ups may have sanctioned it via neglect is possible. that those *high* in the command would sanction it is absurd in my opinion, unless we presume they are abjectly stupid. they can't be both clever in trumping up the reasons for going to war, and stupid in sanctioning abuses so obvious.



my belief is that they *wanted* to go to war, heard what they wanted to hear, and went forth on that basis. i do not think that the evidence they based it on was fabricated. had they had the ability and desire to fabricate the evidence, then they concommitantly would have the ability and desire to fabricate the actual devices they claimed were there (biological weapons manufacturing trucks, for one, which would be trivially easy for them to have built, then "found" in iraq to "prove" the evidence).



i will admit, having just written the above, that i had a martini about 30 minutes ago, so if i've misspelled anything or written any gibberish - beyond my normal gibberish - then i claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds i was impaired.

[anastrophe]

one thing that strikes me as sad- while at the same time expressing equivocation - is the unfamiliarity most people have with abu ghraib. to westerneers, it was a new name that became known after the prison abuse scandal perpetrated by US soldiers. but to iraqis, it was as widely known as saddam hussein's name. it was the place that people went to, but never returned from. the horrors that were committed there under hussein's rule so far outstrip what was perpetrated by the US soldiers as to be a walk through daisies compared to a steamroller. the details are incredibly gruesome.



does that absolve or justify the abuses by US soldiers. of course not. but keeping some perspective can be a tad useful. the abuses our soldiers perpetrated were benign compared to what took place there before the war.

[koan]

If you call it a martini it better be a REAL martini with gin and not one of those fake vodka numbers.

I see the cause of confusion and I have no drink to excuse it. Yet.

There are two issues involved. War Crimes involving the torture of prisoners and violation of the Geneva Conventions.

War Crimes made the most effective title. Both charges are serious. Bush was advised on how to get around the GC by declaring the right of “anticipatory self-defense,” now sometimes called “preemptive war” which allows the US to attack anyone it wants based on suspicion of which they need no absolute proof.

[koan]

regarding the tyranny of Hussein and the abuses that the Iraqi's are being freed from by the morally superior US:

Selective Memory and a Dishonest Doctrine

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally – a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

...

David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" – fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career – like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

...

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression – and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

[turbonium]

I posted this earlier on another thread but it's most appropriate to put it here.

A lawsuit filed in Begium in 2003 against G.W. Bush, by Francis Boyle, Professor of Law, states

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Boyle is an interesting guy - he has filed lawsuits on behalf of Hawaii for its unlawful annexation, and against Israel for their recent building of the so-called "Terrorist Wall". Methinks I like this guy!!

[koan]

turbonium wrote: I posted this earlier on another thread but it's most appropriate to put it here.




Your post earlier is what convinced me to start this thread. Not a popular view around here. Your boldness brought out the fearless in me. Though I chewed a few nails over it. I'm not about to post and run, if you know what I mean.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally – a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff."



The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.


well, if that's the case, and we're to be indicted for our past transgressions, then great - let's get on with the hague tribunal for france and england, who carved up the fertile crescent for their own designs and goals after world war II, with no regard for the ancient tribal boundaries of the region, thus creating a nation ripe for the picking by a tribal bigot like hussein.



*they* started it!



of course, foreign armies have trampled through the fertile crescent for the better part of 4000 years now. the sumerians, the babylonians, the hittites, the assyrians, the chaldeans, the medes, the persians, the greeks. the island of failaka off the coast of kuwait has greek ruins on it.



now, that's all absurd, right? doesn't have anything to do with now, right? if that's the case, then does US support for hussein in the 1980's have anything to do with now? is it one continuum of evil? does past US support of hussein's regime nullify the abuses he committed, or do they stand on their own?

[anastrophe]

Abu Ghraib Isn't Guernica

But here's why the Spanish Civil War analogy is worth exploring.

