But the UN Charter is not a self-executing document. Without the force of the SC behind it, it is nothing, and the SC gets to decide what the various provisions of the Charter mean- or whether or not to ignore them altogether. Each permanent member, in turn, has a veto that allows each member to decide to set aside the Charter when it suits them. It's that simple.*d* said:
Dust off the Nuremberg Files
- Thread starter WoodPeckr
- Start date
Defensive war is allowed and that's exactly what Iraq was about. Or, in more simple terms, one would have to attempt to define the war non-defensive, by means of a resolution.
Disgruntled third world state:
"I present our resolution, based upon technical jargon and partisan rhetoric ..."
Omnipotent, veto-holding US:
"I say No!"
The important thing to see here is that one must hail to the chimp when one posesses the stature of jabroni.
Disgruntled third world state:
"I present our resolution, based upon technical jargon and partisan rhetoric ..."
Omnipotent, veto-holding US:
"I say No!"
The important thing to see here is that one must hail to the chimp when one posesses the stature of jabroni.
*d* said:
Move over, Dr. Mengele ...
From: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...54&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Maybe those Nuremberg files SHOULD be dusted off...
Jun. 23, 2005. 06:25 AM
Detainee medical records are being used to design more effective interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, says a new report.
U.S. doctors linked to POW `torture'
Guantanamo medical records misused
Basis of interrogators' strategy: Report
TANYA TALAGA AND KAREN PALMER
STAFF REPORTERS
Medical records compiled by doctors caring for prisoners at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay are being tapped to design more effective interrogation techniques, says an explosive new report.
Doctors, nurses and medics caring for the approximately 600 prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are required to provide health information to military and CIA interrogators, according to the report in the respected New England Journal of Medicine.
"Since late 2003, psychiatrists and psychologists (at Guantanamo) have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behaviour-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives," it states.
Such tactics are considered torture by many authorities, the authors note.
From: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...54&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Maybe those Nuremberg files SHOULD be dusted off...
Jun. 23, 2005. 06:25 AM
Detainee medical records are being used to design more effective interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, says a new report.
U.S. doctors linked to POW `torture'
Guantanamo medical records misused
Basis of interrogators' strategy: Report
TANYA TALAGA AND KAREN PALMER
STAFF REPORTERS
Medical records compiled by doctors caring for prisoners at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay are being tapped to design more effective interrogation techniques, says an explosive new report.
Doctors, nurses and medics caring for the approximately 600 prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are required to provide health information to military and CIA interrogators, according to the report in the respected New England Journal of Medicine.
"Since late 2003, psychiatrists and psychologists (at Guantanamo) have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behaviour-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives," it states.
Such tactics are considered torture by many authorities, the authors note.
True, the UN charter is not self executing. To execute its validity it needs its members to use it as law. But in Mar./03 the US Secretary of State did just that. He declared the Iraq war as legal. Wrongfully I might add. So laws, UN resolutions, etc. do matter to the US. They used them to justify the Iraq war. Wrongfully again, of course. So if they attempt to justify the war through UN rules, than they must play by UN rules.Truncador said:
So maybe that makes it clear that the US and UK should not have taken action without UN approval. After all, Iraq was seen by most of the world as not a threat.K Douglas said:
But many civilians are becoming 'so called' insurgents out of desperation. Suicide bombing is new to Iraq and comes from many desperate people, and not just the limited number of Baath party members.K Douglas said:
Saddam or 'W' ...Who Is Worse ?
As time goes on and the death counts rise, it's getting hard to decide just who killed the most people over there, Saddam or GWB.
US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, says anti-war tribunal
ISTANBUL : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein.
"With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein," Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul.
Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.
A symbolic verdict was to be handed down on Monday by the 14 "jurors of conscience" -- including the militant Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things."
The tribunal has for the past two years been gathering what it says is evidence that the war launched in March 2003 to oust Saddam was illegal, and it has also been gathering evidence of exactions allegedly committed by coalition troops.
Its verdict on Monday after its final session is expected to condemn both the United States and Britain.
Roy told the gathering here: ""The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court -- whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize -- to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it."
She added that the tribunal was "an act of resistance," "a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history."
