FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Supreme court rules





diverden
CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- The Supreme Court decision that ruled against the Bush administration's plan to try suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay prison has "hampered our ability" to deal with terrorists, the U.S. attorney general said Saturday.

Under the 5-3 court ruling, the Bush administration must adopt a military system for trying suspected terrorists consistent with international standards -- or release the suspects from military custody.

"What this decision has done is, it's hampered our ability to move forward with a tool which we had hoped would be available to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told CNN.

The administration had planned to try suspects in military tribunals as "enemy combatants." They would not be eligible for the rights, as established by the Geneva Conventions, guaranteed to prisoners of war.



When the votes go against the Bush administration they are activist judges who made a bad decision that flies in the face of combating terrorism but when the same judges rule in favor of the administration, they are patriots who understand the need of the executive branch for unlimited power. How can the US, the only country to uphold the power of democracy and personal freedom, deny the Geneva convention from prisoners of war. It reminds me of the movie, The Rock, where they government had locked up a man for decades, without any charges.
Soulfire
So basically, the Supreme Court will be responsible for making us release all of our known and held terrorists back into the world to kill our innocent civilians, then more foreigners will hate us, and there will be less trust in the government.

Sounds like a plan to me.
xalophus
Soulfire wrote:
Supreme Court will be responsible for making us release all of our known and held terrorists back into the world to kill our innocent civilians

Please avoid talking crap. Atleast try to limit it to your beliefs.

The supreme court never ordered release of any prisoner.
The detainees at Guantanamo are not known terrorists.
Infact, only 10 out of the 450+ now held at guantanamo face any kind of charge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5102528.stm


But one has got to love the way our President thinks -
Quote:
Bush - "Remember, these are -- the ones in Guantanamo Bay are killers. They don't share the same values we share."

Reporter - "But if you say they're killers --"

Bush - "Yes, I think they're killers."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-17.html

No trial or tribunal is needed.
"God" W. Bush has spoken.

Soulfire wrote:
all of our known and held terrorists
And you sound just like him!


What the supreme court has done is a small step towards cutting "emperor" Bush down to size, and that clearly, is not going down well with his minions.
Vrythramax
it seems simple enough, if they are not citizens of the US, and thier country doesn't recognize the charges abainst them as being illegal...they cannot be tried under Federal Law the same way a US citizen could be. They can be detained (I don't know for how long) and then deported, but they don't fall under current US laws. Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting thier release in any fashion if they are suspected of terrorist activities (planning, management, co-ordination, or implimentation), but the laws we have in place at the moment, have to be followed, and enforced...or we are no better than they are.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:

Please avoid talking crap. Atleast try to limit it to your beliefs.


I'll toss this in for you, xalophus, cuz I know you'd want other's to point out to YOU if you were doing something you accused others of doing. Wink

Quote:

The supreme court never ordered release of any prisoner.


Correct! (See? We CAN agree Laughing )


Quote:
The detainees at Guantanamo are not known terrorists.


YOUR Opinion, sir... You THINK this is FACT because, oh, wait, because the BBC said it was so...???? They would know, wouldn't they?? Wink


Quote:
No trial or tribunal is needed.
"God" W. Bush has spoken.


You said it yourself, and GW said it... he THINKS they're killers. Yes, GW THINKING they're killers makes him a "God" ? They are any different from any other POW's because???? Oh, wait, lets not ask the bbc, we KNOW their answer.

Quote:

What the supreme court has done is a small step towards cutting "emperor" Bush down to size, and that clearly, is not going down well with his minions.


As Commander In Cheif, the "emperor" has had very little change since this ruling. The POW's will REMAIN at Gitmo. The ones they can charge, they will. The ones they can't charge, which they "think" or "know" are threats to the US and/or it's war on terror, WILL REMAIN until such time as the "war" is over Laughing or they are deemed not to be a threat.

The rest, those they don't believe are threats, will be, or have been, released.

I figured you'd get your panties all up in a wad over this, xal. Laughing Laughing Laughing
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
The detainees at Guantanamo are not known terrorists.

YOUR Opinion, sir... You THINK this is FACT because, oh, wait, because the BBC said it was so...???? They would know, wouldn't they??

That they are not known terrorists is not my opinion. It is a fact.
They would be known terrorists if any charges were proven against them.

What part of that do you not understand?

The BBC didn't say anything about them not being terrorists.
What they did say is that 440+ out of the 450+ detainees don't even face charges.
They are not even suspects in the eyes of the law, much less "known" terrorists.

BBC are news carriers - they don't pass judgements. They don't even pass views outside of their editorials.
I can understand why you hate BBC.
What's a good news source for you? WorldNetDaily?


S3nd K3ys wrote:
GW THINKING they're killers makes him a "God" ?

No.
But GW denying them fair trial because of what he "thinks", sure does.

Given his way of "thinking", no wonder the supreme court didn't have faith in the tribunal he was planning or carrying out against the plaintiff.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
They are any different from any other POW's because????
Oh, wait, lets not ask the bbc, we KNOW their answer.

They are not given POW status because????
Oh, wait, let's not try to find out.

And don't use the term "POW", they are not POWs.

If you do, then please tell us about the time when they were given POW status. Perhaps you could give us a link to such a news story ?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
As Commander In Cheif, the "emperor" has had very little change since this ruling. The POW's will REMAIN at Gitmo. The ones they can charge, they will. The ones they can't charge, which they "think" or "know" are threats to the US and/or it's war on terror, WILL REMAIN until such time as the "war" is over Laughing or they are deemed not to be a threat.

The rest, those they don't believe are threats, will be, or have been, released.

The court has ruled that the "emperor" can't have his way with the detainees in terms of the tribunals.
The court has ruled that the detainees are indeed covered by article 3 of Geneva conventions. And the same can be held up in a federal court of law.
The court has ruled that "the congress hasn't signed a blank check" back when the "emperor" was milking 9/11 for absolute discretionary powers.
The court has ruled that GW is still president, not emperor.

What a shame that it now takes a supreme court ruling to enforce this in the country that "epitomizes" democracy and librety and sells these in a way that makes telemartketing sales pitch seem resistible.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
I figured you'd get your panties all up in a wad over this, xal.

Superb argument. Is that chagrin? Or is that how you always talk and argue?
Whatever it is, I will not wrestle the pig in the mud.
i_am_mine
s3nd k3ys wrote:
YOUR Opinion, sir... You THINK this is FACT because, oh, wait, because the BBC said it was so...???? They would know, wouldn't they??


Back to the GOP way of arguing eh?

Oh wait, so now you don't believe the press either.

So who DO you believe eh?

Let me ask you -
Quote:
(they would know, wouldn't they)
- in your understanding - WHO WOULD KNOW?

Well, I'll answer that for you, since your skills in the area of human rights and the constitution of The United States of America...are, put lightly - highly challenged.

Here you go:

Quote:

Principles of Freedom Of the United States of America


Article 15:
We believe that it is the major duty of all public officials to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. We claim that every man should be responsible to bring offenders against the original Constitutional law to justice. We hold that all men so charged shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that all false accusers shall be summarily punished. We claim that the right to trial by jury, as put forth in the Magna Carta, shall not be denied any person. This is an unalienable right.



Let me highlight that part:

Quote:
We hold that all men so charged shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty...
....We claim that the right to trial by jury, as put forth in the Magna Carta, shall not be denied any person. This is an unalienable right.


Now let me explain this to you.

Slowly.

You-can-do-it.

Any man (this includes women,liberals,homosexuals,and other evil,evil people) once accused of a crime shall not be sentenced to punishment - or - to prolonged arrest...because...he shall be considered innocent unless proven guilty.


Now let me put this in Context.Its a fun lil' story s3nd:

Believ it or not, Currently, there are several litigation against the current Saviour Of The Universe -Pres.George W Bush Jr. , in the American Courts which not only call for his Impeachment, but several other "Crazy People" have actually tried him for " War Crimes" that are punishable by DEATH.

Now, comes the fun part, If prisoners could be treated the way you s3nd, say is allowed, The Saviour Of The Universe, George Bush right now would be behind bars right now as we speak.

So the only thing that keep Bush in the white house and not in the rotting american prison system being molested - is the very thing that you say is obsolete - that a man is innocent until guilty and that he must have a fair trial before being sentenced.

Ofcourse this is all hypothetical - we all know Bush'll never get impeached, but I hope you understood.

By saying what you've just said - that Bush does not need to follow Article 15 - you are in turn saying the Bush is above the Constitution.

In which case - screw the constitution - screw the "Land Of The Free" emblem - and we should definitely stop calling ourselves a Democracy cus I mean - you can't have a Democracy without a constitution.

Oh wait - remember we were dissing North Korea - that THIRD WORLD COUNTRY for being such a dick?

Guess what?

- They're a dictatorship - BUUUUT, they DO have a Constitution [that they never follow].And guess what else they even call themselves THE DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic Of Korea.

we have a Constitution - that we never follow - we call ourselves democratic but we know the truth about how democratic the man in the house is.so i guess we're just as bad as Korea eh?