By(the bibulous and besotted) Christopher Hitchens

full article at http://www.slate.com/id/2118306

Abu Ghraib was by no means celebrated as an ancestral civic and cultural center before the year 2004. To the Iraqis, it was a name to be mentioned in whispers, if at all, as "the house of the end." It was a Dachau. Numberless people were consigned there and were never heard of again. Its execution shed worked overtime, as did its torturers, and we are still trying to discover how many Iraqis and Kurds died in its precincts. At one point, when it suffered even more than usual from chronic overcrowding, Saddam and his sons decided to execute a proportion of the inmates at random, just to cull the population. The warders then fanned out at night to visit the families of the prisoners, asking how much it would be worth to keep their son or brother or father off the list. The hands of prisoners were cut off, and the proceedings recorded on video for the delight of others. I myself became certain that Saddam had reached his fin de régime, or his Ceauşescu moment, when he celebrated his 100-percent win in the "referendum" of 2003 by releasing all the nonpolitical prisoners (the rapists and thieves and murderers who were his natural constituency) from Abu Ghraib. This sudden flood of ex-cons was a large factor in the horrific looting and mayhem that accompanied the fall of Baghdad.

I visited the jail a few months later, and I can tell you about everything but the stench, which you would have to smell for yourself. Layers of excrement and filth were being shoveled out; cells obviously designed for the vilest treatment of human beings made one recoil. In the huge, dank, cement gallery where the executions took place, a series of hooks and rings hung over a gruesome pit. Efforts were being made to repaint and disinfect the joint, and many of the new inmates were being held in encampments in the yard while this was being done, but I distinctly remember thinking that there was really no salvaging such a place and that it should either be torn down and ploughed over or turned into a museum.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: If you call it a martini it better be a REAL martini with gin and not one of those fake vodka numbers.

if it's not made with gin it's not a martini. due to my penury, i'm reduced to employing Gordon's Gin, however my preferred imbibulant as it were is Bombay Gin. a dash of martini&rossi extra dry vermouth, three cocktail olives on a toothpick. if i'd had my druthers, i'd have bruised a twist of lemon peel over the top, but no lemon was forthcoming.



and i'm not even a serious drinker at all. but i do like the rare martini (this was my first in a few years). nothing beats lighter fluid for getting quietly tight.



There are two issues involved. War Crimes involving the torture of prisoners and violation of the Geneva Conventions.



War Crimes made the most effective title. Both charges are serious. Bush was advised on how to get around the GC by declaring the right of “anticipatory self-defense,” now sometimes called “preemptive war” which allows the US to attack anyone it wants based on suspicion of which they need no absolute proof.neither charge, i believe, warrants prosecution for war crimes. i don't believe there's ever been a prosecution of war crimes that were *not* committed as sanctioned actions on the part of the aggressor. i realize there are many, sadly, who believe that bush & co. are the personification of evil, and that they have zero moral basis for any of their actions - they're just in it for money. there are those who believe that 9/11 was - --not just 'allowed' to happen by malign neglect-- - but specifically *perpetrated* by the bush-cheney-wolfowitz-rumsfeld-rove cabal.



there's only so much credulity i can muster in such discussions.

[koan]

anastrophe wrote: well, if that's the case, and we're to be indicted for our past transgressions, then great - let's get on with the hague tribunal for france and england, who carved up the fertile crescent for their own designs and goals after world war II, with no regard for the ancient tribal boundaries of the region, thus creating a nation ripe for the picking by a tribal bigot like hussein.

*they* started it!


it was started at the beginning of time and we are all guilty at some point. blah blah blah. next statement: this is so boring. They did it first does not justify becoming the creature we claim to detest. The concern is how a nation can pick and choose who is allowed to get away with what and when. At the Nuremburg trials the Nazi's were not considered guilty of any crimes that they could prove the US had also commited. That is the precedent.

