BHS

I understand your position. And I must add that though I disagree with most of what you've written, your posts have grown on me.

Well, dubya did declare a war on terror. From his state of the union, 2002: "Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020129-11.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's not a formal declaration of war, as set out in the US Constitiution. They don't make those formal declarations anymore.

Great response. All this got me were a million conspiracy theory websites. Can you be more specific? And I sincerely doubt that any argument could ever convince you otherwise. Unless we were talking about Rumsfeld instead of Saddam, maybe. Doesn't going to change the fact that he's going to end up dead in any case. Huh? Which of my analogies are you referring to? The situation: an extralegal individual is captured and imprisoned by an extralegal process. Trying to fit this set of circumstances into the context of a normal criminal trial isn't possible, but quite a lot of people are demanding it anyway. So the trial proceeds, the prisoner is/isn't found guilty and is executed in any case. And I'm saying that that's a mockery of justice. It's too bad, for your sensitivities, that Saddam can't be treated like an ordinary individual, but that's the situation. Another useful rejoinder. Please, I'm begging you, don't just assume that your prejudices are the norm that everybody is familiar with. I happen to think my objections to the ICC are all valid. Tell me a little bit about this "vision" you pro ICC people have. A couple of little jabs. Believe me, I'm keeping it in check here, bud. I didn't get that you disagreed. So, does this mean you're in favour of a show trial? ...(s)he says, quoting the forbidden word. That's hysterical. It reminds me of those instances when some big MSM news organization quotes the most horrible lies about a person from some tacky little tabloid, knowing that they can't be sued for libel because they're just quoting. And then they have the nerve to reprimand the tabloid for saying such terrible things. Go ahead and tattle if you must. In those instances that I've written things that were wrong or inappropriate I've openly apologized. Otherwise, I stand behind everything I've written. If they give me the boot for that, so be it. There are other forums on the web. If you don't hear from me again on this forum, look for me elsewhere. Cheers.

That is incredibly rich, coming from you. I've read through a good portion of your posting history, and one of the comments I was going to make is that you appear to spend all of your time and energy looking for that one in a hundred news item that somehow backs up your pre-conceived notions, while ignoring the other 99 altogether. FYI - I follow news stories from across the political spectrum, mostly on the web, but also in The Star, The Post, The CBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. You sit and read the Toronto Star but somehow, in your mind, you've got a broader view of news topics than I do. Whatever. You clearly have internet access, and there are a million search engines available on the web, not to mention a good deal of the Star's content. The least you could do is find the odd link to back up your posting.

Excuse me? I thought we were discussing the topic of this thread, being Rove's supposed criminality in leaking info to reporters. And to clarify a point, the US didn't declare war in the 2003 invasion. Or the 1991 invasion. Or Kosovo, or Panama, or Vietnam. They don't "declare war" anymore.

Didn't I read that Kofi & co. at the UN were also refusing to call Sudan a genocidal situation, for the same reason? It seems to me that the US is not the only country in the world that isn't too keen to send in the troops every time the "g" word is used.

Again, it won't demostrate the rule of law. At best, they'll come up with a halfway decent legal case against him to give a veneer of respectability to his inevitable death sentence. At worst, they won't be able to make a proper case against him but will execute him anyway, respectable veneer be damned.

You're thinking of emotivist-anarchism. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. There are many more schools besides, such as anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, individualist (or egoist) anarchism, and probably more. But those are the major ones. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, there are pro-law-and-order anarchists? Is that right? How do they differ from libertarians?

An ICC without military support would be like a criminal court without bailiffs or police. Diplomatic pressure is meaningless without an army to back it up, regarless of what LLoyd Axworthy thinks. Under your scheme, participation in the court (that is, making the decision to extradite one of your own citizens or leaders to the court) would then have to be made at the national level. Can you see a country like, say, Sudan participating with the same level of good faith that Canada would?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's going to be so great when the Dems get back into the White House, so that I can take your place at blowing all of the fiddling, meaningless little deceptions that happen under every administration way out of proportion. I'm really going to enjoy stuffing all of this right back in your faces.

I've grown to accept your abhorrence of linking to news articles that back up your story, but the least you could do was include the name Philip Cooney in your post so that others could Google with a little less work. For posterity, here's an article about eureka's post (from the Golden State - motto: "Eureka" Lat. "I have discovered it"): Modesto Bee I don't know if altering reports on climate change to suit the Bush regime's message is going to gain any political traction, eureka. These guys seem to be more concerned with the fact that Philip's moved on to Exxon, which makes him a complete package as an environmental evildoer.

I love your posts sometimes, mostly when they're not directly opposed to my ideas. I'm narrow-minded like that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If Saddam didn't commit genocide, then neither did Milosevic, for the same reasons you've listed. See my previous post in regard to the problems with the ICC.

You know what? Just because Kofi says the war is illegal doesn't make it so. The US took action that was entirely consistent with 17 Security Council resolutions that were passed following the 1991 invasion and ceasefire. Go blow smoke somewhere else.

