>>> Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm Hussein. >>> Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What he failed to >>> do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because there >>> is no coalition.
Per usual, your facts are wrong ... >>> During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded >>> internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons inspections in >>> Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has been used, and can >>> be used again, to avert conflict. Except it hasn't... Only when all 5 veto holding powers agree can it act... And then the restrictions are usually such that action is ineffective... Please note Saddam ignore 12 years of Chapter VII Resolutions because he had bribe the UNSC from taken action... >>> By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite for >>> military action, the White House puts us in a state of constant uncertainty >>> and increased insecurity where almost anything could lead to war. Except to you reasonable means certitude... Read Eisenhower's farewell speech... He notes that a nation can not wait to prepare for war after the fact (as had been the case)... The slippery Slope of Technology and Modern Communication decreases the reaction time between certitude and uncertainty.... Today Saddam could have produced, delivered then used chemical or biological WMD in a matter of weeks... Further you ignore the consensus of the world's major intel agency that Saddam had WMD capacity of some level... Again you twist facts to fit an ideology... On Apr 24, 8:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Studio, > > > Horse Hockey. > > > There is no spin here. I reference the Preamble of the Constitution > > because OUR Nation was being attacked, and WE ALL believed that more attacks > > were going to happen. Osama bin Laden promised as much. Khalid Shaykh > > Mohammad promised as much, Abu Zumdayah promised as much. Abu al Nashiri > > promised as much. > > Small and isinificant points: > > The preamble applies on US soil ONLY. > > I believe my neighbor is selling black mold tainted marihuana by the ton... > this will kill or make deathly ill 1000's ............ can I use "advanced" > questioning techniques and if not why not ?? > > > > > The pirate that was turned over to civilian prosecution is something that > > has been happening in our Nation for over two hundred years, nothing new > > here. It is called Admiralty-Maritime Law, and *in-rem* prosecution. > > There is no comparison between the piracy off the coast of Somalia, and > > homicidal murderers who are intent on attacking and killing Americans in our > > own Nation. > > Agreed..... > > > > > Iraq's internal affairs has nothing to do with our own, other than > > there were a haven of these homicidal murderers convened within the borders > > of Iraq, most especially after we as a Nation decided to remove Saddam > > Hussien from power in a preemptive attack. > > Long but a complete answer written in 2002 and every word is still true (and > proven to be so) > > In attempting to make the case for invading Iraq, President Bush's speech > Monday night revealed the folly of the new doctrine of pre-emptive attack. > More clearly than any other statement by the White House, the president laid > bare the weakness of his administration's foreign policy. > > According to the president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" that Saddam > Hussein's government is planning an imminent attack against the United > States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq does > not currently threaten the United States, he said we must "assume the > worst." Essentially, the White House is proposing that the United States > invade a distant country without any evidence of impending aggression. > > Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm Hussein. > Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What he failed to > do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because there > is no coalition. Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, disregard > for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war without end > is causing traditional friends of the United States to join the majority of > the world's nations in distancing themselves from Washington in a fashion > not seen since the Vietnam War. > > The flimsy justifications President Bush has provided for an urgent Iraq > invasion have not convinced the world community. Iraq's neighbors, Saudi > Arabia and Kuwait, reject the notion of an imminent threat. The Muslim world > -- whose support is vital to any real effort to end the causes of terrorism > -- is adamantly opposed. In Europe, only England's Tony Blair and Italy's > Silvio Berlusconi have voiced support for Bush. They both do so in the face > of majority opposition from their fellow citizens and street demonstrations > of hundreds of thousands of people. > > Many in the global community also distrust the Bush administration's > expanding war aims. It is not easy for our friends around the world to > stomach the imperial scent of our newly enunciated military doctrine that > proposes pre- emption of any powerful rivals. > > The president wants to launch a war based on assumptions, and therein lies a > problem. One of the great advances of the modern era has been the spread of > the rule of law. This is the now common idea that democratically decided > laws - - not the capriciousness of individual rulers -- should govern human > affairs. > > During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded > internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons inspections in > Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has been used, and can > be used again, to avert conflict. > > Perhaps most repugnant to our allies is the transparent effort by the Bush > Administration to eviscerate U.N. inspection and disarmament activities. > They see a pattern of the Bush administration continuously upping the ante > with Iraq, apparently to avoid a non-military outcome. They know that an > American invasion will dramatically undermine the painstakingly constructed > framework of international law built since World War II. The White House's > belief that it can invade nations pre-emptively, without proof of an > imminent attack, represents a major assault on that international rule of > law. > > The Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attack raises troubling > questions. What burden of proof will be used to decide when a pre-emptive > attack is called for? If only assumptions are needed to launch a war, how > will we separate true threats from phantom menaces? If clear evidence of > impending aggression is not required to invade another country, what > standards will be employed to decide when, where, and who to attack? > > By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite for > military action, the White House puts us in a state of constant uncertainty > and increased insecurity where almost anything could lead to war. > > President Bush says he wants to avoid "a future of fear." It's an admirable > goal, but one hardly served by this new doctrine. In fact, the idea of pre- > emptive attack depends on fear. It presupposes insecurity and assumes we > will always be threatened. Whereas the Cold War doctrine of deterrence and > containment rested on strength, the new idea of pre-emption insists on U.S. > vulnerability. > > There is no security in a world where wars can be started on nothing more > than assumptions. When the smallest suspicion or the least distrust can > ignite conflict, no one is safe. In the long run, pre-emptive wars will > break down the international rule of law and erode global stability, > jeopardizing all nations' security. > > President Bush's pre-emptive wars won't preserve the peace. Rather, the > notion of pre-emptive war makes conflict all the more likely. It sets the > United States on a course of permanent war. > > Members of Congress who stood in opposition to Bush have shown courage and > wisdom. They are reflecting a profound unease with this war across the > United States. In poll after poll, majorities of Americans are on the record > being opposed to war with Iraq if the United States acts alone. Our leaders > should listen to the people. We know our true safety as a nation flows from > cooperation, not unilateral war. > > > As I am sure you recall, the theory was, that Saddam Hussien had, and > > was attempting to secure weapons of mass destruction that could be a > > threat to the United States. This was also during the era where all > > Americans wanted some revenge for what took place in New York and Washington > > D.C. on September 11, 2001. > > > Khalid was captured in Iraq. Remember? This is where he filmed the > > beheading of Daniel Pearl. > > He was only there after the US invasion. > > > > > American jurisprudence has no place in a war. We should not be restricted > > by being forced to give these homicidal murderers who are intent on > > attacking our Nation Miranda rights, or affording them a civilian trial. > > > Like the majority of Americans, I have long called for the fair, impartial > > military trials of those who were captured and detained. I believe that > > all of them would have been tried by now, if it were not for organizations > > like the ACLU and others from the far left who challenged some of the > > Justice Department's policies and the Bush Administration's > > determinations. > > The challenges were based in international law and the policy of bringing > prisoners to US soil for the purpose of evading international law where US > law and jurisprudence MUST be followed was folly. > > > > > I do concede that the Bush Administration did not move quickly enough in > > bringing these homicidal murderers to a military trial quickly enough. You > > might recall that Raz and I discussed this about a year ago, in a rather > > long thread, which I think you were even a part of. It was a mistake to > > have left these detainees in a prison camp for four and five years, without > > a conclusion as to their fate. Having said that, we still have some of the > > Marielitos from Cuba who came to this Nation in the early 1980s who are > > still imprisoned and have never had a trial. > > > With regard to me "proving it"; e.g.; that the Bush Administration gained > > valuable information that stopped the devastation in our Nation, by > > preventing a plane hitting a skyscraper in Los Angeles and a dirty bomb > > being detonated in Washington D.C., > > I am truly sorry that there is NO possible proof of "what may have been". I > personally have had detailed plans to steal a full beer truck (seriously) > for years. It has even been modified to take into account the lojack and > other locating equipment carried on board... should I be arrested ???? I > KNOW the plan will work. > > > I am only going by the Memorandum that Steven Bradbury wrote that the Obama > > Administration released last week. Former Vice President Cheney has asked > > for the release of more classified Memoranda to be released, which the Obama > > Administration seems unwilling to do. > > The released memorandi had nothing in them that was not in the public domain > already. > > > > > Why is that? Ya think there might be some partisan politics involved in > > this whole charade?? > > It is politics to think or act as though the info wasn't already common > knowledge yet to continue to think they were secret in any way. I am waiting > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