Bush made himself the judge and jury. His administration boldy states that they may attack anyone they perceive as a threat. How scary is that? If they get away with it once...why not twice or as many times as they have to before securing WORLD DOMINATION *evil laugh*. No one knows the motivations here. All we can do is look at the actions. In totality. And impartially, if possible. Did Bush's actions help the United States? There are more people signing up with the anti American terrorist groups now than ever. (I think I can find a quote on that :-3 )There is more anger and hostility, therefore, more threat of terrorist attack on the country than in recent history. Has he really acted in his country's best interest?

I probably ought to stick to quoting Chomsky.

[anastrophe]

there's only so much credulity i can muster in such discussions.

damn your pale purple/mauve font color, koan!!! :yh_bigsmi

[Wolverine]

I have to agree with Accountable here. I was not whole-heartedly for the war, but once the decision was made to go, I supported and still support our troops fighting. The fact that so many here do not aprove of the war dosen't actually bother me. What bothers me, nay, infuriates me are those who say our soldiers should be ashamed of themselves for going to war in the first place. Saying that our soldiers are no heros.

Feel free to bash the Presidency and his policies. The soldiers are doing their job. Let them do it.

Those troops are more courageous than anyone on this forum. They willingly go to battle knowing full well that death is a Distinct possibility. I applaud them for this. I could not willingly give my life for someone I did not know personally or with whom I wasn't close.

[koan]

That is a very good point, Wolverine. The nobility of a soldier is nothing to undermine. They are the ones with no agenda but to defend the country and people they love. The idea that they may be misused and put in the path of danger for no better reason than greed and power struggles is what enrages me.

They, and innocent victims, are the reason I want to know the truth so badly.

[Wolverine]

koan wrote: That is a very good point, Wolverine. The nobility of a soldier is nothing to undermine. They are the ones with no agenda but to defend the country and people they love. The idea that they may be misused and put in the path of danger for no better reason than greed and power struggles is what enrages me.

They, and innocent victims, are the reason I want to know the truth so badly.
exactly, Koan. Esactly.

[koan]

anastrophe wrote: damn your pale purple/mauve font color, koan!!! :yh_bigsmi


Bombay gin is may favourite as well. Four olives though. Decadent, I know.

I colour the font to annoy you. :wah: Actually, it helps me find my last post so I don't miss any replies.

I don't know about the idea that Bush would knowingly allow the towers to be attacked. That is too inhuman for me to buy into without documentation uncovered showing his signature or voice on a tape. I do take great interest in the justifications they give and the use of language that makes me fear propaganda. I am mostly stunned by the past actions in foreign affairs which I am losing the energy tonight to bring into the equation but which indicate a more sinister big picture than most would like to believe.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: it was started at the beginning of time and we are all guilty at some point. blah blah blah. next statement: this is so boring. They did it first does not justify becoming the creature we claim to detest.

can you tell me in what way the US resembles hussein and his regime?



The concern is how a nation can pick and choose who is allowed to get away with what and when.

is that not what nations do?



At the Nuremburg trials the Nazi's were not considered guilty of any crimes that they could prove the US had also commited. That is the precedent.

i don't understand the above, sorry.





Bush made himself the judge and jury. His administration boldy states that they may attack anyone they perceive as a threat. How scary is that? If they get away with it once...why not twice or as many times as they have to before securing WORLD DOMINATION *evil laugh*.

should i throw in "this is so boring", at this juncture, then? if we're to follow this line of thinking down the rabbit hole, just as above....



No one knows the motivations here. All we can do is look at the actions. In totality. And impartially, if possible. Did Bush's actions help the United States? There are more people signing up with the anti American terrorist groups now than ever. (I think I can find a quote on that :-3 )

uh, i don't think there's any public registries of signups to be anti-american terrorists. there was certainly no lack of them before mr. bush came into office (world trade center bombed in 1993 by exactly the same zealots as crashed the planes into them).



the counter argument, if we're to think in terms of what *might* or *might not* be, is that there have been no further attacks on american soil since 9/11. just as meaningful an argument as suggesting there are more baddies out there now than before, which i don't think is the case. we've had a presence of one form or another in the middle east since the middle of the last century. the existence of israel is seen as a US perpetrated crime against islam.