Hans von Sponeck, former director of the UN's so-called oil-for-food programme for Iraq, told the Istanbul gathering that the humanitarian programme "was totally irrelevant."
Von Sponeck ran the programme until 2000 when he resigned because he said it failed to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.
The oil-for-food programme ran from 1996 to 2003. It allowed Baghdad to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods the country lacked due to international sanctions imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Critics said the sanctions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of children and a drastic decline in living standards for almost the entire Iraqi population.
The Iraqi government under Saddam swindled millions of dollars from the 64-billion-dollar scheme, and the scandal has become a huge embarrassment for the United Nations.
"The UN handling of Iraq will be listed as a massive failure," von Sponeck said. "We didn't speak out despite knowing what the economic sanctions had created as a human disaster."
He singled out the United States and British governments for allegedly blocking projects that would, he said, have allowed more people to survive.
Some 200 non-governmental organsiations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalization ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/154590/1/.html
As time goes on and the death counts rise, it's getting hard to decide just who killed the most people over there, Saddam or GWB.
US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, says anti-war tribunal
ISTANBUL : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein.
"With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein," Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul.
Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.
A symbolic verdict was to be handed down on Monday by the 14 "jurors of conscience" -- including the militant Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things."
The tribunal has for the past two years been gathering what it says is evidence that the war launched in March 2003 to oust Saddam was illegal, and it has also been gathering evidence of exactions allegedly committed by coalition troops.
Its verdict on Monday after its final session is expected to condemn both the United States and Britain.
Roy told the gathering here: ""The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court -- whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize -- to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it."
She added that the tribunal was "an act of resistance," "a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history."
Hans von Sponeck, former director of the UN's so-called oil-for-food programme for Iraq, told the Istanbul gathering that the humanitarian programme "was totally irrelevant."
Von Sponeck ran the programme until 2000 when he resigned because he said it failed to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.
The oil-for-food programme ran from 1996 to 2003. It allowed Baghdad to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods the country lacked due to international sanctions imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Critics said the sanctions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of children and a drastic decline in living standards for almost the entire Iraqi population.
The Iraqi government under Saddam swindled millions of dollars from the 64-billion-dollar scheme, and the scandal has become a huge embarrassment for the United Nations.
"The UN handling of Iraq will be listed as a massive failure," von Sponeck said. "We didn't speak out despite knowing what the economic sanctions had created as a human disaster."
He singled out the United States and British governments for allegedly blocking projects that would, he said, have allowed more people to survive.
Some 200 non-governmental organsiations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalization ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/154590/1/.html
'W' Thinks Himself Above The Law
Dubya hears voices.....and they tell him he is above all those other little laws......
Well when you are on a 'mission from God' (which God is confusing though, is it the Christian God, or the Hebrew God ???.....it sure ain't Allah!) and assume the role of World chief hegemon, there is no need for any ICC-type arrangements, international laws, or the UN.Truncador said:
Dubya hears voices.....and they tell him he is above all those other little laws......
It sure ain't Allah, alright, since it's well-known that "Allah" is the old Arabic pagan moon-god dressed up in the theological clothing of Abrahamic monotheism (link). Respectable mainstream Jews and Christians, meanwhile, acknowledge the State as the right hand of God on Earth.WoodPeckr said:
I'm confused, Truncador. You refer to the old theocratic ways as primitivism and not the new direction of the State. Where is this coming from? Bush, an elected man of the State and an example of your new political direction, embraces the primitive ways of theology. His quest for ideological certainties has created yet another of the most primitive types of war -the battle, as Bush states, between 'good and evil'. How is this hardliner mentality more modern and in anyway better? The reality-based community would like to know.Truncador said:
First, if Bush was that much of a hardliner, his foreign policies would have been genocidal.*d* said:
Second, theoretically the military policy of the Bush administration is predicated on the primacy of reasons of State (the anithesis of theocracy). The formal rationale for removing Saddam was not that he was evil, but that evil regimes pose security risks. Morality is thus identified with- but also strictly subordinated to- expediency; what we're looking at is the variant of the doctrine of reasons of State known as liberalism, which teaches that what's morally right is also useful to the temporal ends of the State.