So let me get this straight. You think Saddam should have criminal trial, but America et al are against this idea because details could come out that would prove embarrassing to them. Can you provide some examples of these details, that might be relevant to whatever charges Saddam is facing? The argument is essentially consistent, though. What he was saying is that any trial that happens will be a mockery of justice anyway, and Saddam is going to end up facing a firing squad (or worse) no matter what. My first point made the case that the process of gathering evidence against Saddam has already been tainted by the nature of his role in the pre-war society. The criminal investigation of Saddam is inherently flawed by his unique position in Iraqi society. If the prosecutors decide to go to trial anyway, they'll be going in with tainted evidence. If he walks because of legal technicalities, the government will execute him anyway, because they can't afford to let him go free. The entire process has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with retribution. So what's the point? Yes. Review what I wrote above about retribution. I guess you didn't comprehend the snippet you were responding to here. What the police do, and what an army does, are two different things for two different situations. Using the same set of rules for judging the legality of the forceful action doesn't make any sense. Here we go. "If only Belgian anarchists had the option of charging world leaders with crimes on a daily basis, forcing global governance to come to a standstill, everything would be better." That's what all the of you ICC supporters sound like tom me. You have no idea the can of worms that you're opening. An ICC with global reach would be a joke, because the terrorists and the Mugabes and ayatollahs would never respond to any of the charges, which means that someone would end up having to send in the troops, for which they would immediately be charged with starting a war. It's a vicious, twisted circle that only benefits the worst offenders in the long run. Do you know, at this point I wouldn't expect any other answer from you. As if it's all just a great conspiracy to keep military bondage videos out of the press. Again, you're starting to sound like a broken record (or Dr. Demento's greatest hits). Which, strangely, seems to be in keeping with my argument. So I don't have anything snide to add here. I've edited this post three times and I still don't know where the problem is. Can anyones see what's wrong with it?

Why? I oppose State-monopolized courts, therefore, I must support the concentration of State power and the abolition of such checks and balances as exist? That doesn't make sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just think it's odd for an anarchist to acknowledge the need for any sort of legal body or any system of checks and balances. I would have thought you would want all of it scrapped in favour of your trusty AK47.

Posting is slow today, so I'll be a sport and start a new thread. George Jonas, writing in The National Post a couple of years ago, made a compelling argument against bringing Saddam to trial in a criminal court. The thrust of his argument was that no one can honestly expect Saddam to walk away from the trial exonerated, so the trial fits the definition of a kangaroo court, where the process can jump from accusation to sentencing without the need of all that icky trial stuff in the middle. He concluded that the best thing course of action would be for Saddam to be taken out and shot without a trial. I have a couple of additional ideas that argue against giving Saddam a criminal trial, both of which are based on the concept of "extralegality". 1) A man who rules a country completely and dictates the law is above all law, no matter it's source. While he remains in power, all of his actions are de facto legally justified. He also has every opportunity to eliminate evidence and witnesses that might one day be used against him, making it extremely difficult to construct a strict legal case against him, using the normal rules of evidence and due process. 2) This is the more important point. By putting Saddam on trial in a criminal court, you are acknowledging that he is entitled to certain rights that are common to any accused person. All laws extend ultimately from the state's power of coersion. If you break the law, the state has the legal power to act against you, with physical violence if necessary, to bring you to trial. However, the rules that the state must follow are very strict in order to ensure that your rights have not been abrogated in the process. A conviction can be thrown out if it's proven that an accused's rights were not fully observed in the process of arrest and trial. War is by it's very nature extralegal. It is the unconditional use of a nation's might to force a resolution to a dispute. It is the last course of action to be taken between nations, when all else has failed. A man who has been brought to trial as a result of war has undoubtedly had at least some of his rights abrogated, by the very nature of his arrest. The soldiers who captured and detained Saddam most certainly did not read him Miranda, for instance, and so a criminal trial against Saddam could not proceed in the US. This is the reason that armies prefer military tribunals, because the rules of evidence and due process are different. To reiterate: If you put Saddam on trial, and that trial involves anything like due process, there's a substantial risk that he's going to walk. But if you don't use due process, what's the point of a trial? Like George said, take him out and shoot him, and use the money you would have spent putting him on trial for a South Africa-style reconcilliation process.

I don't see how you can call yourself an anarchist and still complain about a lack of judicial oversight.

Funny stuff, I gotta use that somewhere, can I have it?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Go for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> What heavy lifting did Joe Wilson ever do? He went and drank tea with his official contacts in Niger, and then wrote a report about what they told him. The administration ignored his report and instead went with what British Intelligence was saying. So Joe gets all pissy and writes an op-ed about it in the NYT. That's the full extent of Joe's effort to expose "deceit" in the context of the Iraq invasion. All the stuff that came out afterwards about Plame has nothing to do with the war, except that it stems from Joe's aforementioned trip to Africa. And in any case, doing the cover of Vanity Fair isn't heavy lifting. Nor is acting as a kvetching fart-catcher for Chuck Schumer. As far as the adminstration's "deceit" goes, haven't the MSM worked that whole angle into the ground? What fresh evidence of deceit have they found? If there's nothing new, where does this write want them to go with this? There's a point where readers start to tune out old news, and the MSM know this. The Dems have been trying to get to Rove since before the 2000 election, because he's proven himself incredibly effective as a campaign manager and spin doctor. They've become completely paranoid/delusional on this issue. To paraphrase from an old issue of National Lampoon: "But hey, a million paranoid schizophrenics can't all be wrong." Right?