There is more anger and hostility, therefore, more threat of terrorist attack on the country than in recent history. Has he really acted in his country's best interest?



as above. bin laden had designs on attacking america long before bush was a glimmer in the american public's eye. let's not forget that the terrorists are at work elsewhere in the world. the US, while a big fat suckling pig of a target (oik, maybe not the best metaphor!) is not the only target. there are infidels everywhere.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: That is a very good point, Wolverine. The nobility of a soldier is nothing to undermine. They are the ones with no agenda but to defend the country and people they love. The idea that they may be misused and put in the path of danger for no better reason than greed and power struggles is what enrages me.



They, and innocent victims, are the reason I want to know the truth so badly.
greed is pretty frequently applied as a reason for the iraq war. i don't get it.

[turbonium]

koan wrote: Your post earlier is what convinced me to start this thread. Not a popular view around here. Your boldness brought out the fearless in me. Though I chewed a few nails over it. I'm not about to post and run, if you know what I mean.
As you're a veteran FG'er that kind of surprises me - you don't seem like one who would hold back your opinions, even if they go against the grain. Regardless, I'm glad to see it - I think life is too short to be afraid to say what's on your mind. Forum peer pressure be damned! :wah:

[koan]

Also from Imperial Presidency linked earlier.

In fact, the Nuremberg Tribunal itself established this principle. To bring the Nazi criminals to justice, it was necessary to devise definitions of “war crime” and “crime against humanity.” How this was done is explained by Telford Taylor, chief counsel for the prosecution and a distinguished international lawyer and historian:

Since both sides in World War II had played the terrible game of urban destruction – the Allies far more successfully – there was no basis for criminal charges against Germans or Japanese, and in fact no such charges were brought... Aerial bombardment had been used so extensively and ruthlessly on the Allied side as well as the Axis side that neither at Nuremberg nor Tokyo was the issue made a part of the trials.

The operative definition of “crime” is: “Crime that you carried out but we did not.” To underscore the fact, Nazi war criminals were absolved if the defense could show that their US counterparts carried out the same crimes.



What acts of terrorism has the US committed?

Henry Kissinger described the Bush doctrine as “revolutionary,” pointing out that it undermines the 17th century Westphalian system of international order, and of course the UN Charter and international law. He approved of the doctrine but with reservations about style and tactics, and with a crucial qualification: it cannot be “a universal principle available to every nation.” Rather, the right of aggression must be reserved to the US, perhaps delegated to chosen clients. We must forcefully reject the principle of universality: that we apply to ourselves the same standards we do to others, more stringent ones if we are serious. Kissinger is to be praised for his honesty in forthrightly articulating prevailing doctrine, usually concealed in professions of virtuous intent and tortured legalisms. And he understands his educated audience. As he doubtless expected, there was no reaction.

His understanding of his audience was illustrated again, rather dramatically, last May, when Kissinger-Nixon tapes were released, over Kissinger’s strong objections. There was a report in the world’s leading newspaper. It mentioned in passing the orders to bomb Cambodia that Kissinger transmitted from Nixon to the military commanders. In Kissinger’s words, “A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." It is rare for a call for horrendous war crimes – what we would not hesitate to call “genocide” if others were responsible – to be so stark and explicit. It may be more than rare; it would be interesting to see if there is anything like it in archival records. The publication elicited no reaction, refuting Dean Koh. Apparently, it is taken for granted in the elite culture that the President and his National Security Adviser do have the right to order genocide.

...

If the US is granted the right of “anticipatory self-defense” against terror, then, certainly, Cuba, Nicaragua, and a host of others have long been entitled to carry out terrorist acts within the US because there is no doubt of its involvement in very serious terrorist attacks against them, extensively documented in impeccable sources, and in the case of Nicaragua, even condemned by the World Court and the Security Council (in two resolutions that the US vetoed, with Britain loyally abstaining). The conclusion that Cuba and Nicaragua, among many others, have long had the right to carry out terrorist atrocities in the US is of course utterly outrageous, and advocated by no one. And thanks to our self-determined immunity from moral truisms, there is no fear that anyone will draw the outrageous conclusions.

[turbonium]

koan wrote: Bombay gin is may favourite as well. Four olives though. Decadent, I know.

I colour the font to annoy you. :wah: Actually, it helps me find my last post so I don't miss any replies.

I don't know about the idea that Bush would knowingly allow the towers to be attacked. That is too inhuman for me to buy into without documentation uncovered showing his signature or voice on a tape. I do take great interest in the justifications they give and the use of language that makes me fear propaganda. I am mostly stunned by the past actions in foreign affairs which I am losing the energy tonight to bring into the equation but which indicate a more sinister big picture than most would like to believe.
Sinister bigger picture? That's more like it! When you re-energize, I'd like to hear your take on all this........oops, re-edit - you've already begun!

[koan]

turbonium wrote: As you're a veteran FG'er that kind of surprises me - you don't seem like one who would hold back your opinions, even if they go against the grain. Regardless, I'm glad to see it - I think life is too short to be afraid to say what's on your mind. Forum peer pressure be damned! :wah:


I'm no vet.

Politics isn't my strong suit. To back up the OP it takes a lot of research and time for thought. I have not studied the history of America or any of the wars enough to speak of my own knowledge. Despite that I am copy and pasting most of the arguement here I am having to read it and find it all in real time. So...there is some considerable work involved on my part.

[koan]

I give credit where it is due. It is pretty much Chomsky's take on the situation...if I don't mess it up too much. Here is who Noam Chomsky is. He has his critics but doesn't run from them.

[turbonium]

Regarding war crimes - the Victor is the Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and also reserves the right to "adjust" the Laws as they deem necessary (with altruistic intent, naturally!)

[turbonium]

I've read and seen many of Chomsky's lectures & books. He's a very intelligent man - why he believes the Warren Commission is the one thing that eludes and puzzles me......but that singular oddity doesn't tarnish my respect for his impressive body of work and contributions to alternative media.

[koan]

BTW, anastrophe,

the references to "boring" were a throw back to the quote from earlier post #14 that I made discounting certain types of arguements. Not intended to imply that you are boring in any way.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally – a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff."

[turbonium]

Politics isn't my strong suit. To back up the OP it takes a lot of research and time for thought. I have not studied the history of America or any of the wars enough to speak of my own knowledge. Despite that I am copy and pasting most of the arguement here I am having to read it and find it all in real time. So...there is some considerable work involved on my part.
Your views are as valid as all of ours, including Noah's! I am a long-time political/current event/history nut, and you're points are on the mark - who cares if they're cut & paste - the point is that you know what you're cutting & pasting!! :wah:

[koan]

What I think, personally, is rather easy to discount. What someone like Chomsky, or anyone else that has made a point of trying to discover the "truth", has to say carries far more weight. I think I will have to go to sleep but look forward to trying to find more questions and answers in the morning.

Then again, now I'm thinking about it all, it may be harder to sleep.

I've mostly read Chomsky's books on corruption of the media before tonight. I didn't know about the warren commission but think it has to do with not believing Kennedy was going to pull out of the war. Did he actually agree with the Commission or just disagree with Oliver Stone? (another topic)

[Clint]

Great thread!! Both informative and intertaining. I am looking forward to reading more after you are all rested and continue.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: What I think, personally, is rather easy to discount. What someone like Chomsky, or anyone else that has made a point of trying to discover the "truth", has to say carries far more weight.
then i would recommend, as a tonic to chomsky, more of christopher hitchens. trying to pin down hitchens as being either on the left or right is an exercise in frustration. he's as informed if not more than chomsky, and also trying to discover the truth. perhaps there is no one truth.



http://www.hitchensweb.com/

[buttercup]

told you it would get them going

the truth keeps being mentioned & it makes me think of the film 'a few good men'

jack nicholson says 'you want the truth, you cant handle the truth'

[turbonium]

I've mostly read Chomsky's books on corruption of the media before tonight. I didn't know about the warren commission but think it has to do with not believing Kennedy was going to pull out of the war. Did he actually agree with the Commission or just disagree with Oliver Stone? (another topic)
In his book Rethinking Camelot, Chomsky really steps in it by declaring a JFK conspiracy as being too far reaching and complex as to ever be successfully pulled off. He also asserts there is a complete lack of evidence!! . To add weight to his assertions, he works hard to prove JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam . This is regarded as a central motive for assassination from within the ranks. But even in this, Chomsky's case is very weak, as documents prove Johnson not only repealed JFK's order to initiate steps for complete withdrawal, but actually reversed direction with his own order that accellerated deployment.

Chomsky may privately disagree with the Warren Commission (I say he is too smart to actually believe Oswald did it alone), which would then imply that he has a background agenda of such great importance, that he would rather lose credibilty. I would go into that, but as you said......seperate topic!!

[john8pies]

Is there not a similarity in that, if I recall correctly, the Americans only entered the war in Vietnam because the French (no further comment needed!) left them to fight against the Vietcong?

[gmc]

posted by koan

What I think, personally, is rather easy to discount. What someone like Chomsky, or anyone else that has made a point of trying to discover the "truth", has to say carries far more weight. I think I will have to go to sleep but look forward to trying to find more questions and answers in the morning.


There I would totally disagree with you-no ones opinion should be given more weight than your own-the more you read the more you come to appreciate that an opinion expressed forcefully is not necessarily right and that many start out from a particular world view and disregard anything that conflicts with their view.

Posted by anastrophe

my belief is that they *wanted* to go to war, heard what they wanted to hear, and went forth on that basis. i do not think that the evidence they based it on was fabricated. had they had the ability and desire to fabricate the evidence, then they concommitantly would have the ability and desire to fabricate the actual devices they claimed were there (biological weapons manufacturing trucks, for one, which would be trivially easy for them to have built, then "found" in iraq to "prove" the evidence).

Believe it or not I actually agree with you on this point, how much was conviction that they were right and how much was cynical manipulation will be a fascinating debate in the years to come. GW frall i disagree with his policies is acting in what he thinks are americas interests imo. What the &**^ TB is up to goodness knows, smarmy git.

Posted by wolverine

I have to agree with Accountable here. I was not whole-heartedly for the war, but once the decision was made to go, I supported and still support our troops fighting. The fact that so many here do not aprove of the war dosen't actually bother me. What bothers me, nay, infuriates me are those who say our soldiers should be ashamed of themselves for going to war in the first place. Saying that our soldiers are no heros.

Feel free to bash the Presidency and his policies. The soldiers are doing their job. Let them do it.


No doubt you will have gathered from my posts that i disagree with the war, but on this I find myself in agreement with you. the real villains are the politicians who got themselves and us in to this mess in the first place. One big difference between the UK and US is that anyone criticising the war does not get accused of failing to support the troops or unpatriotic , it was tried but don't be so Y*&*^&^*( naive it's not about patriotism is the usual response. us politics seems quite gentlemanly in some ways.

Posted by anastrophe

this is one of the more peculiar things i've read in a long while. we fought a war *against* south vietnam? strangely, i thought we fought a war to defend south vietnam from the viet cong, who came from north vietnam. generally speaking, i think any war can be characterized as 'brutal and barbaric', though bombing, typically, is considered a 'normal' part of waging a war. the chemical warfare was implemented not to destroy food crops - i've never heard that perspective mentioned before. it was to strip heavy vegetation to deny the viet cong cover. have never heard of there being a program to 'drive millions of people to virtual concentration camps or urban slums' either.


posted by john8pies

Is there not a similarity in that, if I recall correctly, the Americans only entered the war in Vietnam because the French (no further comment needed!) left them to fight against the Vietcong?


Not that simple

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/h ... index.html

According to the terms of the Geneva Accords, Vietnam would hold national elections in 1956 to reunify the country. The division at the seventeenth parallel, a temporary separation without cultural precedent, would vanish with the elections. The United States, however, had other ideas. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles did not support the Geneva Accords because he thought they granted too much power to the Communist Party of Vietnam.

Instead, Dulles and President Dwight D. Eisenhower supported the creation of a counter-revolutionary alternative south of the seventeenth parallel. The United States supported this effort at nation-building through a series of multilateral agreements that created the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).

South Vietnam Under Ngo Dinh Diem

Using SEATO for political cover, the Eisenhower administration helped create a new nation from dust in southern Vietnam. In 1955, with the help of massive amounts of American military, political, and economic aid, the Government of the Republic of Vietnam (GVN or South Vietnam) was born. The following year, Ngo Dinh Diem, a staunchly anti-Communist figure from the South, won a dubious election that made him president of the GVN. Almost immediately, Diem claimed that his newly created government was under attack from Communists in the north. Diem argued that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) wanted to take South Vietnam by force. In late 1957, with American military aid, Diem began to counterattack. He used the help of the American Central Intelligence Agency to identify those who sought to bring his government down and arrested thousands. Diem passed a repressive series of acts known as Law 10/59 that made it legal to hold someone in jail if s/he was a suspected Communist without bringing formal charges.


A repressive regime was backed up in the face of democracy for fear the wrong kind of government won popular support. Ho chi minh admired america greatly and thought they would be sympathetic to his struggle against french colonialism. he was a communist and got short thrift leaving ho=im to the soviet camp for support.

The Mujahadeen were Islamic extremists that objected to a secular state and were prepared to use force to get their way. They were financed and armed simply because they were fighting a left wing government -not a particularly nice one admittedly, and it was a chance to get at Russia, If you don't believe me have a look at the 911 commission report. It's american soldiers that have paid the price.

If you want to know what the british were up and why they didn't want to get involved in vietnam have a look at the following.

http://www.myfareast.org/Malaysia/emergency.html

It's easy to look back and see what happened and how events were manipulated and the consequences. Vert different at the time these things were happening. Maybe 911 and the iraq war will politicise the american people in a way that they don't seem to be at the moment.

Saw Robert MacNamara being interviewed by Jon Snow. He asked him if he thought things were more dangerous now and the possibility of global conflict more likely now than they were in the sixties and he said most definitely.

[koan]

wow, gmc.

That is a great summary. It makes a lot of sense out of what I was reading. The vietnam war is an interesting comparison not just because both it and the Iraq war are unpopular with a lot of the public but because the "agenda" was not known to the public until after the war when various documents had to be released.

Thanks for the source link, anastrophe. At a certain point in research I get uncomfortable having only one reputable source. I will check that out before I write too much more.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: wow, gmc.



That is a great summary. It makes a lot of sense out of what I was reading. The vietnam war is an interesting comparison not just because both it and the Iraq war are unpopular with a lot of the public but because the "agenda" was not known to the public until after the war when various documents had to be released.



Thanks for the source link, anastrophe. At a certain point in research I get uncomfortable having only one reputable source. I will check that out before I write too much more.
i'm in a hitchens mood. i find any mention of "iraq" and "vietnam" in the same breath to be quite silly. hitchens has said it best, and i recommend the following article to explain why.



Beating a Dead Parrot

Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common.

http://www.slate.com/id/2112895/

[koan]

I don't find Hitchens convincing. His article on comparing Vietnam to Iraq seems to be written to explain why he didn't support Vietnam but does support Iraq war. He singles out differences that, to me, only show why he, himself can make that distinction. If he admitted to some similarity but not enough, or admitted there was at least a small reason why people may see them the same I would be more likely to think on it longer. He writes from a more emotional, personalised point of view.

from another article

HITCHENS: WE MUST FIGHT IRAQ

By Christopher Hitchens

IT is almost certainly a mistake to assume anybody's position on Iraq is determined by evidence alone.



From a debate in the first site you linked, he refers to riding in a truck with some Iraqi soldiers who believed they would not be alive if the US did not intervene. I feel that this experience makes him emotionally susceptible to overlooking contradictory facts.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: I don't find Hitchens convincing. His article on comparing Vietnam to Iraq seems to be written to explain why he didn't support Vietnam but does support Iraq war. He singles out differences that, to me, only show why he, himself can make that distinction. If he admitted to some similarity but not enough, or admitted there was at least a small reason why people may see them the same I would be more likely to think on it longer. He writes from a more emotional, personalised point of view.



from another article

HITCHENS: WE MUST FIGHT IRAQ

By Christopher Hitchens

IT is almost certainly a mistake to assume anybody's position on Iraq is determined by evidence alone.





From a debate in the first site you linked, he refers to riding in a truck with some Iraqi soldiers who believed they would not be alive if the US did not intervene. I feel that this experience makes him emotionally susceptible to overlooking contradictory facts.
so first hand contact with the people on the ground makes him a *less* reliable source than ivory tower intellectuals like chomsky?



i see absolutely zero in common between iraq and vietnam. what, specifically, do you see in common? other than that both were wars, and civilians and soldiers have died, i hope.

[anastrophe]

i have to say i find chomsky to be far more 'emotional' than hitchens, principally in his extremely cynical and snide asides peppered throughout his writing.

[koan]

In the bit I quoted directly here Hitchens outright says that his views are not based on evidence.

His references to his ground zero experiences are used to justify his approval of the war regardless of evidence and without a sincere, objective look at the possiblity there there may be more involved than just "saving" the people. If he had equally moving experiences with Iraqis who did not want US intervention and was left to compare the two sentiments making his own, unbiased opinion there might be more to it.

Chomsky does have his flaws as well. What annoys me the most is his tendancy to pick apart everything in existence but offer no solutions. eg)what does he think should have or would have happened if the war was not launched?

[koan]

Reasons to Fear U.S.

On 9/11, the world reacted with shock and horror, and sympathy for the victims. But it is important to bear in mind that for much of the world, there was a further reaction: "Welcome to the club."

...

Within a month of 9/11, Afghanistan was under attack. Those who accept elementary moral standards have some work to do to show that the United States and Britain were justified in bombing Afghans to compel them to turn over people suspected of criminal atrocities, the official reason given when the bombings began.

Then, in September, 2002, the most powerful state in history announced a new National Security Strategy, asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently.

Any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the United States reigns supreme.

At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilize the population for an invasion of Iraq.

...

The final days of 2002, foreign policy specialist Michael Krepon wrote, were "the most dangerous since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis," which historian Arthur Schlesinger described, reasonably, as "the most dangerous moment in human history."

...

The National Security Strategy declared that the United States, alone, has the right to carry out "preventive war" ” preventive, not pre-emptive ” using military force to eliminate a perceived threat, even if invented or imagined.

Preventive war is, very simply, the "supreme crime" condemned at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.

...

Last May, after the putative end of the war in Iraq, President Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared that he had won a "victory in the war on terror (by having) removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

But Sept. 11, 2003, will arrive with no credible evidence for the alleged link between Saddam and his bitter enemy Osama bin Laden. And the only known link between the victory and terror is that the invasion of Iraq seems to have increased Al Qaeda recruitment and the threat of terror.

The US giving itself the sole right to declare war based on suspicion is nothing short of declaring desire for world supremacy. Now if the other countries of the world justifiably see this action as a declared war on the rest of the world...what should they do? If another country made the same declaration, the US would deem it a declaration of war.