Trunc,Truncador said:
Now that you mention genocidal policy of 'W', others are saying that this did in fact happen in the Fallujah 'campaign', cleansing, massacre, or whatever you prefer to call it.
Honestly can't understand your need to chirp for your chimp......
Witnesses at anti-war tribunal slam US actions in Iraq
Sat Jun 25, 2:54 PM ET
ISTANBUL (AFP) - The World Tribunal on
Iraq (WTI), an anti-war grouping of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intellectuals and writers, heard witnesses condemn the United States for rights abuses and the worsening plight of Iraqi women.
A former US Air Force pilot called on US troops in Iraq to "resist" the orders of their superior officers in an "illegal war".
"Today Iraq has been turned into a vast prison," lawyer Amal Sawadi told the hearing.
"They come to people's houses in the middle of the night, when everyone is asleep, blow in the door. They point their weapons in people's faces ... they search women in front of their families, they smash everything in the house."
She said lawyers had problems getting news of their imprisoned clients and spoke of rapes and humiliations which amounted to the "systematic practice of torture."
The only journalist present in the city of Fallujah when it was attacked in April and November 2004 said the assault on it amounted to "genocide".
Fadhil Al Bedrani, of the Al-Jazeera network, told how a 70-year-old man died for lack of medical supplies and of the stench of rotting bodies "abandoned in the streets and eaten by animals."
The plight of Iraqi women has worsened badly since the occupation, Hana Ibrahim, an Iraqi feminist said.
"From the day the occupation started there have been systematic violations of women's rights. They have been kidnapped, raped and even taken to other countries by criminal networks," she said.
She said 90 percent of women were out of work, women were now "almost non-existent in social life" while "prostitution was developing" and more and more women were reduced to begging.
Former pilot Tim Goodrich said US troops should realize they were taking part in an illegal war and resist.
"There are some people that have, there are pieces of resistance that people don't know about... some soldiers who refuse to go on a mission," he said.
"The military is part of the problem, not of the solution."
"Some people accuse us of being against the troops or antipatriotic but we are the troops. How can I be antipatriotic by asking our soldiers to come back home alive?"
About 200 non-governmental organziations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalisation ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625/wl_mideast_afp/iraqturkeytribunal
It's safe to say that the campaign against Iraq represents the furthest possible distance from a war of genocide imaginable. If America wanted to exterminate the Iraqis or Arabs in general, it would already be a done deal. Instead, the State has bent over backwards doing everything it can to minimize casualties and use the absolute minimum of force- even to the point of arguably falling far short of the optimal minimum where any other world power would have simply turned the rebel areas into glass. I wish there was some computer simulation that could model with realistic illustration what the Soviet would have done with Fallujah, or what Hitler would have done after 9-11 possessed of America's present armature (n.b. America herself nuked a country twice for less than that).
The government should sue this "tribunal" in a civil court for libel (and nail this Goodrich fellow for his flagrantly illegal speech).
The government should sue this "tribunal" in a civil court for libel (and nail this Goodrich fellow for his flagrantly illegal speech).
Actually the Soviets managed to show restraint in not turning Afghaninstan into "glass", so it is possible, not that their invasion was any the less brutal. I'm not sure why you seem to be patting the US on the back for not nuking the hell out of everything in sight. I don't usually associate invading other countries unprovoked and contributing to the death of tens of thousands with "bending over backwards".
Because they could do (and have done) that, but don't. I think people fail to realize just how measured the inevitable military response to 9-11 really was. What would normally have been a terrible, irrational, and mindlessly homicidal retribution was instead transformed into a technocratic exercise in world-systems maintenance, as though the whole thing were a matter of deleting a program on one's computer. Give the USA some credit why not, and try to see the glass of State violence as three-fourths empty instead of one-fourth full.Asterix said:
Please. Saddam was not exactly a guy who had been standing around minding his own business all these years. He asked for it.
Sorry, I don't believe there was any significant chance of nuclear retribution simply because the enemy was not yet defined, and as came to light, on the fringes of any association to a state. Exactly who or what are you suggesting were possible targets of nuclear retalliation after 9/11, or are we talkng nuclear carpet bombing just to make sure?Truncador said:
