Bush knew detainees were innocent

M.Dancer · April 14, 2010

This all means UN = nothing. Why the hell does the UN exist if international laws can be ignored by the people who created them?

Well that's the whole point ain't it?

Some believe international law was broken, others do not. The UN is not a court. And at this point, no one has been able to make a case that the 2003 invasion was illegal where a competant bench would hear it.

bush_cheney2004 · April 14, 2010

Well that's the whole point ain't it?

Some believe international law was broken, others do not. The UN is not a court. And at this point, no one has been able to make a case that the 2003 invasion was illegal where a competant bench would hear it.

Pretty much...that and some bumper stickers about Bush lying. He got re-elected anyway, which just pisses them off even more.

waldo · April 14, 2010

I have backed up my assertion. You haven't backed yours, you have merely lobbed the ball back. Since you have made the first claim I believe it is up to you to prove that claim.

Maybe you could start with the ICJ...

remind me again... what's your backing for your assertion that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". What's your backing? That's absolutely your claim with your statement, "When clearly, it does". What's your backing again... perhaps you could start with the ICJ - something beyond a minimalistic reach for wiki.

but like I said, what's the point of your ICJ reference when the U.S. doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ... anyway? What's your backing again?

I can play your silly bugger routine Dancer... I can't prove the existence of something that I believe doesn't exist; however, I am most open to your indulgence in providing me the foundation that allows you to suggest the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legally sanctioned by international law... can ya do that - can you provide that international law foundation that backs your assertion that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN"? Can you provide that... specifically without further display of your pat "chuck and jive" or silly bugger routines... can you categorically - and succinctly - define the foundation that backs your assertion?

waldo · April 14, 2010

I can't recall the UNSC condemning the Iraq invasion...

something about a veto power within the UNSC... as I recall :lol:

Shady · April 14, 2010

something about a veto power within the UNSC... as I recall

Yes but, what you recall is often very, very, wrong. :lol:

waldo · April 14, 2010

Because the US Congressioanl resolution required a dog and pony show for the UN. War was authorized by the US Congress.

yes, when the UN Security Council refused to grant the "2nd resolution providing force authorization" to invade Iraq, well... of course the U.S. went ahead anyway. That's what rogue nations do. Nothing like a domestic U.S. Congressional resolution to substantiate an international war of aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S.

I have shirked nothing....WMDs in Iraq were used as a credible pretext for a long desired outcome...regime change in Iraq. It worked.

credible? :lol:

waldo · April 14, 2010

Shady, remember... you need to stay in your own kiddee threads - the ones you use to manufacture doubt and uncertainty over AGW climate change... or the ones you use to prominently display your Obama Derangement Syndrome... or the ones you use to exhibit your intellectual dishonesty (note: these may or may not be independent threads... cross-over exists :lol: ). This thread doesn't appear to fit those categories - quite yet... although it does certainly display your lack of acumen and emotional flightiness.

bush_cheney2004 · April 14, 2010

yes, when the UN Security Council refused to grant the "2nd resolution providing force authorization" to invade Iraq, well... of course the U.S. went ahead anyway. That's what rogue nations do. Nothing like a domestic U.S. Congressional resolution to substantiate an international war of aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S.

Well at least the US Government did that much...when Canada bombed Serbia, it was without any vote in Parliament. How does it feel to live in a "rogue nation"? Not bad...right?

credible?

"More inspections!" was the hue and cry about the land....inspections for what? LOL!

Edited April 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

waldo · April 14, 2010

oh inconvenient!

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

waldo · April 14, 2010

oh my - how troublesome!

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

bush_cheney2004 · April 14, 2010

oh inconvenient!

Now he loves Perle! Too little...too late.

M.Dancer · April 14, 2010

Now he loves Perle! Too little...too late.

What a shame his opinion is meaningless...I mean, sure he says this and he says that...and so? Is his capacity as Secretary General one to pronounce judgement on nations? No...might as well quote Jack (fighting bravely) Layton for all the moral and legal weight that carries....

bush_cheney2004 · April 14, 2010

What a shame his opinion is meaningless...I mean, sure he says this and he says that...and so? Is his capacity as Secretary General one to pronounce judgement on nations? No...might as well quote Jack (fighting bravely) Layton for all the moral and legal weight that carries....

Right...it's just more of the same old argument long since lost for all practical purposes. The funny part is that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is accepted as a "crime against the peace" for Nuremburg Principles / UN Charter purposes without much question, but not the invasion of Iraq.

maple_leafs182 · April 15, 2010

Do you guys really not see the American government is corrupt.

Its not a two headed one party system.

The same people control both parties.

Plutonomy : "Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority".

The war on drugs and the war on terror are just ways to induce fear into the population so they willingly give up some of their freedoms.

It is no longer a republic.

bush_cheney2004 · April 15, 2010

Do you guys really not see the American government is corrupt.

Its not a two headed one party system.

The same people control both parties.

Correct....those people would be Americans..not Canadians.

The war on drugs and the war on terror are just ways to induce fear into the population so they willingly give up some of their freedoms. It is no longer a republic.

Sure it is...guess what has never been a republic?

Born Free · April 15, 2010

Do you guys really not see the American government is corrupt.

Its not a two headed one party system.

The same people control both parties.

Plutonomy : "Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority".

The war on drugs and the war on terror are just ways to induce fear into the population so they willingly give up some of their freedoms.

It is no longer a republic.

I remember when LBJ introduced the War on Poverty and millions signed up to enlist.

GostHacked · April 15, 2010

Well, I guess what we can say is that Bush defied US law. There were no WMDs. Regardless of how the UN sees it, I am sure there were US laws that Bush violated with the drumbeat for war.

Born Free · April 15, 2010

Well, I guess what we can say is that Bush defied US law. There were no WMDs. Regardless of how the UN sees it, I am sure there were US laws that Bush violated with the drumbeat for war.

Lying to Congress perhaps. However, nobody wants another impeachment process. The US public would rather move on to dealing with stuff like how they are going to continue to fund their wars...

Shady · April 15, 2010

Well, I guess what we can say is that Bush defied US law. There were no WMDs. Regardless of how the UN sees it, I am sure there were US laws that Bush violated with the drumbeat for war.

Unfortunately for you, that's not the case either. Although, I did hear he violated the rules of shotgun once, by calling it before he could actually see the car. Perhaps you could explore that deviation from the law?

Shady · April 15, 2010

Lying to Congress perhaps

Sure. Can you believe George W Bush got these people to say these things 2 years before he became President! What a mastermind! :lol:

:lol:

GostHacked · April 15, 2010

Unfortunately for you, that's not the case either. Although, I did hear he violated the rules of shotgun once, by calling it before he could actually see the car. Perhaps you could explore that deviation from the law?

Lies about :

Detainees

Domestic wiretapping

Renditions

Iraq's WMDs

But this seems to be typical of the US mentality. When it's deals with sex (Clinton Lewinsky) people will nail them to the wall (albeit for lying about something). When it comes to unchecked violence and basic rights of people in the US being violated, no one blinks.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Born Free · April 15, 2010

Lies about :

Detainees

Domestic wiretapping

Renditions

Iraq's WMDs

But this seems to be typical of the US mentality. When it's deals with sex (Clinton Lewinsky) people will nail them to the wall (albeit for lying about something). When it comes to unchecked violence and basic rights of people in the US being violated, no one blinks.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Lots...

Born Free · April 15, 2010

Sure. Can you believe George W Bush got these people to say these things 2 years before he became President! What a mastermind!

They didnt lie to congress in a letter justifying going to war.

sharkman · April 15, 2010

Lies about :

Detainees

Domestic wiretapping

Renditions

Iraq's WMDs

But this seems to be typical of the US mentality. When it's deals with sex (Clinton Lewinsky) people will nail them to the wall (albeit for lying about something). When it comes to unchecked violence and basic rights of people in the US being violated, no one blinks.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Come on, if that was true he would have been impeached, or at least hounded like Clinton was. They couldn't touch Bush on these things, they just didn't like his policies so accused him of 'lying'. Or 'stealing'. As in the 2000 election.

GostHacked · April 15, 2010

Come on, if that was true he would have been impeached, or at least hounded like Clinton was. They couldn't touch Bush on these things, they just didn't like his policies so accused him of 'lying'. Or 'stealing'. As in the 2000 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

http://www.impeachbush.tv/ <-- i like this one

The MSNBC one was a poll... deleted

I am sure if you did a little searching on the net you'd find a lot more.

Edited April 15, 2010 by GostHacked