The present occupants of the White House are quite the crowd, aren't they! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There seems to be a number of McQuaig fans in this forum, so I make an effort to read her columns when I come across them. This was one of those. To tell the truth, while I support the war on terror I believe it is analogous to the war on drugs, which has not been a success for the Americans. Like the war on terror, the war on drugs has seen an increase in the proscribed activity rather than a decrease. An amorphous, conceptual target is not as easy to hit as a radar station. The question then arises: is the war on drugs responsible for increased drug use and acceptability? I suppose some arguments could be made to affirm this charge. A lot of people believe that making a thing illegal only makes it more desirable, for instance. But we are without the possibility of exploring an alternate timeline where there is no war on drugs or war on terror. Who's to say that terror and drug use wouldn't have increased anyway?* The Americans pulled out of Lebanon after the guerilla attack in 1983. Between 1983 and 2001 numerous terrorist and guerilla attacks of increasing severity were perpetrated against American targets with only mild American rebukes. Do you think the World Trade Centre was their final big score, and after that they had planned to retire? The war on terror is more than just sending in an air strike whenever something blows up in North America. It's also about vigilence on the part of ordinary people, and the willingness of the public to tolerate a loss of civil liberties to combat potential terrorist threats. It's about winning the hearts and minds of foreign populations who've lived their entire lives being taught that we have evil plans for their souls. It's about fostering and encouraging democratic movements in the most undemocratic places, and forming new relationships with countries that have changed. I've read a lot of criticism about how America has treated the people of the Middle East in the past, and a lot of it is justified. I've also read posts where people have said that 911 didn't really do much to change our society. But that's wrong. 911 was a watershed moment in the way the West views and relates itself to the Middle East. Complaining about how we used the Middle East for our own ends before 911 is kicking a dead horse. We don't have the luxury to take what we want and trust that the people we screwed will just fight among themselves. In a way, the terrorists have won. But not in the way they intended. * (Here's a thought that I couldn't fit neatly into my argument: another analogy is crime prevention and deterance, potentially a "war on crime". Is crime prevention worth the effort? Or should the police sit around passively waiting for crime to occur, and do a minimal mop-up afterwards?)

My reasons are that I don't agree with any of your reasons. Rove isn't going to be convicted of anything, and Bush isn't going to be impeached or asked to resign. I'm sure this "scandal" will have continuing political traction due to it's enormous popularity among MSM journalists and lefty fever swamp denizens, but it's all going to come to nothing. If they're (the Dems) incredibly lucky, and this story makes it to November 2006, it *might* swing the vote on one or two Senate seats, but not enough to make a significant difference.

Because it gives them (the Egyptians) more time to torture a confession out of him, so that he can be presented in trade for whatever the Egyptians think they can get for him. Dumb bugger. (Him, not you.) Just in passing, did you really mean to write "so-called suicide bombers" or should it have been "alleged suicide bombers"? Because, if you acknowledge that the dudes identified in the video surveylance with the backpacks are the guys who did the job, and they died in the explosions, it's pretty plain that they're "suicide bombers" no matter how you slice it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're delirious. (At first I felt bad about adding such and abrupt and useless comment to the thread, but then I realized that I was replying to a short and mostly pointless post, which made me feel better about it. So there you go.)

Yeah, because the race to the moon turned out to be so crucial. Like France, we would have ended up selling the Arrow to Iraq and like countries. And then, when we accuse the US of being tyrant-supporting warmongering fascists, we could have had the thrilling frisson of what psychologists call "projection" just like Chirac must have. What a sad, delicate flower Canada has become, that one idiot Prime Minister making one (admittedly gargantuan) mistake half a century ago ruined our technological prowess for all eternity.

Iraq's constitution incomplete at target date - Iraqis manage to get basics of constitution finished to allow for continued elections. Elections scheduled and held on time thereafter, and eventually an amended constitution finds broad political acceptance. Various smaller interest groups coalesce into broader-based parties, and the insurgency is reduced to less frequent attacks that are in no way supported by a large majority of ordinary Iraqis, who enjoy increased security and a strong economy benefitting (finally) all social strata. American military presence is reduced to a large guest military base, which is staffed with a contingent similar to the current German or South Korean bases, for the foreseeable future. China's economy tanks when they discover that all of the oil companies they bought from the Americans turn out to be clones of Enron. The Taiwanese navy captures Hong Kong, sells recently installed Mao statuary for scrap. Chinese retaliate with nuclear strike that backfires due to poorly designed and maintained Russian guidance system, Peking incinerated. Global protest movement blames the tragedy on the US.