Well I left the best part for last:


Article 15 wrote:
and that all false accusers shall be summarily punished.


Did someone say most of the Prisoners down in Cuba are falsely accused? Oh wait - the Government itself Admitted that.

I wonder who accused them.Hmmm....
nopaniers
I agree with xalophus 100%.

I'd just like to point out the International Declaration of Human Rights:

Human Rights wrote:

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
It is a fact.
They would be known terrorists if any charges were proven against them.

What part of that do you not understand?.


The part where you've shown PROOF that they're NOT SUPSECTED terrorists. (i.e. ENEMY COMBATANTS, which may be held indefinately while a threat to the nation.) Rolling Eyes

Typical Dumbocrat mentality; beat the opposition over the head with speculation until they believe it as FACT. Laughing Laughing

BTW, nopainers, if the chicken-**** cowardice terrorists weren't hiding behind these 'values' (i.e. women and children), we wouldn't be having this conversation... Wink
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
It is a fact.
They would be known terrorists if any charges were proven against them.

What part of that do you not understand?.


The part where you've shown PROOF that they're NOT SUPSECTED terrorists. (i.e. ENEMY COMBATANTS, which may be held indefinately while a threat to the nation.) Rolling Eyes


So anyone not proven innocent can be held. Bad agrgument, S3.

Quote:

BTW, nopainers, if the chicken-**** cowardice terrorists weren't hiding behind these 'values' (i.e. women and children), we wouldn't be having this conversation... Wink


Our values tell the world who we are, S3. Otherwise we are as wrong as they are.


BTW- you are doing really poorly in this discussion. Laughing You really havent made a good point in quite awhile.
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:

So anyone not proven innocent can be held. Bad agrgument, S3.


No. But that's a good attempt at falsification. Anyone suspected of being a threat can be held.

On a side note, I kind of doubt that the people in Gitmo were randomely rounded up and put there for no reason at all.

Quote:
Our values tell the world who we are, S3. Otherwise we are as wrong as they are.


I'm not sure where I mentioned or referenced American values in that post. I recall referencing terrorists values, (or lack thereof). Could you remind me?

BTW, I thought my point about this ruling being 98% irrelavant to the POW's at Gitmo was a good, valid point. Laughing Laughing Laughing
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:

So anyone not proven innocent can be held. Bad agrgument, S3.

No. But that's a good attempt at falsification. Anyone suspected of being a threat can be held.

What falsification? In response to xalphous stating there was no proof they are terrorists, you said...

Quote:
The part where you've shown PROOF that they're NOT SUPSECTED terrorists. (i.e. ENEMY COMBATANTS, which may be held indefinately while a threat to the nation.)


My statement is based on your implying that if we can't prove they aren't terrorist they can be held indefinately. Acording to what you've said, anyone who can't be proven not ot be a terrorist can be held. Still not a good argument.

Quote:

Quote:

Our values tell the world who we are, S3. Otherwise we are as wrong as they are.



I'm not sure where I mentioned or referenced American values in that post. I recall referencing terrorists values, (or lack thereof). Could you remind me?


I didn't mention american either. I was refering to your statement...
Quote:
BTW, nopainers, if the chicken-**** cowardice terrorists weren't hiding behind these 'values' (i.e. women and children), we wouldn't be having this conversation...
And looking at it again, I think both our thoughts are off topic, so let's drop that one.
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:
My statement is based on your implying that if we can't prove they aren't terrorist they can be held indefinately. Acording to what you've said, anyone who can't be proven not ot be a terrorist can be held. Still not a good argument.


Did you purposfully not read the part about how I said
Quote:
Anyone suspected of being a threat can be held.

On a side note, I kind of doubt that the people in Gitmo were randomely rounded up and put there for no reason at all.


?

Good or bad argument doesn't matter, it's still valid and current. Those people in Gitmo are there for a reason. They're not there randomly. It's not easy getting in there because it's not your run of the mill POW camp (or prison if you prefer to look at it that way). How many pow's were tried in the last 100 year's worth of wars?
Bondings
S3nd K3ys wrote:
How many pow's were tried in the last 100 year's worth of wars?

But they aren't POW's. Condoleezza Rice herself said it on television. I even still remember her saying it.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
How many pow's were tried in the last 100 year's worth of wars?

But they aren't POW's. Condoleezza Rice herself said it on television. I even still remember her saying it.


Oh. Then replace POW's with enemy combatants. Rolling Eyes
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Did you purposfully not read the part about how I said
Quote:
Anyone suspected of being a threat can be held.

On a side note, I kind of doubt that the people in Gitmo were randomely rounded up and put there for no reason at all.



No, I didnt ignore anything. I'm just appalled that you find it acceptable for this administration to think they can hold someone without a shred of proof.
Your doubting it means nothing. If there is something to indicate they are terrorists, why not charge them and make it public?

Quote:

Good or bad argument doesn't matter, it's still valid and current.
Disagree. It matters and THAT is why your arguments dont carry any weight. They are like farts in the wind Wink You might notice a foul smell for a brief moment, but it fades with no lasting effects Laughing
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Did you purposfully not read the part about how I said
Quote:
Anyone suspected of being a threat can be held.

On a side note, I kind of doubt that the people in Gitmo were randomely rounded up and put there for no reason at all.



No, I didnt ignore anything. I'm just appalled that you find it acceptable for this administration to think they can hold someone without a shred of proof.
Your doubting it means nothing. If there is something to indicate they are terrorists, why not charge them and make it public?

Quote:

Good or bad argument doesn't matter, it's still valid and current.
Disagree. It matters and THAT is why your arguments dont carry any weight. They are like farts in the wind Wink You might notice a foul smell for a brief moment, but it fades with no lasting effects Laughing


No lasting effects? You haven't smelt my farts have you? They peel skin! Laughing Laughing Laughing
schudder
For the record, people have been arrested and locked up in Guantanamo for having a SIMILAR NAME to a known terrorist. One guy was locked up for 2 years before they suddenly released him. They never even told the guy what they were holding him for.

Oh, and though off topic, it's also impossible for that guy to sue the US for wrongful imprisonment, cause that would jeopardise national security (sic).
horseatingweeds
So how do you all propose we gather this evidence of the battle field?
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:
So how do you all propose we gather this evidence of the battle field?


Accurately. Timely. Those would be good ideas. Another idea would be to admit when you made a mistake and attempt restitution. Just blowing it off just makes the US look like an uncaring bully. Ya think maybe that kinda attitude might be one of the reasons we are hated around the world?
horseatingweeds
I was looking for something more specific. Sure, let’s only gather up guilty people bent on the destruction of the free world that have committed an offence with that intention and have evidence to prove it. But how, in a state of war and threat of attack?
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:
I was looking for something more specific. Sure, let’s only gather up guilty people bent on the destruction of the free world that have committed an offence with that intention and have evidence to prove it. But how, in a state of war and threat of attack?


I'm sorry, horse, this is not brain surgery. How do the police do it. You get info, check the info, question, investigate. What you dont do is lock them up in a different part of the world for a year or more. If you cant prove the case in that time, well, duh, you don't really have a case.
horseatingweeds
This is exactly the difficulty in the situation. Certainly, in an ideal situation we would do what you propose. This is how it is normally done. The glaring difference is that such prisoners are combatants in a war zone. What you propose seems quite impossible unless you have more ideas. Maybe battle field investigation units imbedded along side the combat units?

Regardless, there needs to be further adjustments to deal with this threat. Not unlike any resent war. Transitions are usually rough. However, with our current setup, expecting the military to find evidence on every captured enemy, in addition to capturing them and in addition to keeping the locals safe and in addition to keeping their own carcasses water tight, is ridiculous. The fact that the US TAKES prisoners is a good reflection on it
nopaniers
horseatingweeds wrote:
So how do you all propose we gather this evidence of the battle field?


Many of the people held in Guantanamo were not on any type of battle field at all. For example, the Australian Mamdou Habib, was arrested in Pakistan, deported via Egypt where he claims to have been tortured (see the link) to the United States. He was held for three years finally released without charge.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/The-Habib-torture-affidavit/2005/01/06/1104832222749.html
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:
If you cant prove the case in that time, well, duh, you don't really have a case.


Until a church blows up. Wink

You know, hobo, if we were fighting a convention war, all this wouldn't be an issue. But the problem is that these cowards are hiding as civilians and behind them. Letting them continue will only help thier cause.

Sorry, we can't, as a free society, afford that. If more Moslims would speak out against the cowards that bomb their schools and churches in the name of Islam, it would be a much bigger help in ending this war.
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Until a church blows up. Wink

You know, hobo, if we were fighting a convention war, all this wouldn't be an issue. But the problem is that these cowards are hiding as civilians and behind them. Letting them continue will only help thier cause.

Sorry, we can't, as a free society, afford that. If more Moslims would speak out against the cowards that bomb their schools and churches in the name of Islam, it would be a much bigger help in ending this war.


I agree that more people need to speak out against terror attacks. But I also think that our heavy handedness IS one of the reasons that more of the locals don't protest against the tactics used by the insurgents. In their minds, I think, BOTH sides seem brutal, but at least the insurgents are closer in thought and belief. I cant help but think that if we are gonna be the freaking world police, we better make sure our actions are above reproach. Its this heavy handedness that is pissing the world off and making us a target for terrorists. And again, from everything Ive read, those guys in gitmo are NOT there because of any real evidence.

BTW - just to clarify where I stand on actual terrorist, I think anyone fairly convicted of random bombings or attacks, where civilians are injured, should be executed and the remains disposed of in the most vile way that can be imagined by that person. But that is just me.
polarBear
There's no point on discussing with sendk3ys. Why do you keep trying?
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Until a church blows up. Wink

You know, hobo, if we were fighting a convention war, all this wouldn't be an issue. But the problem is that these cowards are hiding as civilians and behind them. Letting them continue will only help thier cause.

Sorry, we can't, as a free society, afford that. If more Moslims would speak out against the cowards that bomb their schools and churches in the name of Islam, it would be a much bigger help in ending this war.


I agree that more people need to speak out against terror attacks. But I also think that our heavy handedness IS one of the reasons that more of the locals don't protest against the tactics used by the insurgents. In their minds, I think, BOTH sides seem brutal, but at least the insurgents are closer in thought and belief. I cant help but think that if we are gonna be the freaking world police, we better make sure our actions are above reproach. Its this heavy handedness that is pissing the world off and making us a target for terrorists. And again, from everything Ive read, those guys in gitmo are NOT there because of any real evidence.

BTW - just to clarify where I stand on actual terrorist, I think anyone fairly convicted of random bombings or attacks, where civilians are injured, should be executed and the remains disposed of in the most vile way that can be imagined by that person. But that is just me.


So you're saying we should have stayed out of Iraq and let him (Saddam) go on raping and murdering his own people, all the while supporting terrorists?

Just for grins, let's say UN Res 1441, which called for grave consequences if Saddam failed to comply (which it did) and let's say that Saddam thumbed his nose at Hans Blix, the UN and President Bush (which he did) and almost all Democrats in the House and Senate were calling on Bush to go after Saddam (which they did),

then let's say Bush chose NOT to go to war in Iraq in March of 2003. And Hans Blix uncovered the storehouse of sarin gas, and Saddam continued the rape and torture of his own citizens, and there was a series of attacks on our soil by AQ for the next three years.

Do you think that the Dimwitcrats would now be praising Bush for his reticence to take the war to Saddam?
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:

So you're saying we should have stayed out of Iraq and let him (Saddam) go on raping and murdering his own people, all the while supporting terrorists?


I havent seen the proof you have about supporting terrorists. But, Yes, I think international law is pretty clear on that. No country has a right ot attack another on those grounds without a UN resolution. I might even see things differently if the US had a history of doing that sort of thing consistently, but, you know as well as any one, that we are more than willing to turn a blind eye to rape and murder if they let us have military bases and act the "buddy".

And forget hypothetical sits for know and focus on the the real world.

So before you go running off in another direction, can you admit that we didnt go into Iraq to "save it's people"? If so, can you tell me why you even brought it up?
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:
No country has a right ot attack another on those grounds without a UN resolution.


No!

Really!!!???

Oh, I guess this will clear up your misconception that the US attacked Iraq without the UN's approval...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Quote:
Press Release
SC/7564


Security Council

4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,

OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



Quote:
So before you go running off in another direction, can you admit that we didnt go into Iraq to "save it's people"? If so, can you tell me why you even brought it up?


No. I can't. Because that was one (or more) of the 17 UN Resolutions that justified it. Please do yourself a favor and find out the REAL reasons before you go running off half-cocked again.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htm

Quote:
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

* Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

* Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998



It goes on to itemize the above, here's most of what has to do with how he treated people...

Quote:
Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People
UNSCR 688 (April 5, 1991) "condemns" Saddam Hussein's repression of the Iraqi civilian population -- "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security." UNSCR 688 also requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people and to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has: expanded his violence against women and children; continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis; continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including killing more than 500 journalists and other opinion leaders in the past decade). Saddam Hussein has also harassed humanitarian aid workers; expanded his crimes against Muslims; he has withheld food from families that fail to offer their children to his regime; and he has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment.

Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors

* The UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly issued a report that noted "with dismay" the lack of improvement in the situation of human rights in Iraq. The report strongly criticized the "systematic, widespread, and extremely grave violations of human rights" and of international humanitarian law by the Iraqi Government, which it stated resulted in "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." The report called on the Iraqi Government to fulfill its obligations under international human rights treaties.
* Saddam Hussein has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors and the establishment of independent human rights organizations. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.
* In September 2001 the Government expelled six UN humanitarian relief workers without providing any explanation.

Violence Against Women

* Human rights organizations and opposition groups continued to receive reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody.
* Former Mukhabarat member Khalid Al-Janabi reported that a Mukhabarat unit, the Technical Operations Directorate, used rape and sexual assault in a systematic and institutionalized manner for political purposes. The unit reportedly also videotaped the rape of female relatives of suspected oppositionists and used the videotapes for blackmail purposes and to ensure their future cooperation.
* In June 2000, a former Iraqi general reportedly received a videotape of security forces raping a female family member. He subsequently received a telephone call from an intelligence agent who stated that another female relative was being held and warned him to stop speaking out against the Iraqi Government.
* Iraqi security forces allegedly raped women who were captured during the Anfal Campaign and during the occupation of Kuwait.
* Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution.
* In May, the Iraqi Government reportedly tortured to death the mother of three Iraqi defectors for her children's opposition activities.
* Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims' heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days.

Torture

* Iraqi security services routinely and systematically torture detainees. According to former prisoners, torture techniques included branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals and other areas, beating, pulling out of fingernails, burning with hot irons and blowtorches, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, extended solitary confinement in dark and extremely small compartments, and threats to rape or otherwise harm family members and relatives. Evidence of such torture often was apparent when security forces returned the mutilated bodies of torture victims to their families.
* According to a report received by the UN Special Rapporteur in 1998, hundreds of Kurds and other detainees have been held without charge for close to two decades in extremely harsh conditions, and many of them have been used as subjects in Iraq's illegal experimental chemical and biological weapons programs.
* In 2000, the authorities reportedly introduced tongue amputation as a punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein or his family, and on July 17, government authorities reportedly amputated the tongue of a person who allegedly criticized Saddam Hussein. Authorities reportedly performed the amputation in front of a large crowd. Similar tongue amputations also reportedly occurred.
* Refugees fleeing to Europe often reported instances of torture to receiving governments, and displayed scars and mutilations to substantiate their claims.
* In August 2001 Amnesty International released a report entitled Iraq -- Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, which detailed the systematic and routine use of torture against suspected political opponents and, occasionally, other prisoners. Amnesty International also reports "Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out."
* Saad Keis Naoman, an Iraqi soccer player who defected to Europe, reported that he and his teammates were beaten and humiliated at the order of Uday Saddam Hussein for poor performances. He was flogged until his back was bloody, forcing him to sleep on his stomach in the tiny cell in Al-Radwaniya prison.

Executions and Repression of Political Opposition

* Former UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel's report in April 1998 stated that Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons.
* The government continues to execute summarily alleged political opponents and leaders in the Shi'a religious community. Reports suggest that persons were executed merely because of their association with an opposition group or as part of a continuing effort to reduce prison populations.
* In February 2001, the Government reportedly executed 37 political detainees for opposition activity.
* In June 2001, security forces killed a Shi'a cleric, Hussein Bahar al-Uloom, for refusing to appear on television to congratulate Qusay Saddam Hussein for his election to a Ba'th Party position. Such killings continue an apparent government policy of eliminating prominent Shi'a clerics who are suspected of disloyalty to the government. In 1998 and 1999, the Government killed a number of leading Shi'a clerics, prompting the former Special Rapporteur in 1999 to express his concern to the government that the killings might be part of a systematic attack by government officials on the independent leadership of the Shi'a Muslim community. The government did not respond to the Special Rapporteur's letter.
* There are persistent reports that families are made to pay for the cost of executions.
* Saddam Hussein destroyed the southern Iraqi town of Albu 'Aysh sometime between September 1998 and December 1999.
* Iraq has conducted a systematic "Arabization" campaign of ethnic cleansing designed to harass and expel ethnic Kurds and Turkmen from government-controlled areas. Non-Arab citizens are forced to change their ethnicity or their identity documents and adopt Arab names, or they are deprived of their homes, property and food-ration cards, and expelled.

Saddam Hussein's Abuse of Children

* Saddam Hussein has held 3-week training courses in weapons use, hand-to-hand fighting, rappelling from helicopters, and infantry tactics for children between 10 and 15 years of age. Camps for these "Saddam Cubs" operated throughout the country. Senior military officers who supervised the courses noted that the children held up under the "physical and psychological strain" of training that lasted for as long as 14 hours each day. Sources in the opposition report that the army found it difficult to recruit enough children to fill all of the vacancies in the program. Families reportedly were threatened with the loss of their food ration cards if they refused to enroll their children in the course. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq reported in October 1999 that authorities were denying food ration cards to families that failed to send their young sons to Saddam Cubs compulsory weapons-training camps. Similarly, authorities reportedly withheld school examination results to students unless they registered in the Fedayeen Saddam organization.
* Iraq often announces food ration cuts for the general population, blaming US or UK actions. Among the most controversial have been cuts in baby milk rations. Iraq has blamed the shortages on US and UK contract rejections, although the UN has approved all baby milk contracts submitted.
* Child labor persists and there are instances of forced labor.
* There are widespread reports that food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of some government officials.

Disappearances

* Amnesty International reported that Iraq has the world's worst record for numbers of persons who have disappeared or remain unaccounted for.
* In 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur stated that Iraq remains the country with the highest number of disappearances known to the UN: over 16,000.

Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information

* In practice, Saddam Hussein does not permit freedom of speech or of the press, and does not tolerate political dissent in areas under its control. In November 2000, the UN General Assembly criticized Saddam Hussein's "suppression of freedom of thought, expression, information, association, and assembly." The Special Rapporteur stated in October 1999 that citizens lived "in a climate of fear," in which whatever they said or did, particularly in the area of politics, involved "the risk of arrest and interrogation by the police or military intelligence." He noted that "the mere suggestion that someone is not a supporter of the President carries the prospect of the death penalty."
* In June 2001, the Human Rights Alliance reported that Saddam Hussein had killed more than 500 journalists and other intellectuals in the past decade.
* Saddam Hussein frequently infringes on citizens' constitutional right to privacy. Saddam routinely ignores constitutional provisions designed to protect the confidentiality of mail, telegraphic correspondence, and telephone conversations. Iraq periodically jams news broadcasts from outside the country, including those of opposition groups. The security services and the Ba'th Party maintain pervasive networks of informers to deter dissident activity and instill fear in the public.
* Foreign journalists must work from offices located within the Iraqi ministry building and are accompanied everywhere they go by ministry officers, who reportedly restrict their movements and make it impossible for them to interact freely with citizens.
* The Iraqi Government, the Ba'th Party, or persons close to Saddam Hussein own all print and broadcast media, and operate them as propaganda outlets. They generally do not report opposing points of view that are expressed either domestically or abroad.
* In September 1999, Hashem Hasan, a journalist and Baghdad University professor, was arrested after declining an appointment as editor of one of Uday Hussein's publications. The Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) sent a letter of appeal to Uday Hussein; however, Hassan's fate and whereabouts remained unknown at year's end.
* Saddam Hussein regularly jams foreign news broadcasts. Satellite dishes, modems, and fax machines are banned, although some restrictions reportedly were lifted in 1999.
* In government-operated Internet cafes, users only are permitted to view web sites provided by the Ministry of Culture and Information.
* In 1999, Uday Hussein reportedly dismissed hundreds of members of the Iraqi Union of Journalists for not praising Saddam Hussein and the Government sufficiently.

Withholding of Food

* Relatives who do not report deserters may lose their ration cards for purchasing government-controlled food supplies, be evicted from their residences, or face the arrest of other family members. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq reported in October and December 1999 that authorities denied food ration cards to families that failed to send their young sons to the "Saddam's Cubs" compulsory weapons training camps.

Crimes Against Muslims

* The Government consistently politicizes and interferes with religious pilgrimages, both of Iraqi Muslims who wish to make the Hajj to Mecca and Medina and of Iraqi and non-Iraqi Muslim pilgrims who travel to holy sites within the country. For example, in 1998 the UN Sanctions Committee offered to disburse vouchers for travel and expenses to pilgrims making the Hajj; however, the Government rejected this offer. In 1999 the Sanctions Committee offered to disburse funds to cover Hajj-related expenses via a neutral third party; the Government again rejected the offer. Following the December 1999 passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1284, the Sanctions Committee again sought to devise a protocol to facilitate the payment for individuals making the journey. The Sanctions Committee proposed to issue $250 in cash and $1,750 in travelers checks to each individual pilgrim to be distributed at the U.N. office in Baghdad in the presence of both U.N. and Iraqi officials. The Government again declined and, consequently, no Iraqi pilgrims were able to take advantage of the available funds or, in 2000, of the permitted flights. The Government continued to insist that these funds would be accepted only if they were paid in cash to the government-controlled central bank, not to the Hajj pilgrims.

More than 95 percent of the population of Iraq are Muslim. The (predominantly Arab) Shi'a Muslims constitute a 60 to 65 percent majority:

* The Iraqi government has for decades conducted a brutal campaign of murder, summary execution, and protracted arbitrary arrest against the religious leaders and followers of the majority Shi'a Muslim population. Despite nominal legal protection of religious equality, the Government has repressed severely the Shi'a clergy and those who follow the Shi'a faith.
* Forces from the Mukhabarat, General Security (Amn Al-Amm), the Military Bureau, Saddam's Commandos (Fedayeen Saddam), and the Ba'th Party have killed senior Shi'a clerics, desecrated Shi'a mosques and holy sites, and interfered with Shi'a religious education. Security agents reportedly are stationed at all the major Shi'a mosques and shrines, where they search, harass, and arbitrarily arrest worshipers.
* The following government restrictions on religious rights remained in effect during 2001: restrictions and outright bans on communal Friday prayer by Shi'a Muslims; restrictions on the loaning of books by Shi'a mosque libraries; a ban on the broadcast of Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio or television; a ban on the publication of Shi'a books, including prayer books and guides; a ban on funeral processions other than those organized by the Government; a ban on other Shi'a funeral observances such as gatherings for Koran reading; and the prohibition of certain processions and public meetings that commemorate Shi'a holy days. Shi'a groups report that they captured documents from the security services during the 1991 uprising that listed thousands of forbidden Shi'a religious writings.
* In June 1999, several Shi'a opposition groups reported that the Government instituted a program in the predominantly Shi'a districts of Baghdad that used food ration cards to restrict where individuals could pray. The ration cards, part of the UN oil-for-food program, reportedly are checked when the bearer enters a mosque and are printed with a notice of severe penalties for those who attempt to pray at an unauthorized location.

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism
Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.

* In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

* Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

* Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

* Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

* In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

* Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners
UNSCRs 686, 687 and others require Saddam Hussein to release immediately any Gulf War prisoners and to cooperate in accounting for missing and dead Kuwaitis and others from the Gulf War. Saddam has continued to violate these resolutions.

* Saddam Hussein has failed to return, or account for, a large number of Kuwaiti citizens and citizens of other countries who were detained during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and continues to refuse to cooperate with the Tripartite Commission to resolve the cases.

* Of 609 cases of missing Gulf War POWs/MIAs representing 14 nationalities - including one American pilot - under review by the Tripartite Commission on Gulf War Missing, only 4 have been resolved. Because of continued Iraqi obfuscation and concealment, very few cases have been resolved since the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein denies having any knowledge of the others and claims that any relevant records were lost in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

* In a December 2001 report to the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary-General criticized the Iraqi Government's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. on the issue of the missing POWs/MIAs citizens. Iran reports that the Iraqi Government still has not accounted for 5,000 Iranian POW's missing since the Iran-Iraq War.

* "Secretary General reiterates little progress on the issue of repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains, as Iraq refused to cooperate with the Tripartite Commission."

* In August 2001, Amnesty International reported that Saddam Hussein has the world's worst record for numbers of persons who have disappeared and remain unaccounted for.

* The Iraqi Government continued to ignore the more than 16,000 cases conveyed to it in 1994 and 1995 by the UN, as well as requests from the Governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to account for the whereabouts of those who had disappeared during Iraq's 1990-91 occupation of Kuwait, and from Iran regarding the whereabouts of prisoners of war that Iraq captured in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

* "Security Council regrets that no progress made on return of Kuwaiti national archives, reiterate need for Iraq to immediately fulfill all requirements under the relevant resolutions, including repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains."

Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Return Stolen Property
Iraq destroyed much stolen property before it could be returned, and Kuwait claims that large quantities of equipment remain unaccounted for:

* The UN and Kuwait say Iraq has not returned extensive Kuwaiti state archives and museum pieces, as well as military equipment, including eight Mirage F-1 aircraft, 245 Russian-made fighting vehicles, 90 M113 armored personnel carriers, one Hawk battery, 3,750 Tow and anti-tank missiles, and 675 Russian-made surface-to-air missile batteries.




Anything else you're confused about that I can clear up???


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
No country has a right ot attack another on those grounds without a UN resolution.


No!

Really!!!???

Oh, I guess this will clear up your misconception that the US attacked Iraq without the UN's approval...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm


Anything else you're confused about that I can clear up???


Yeah, why you can't just write something worth while instead of blasting the boards with cut and pasted crap.
Maybe I missed it in all of that, so why don't you just post the resolution that said the US could attack Iraq.
horseatingweeds
Holy Shiit. Now I’m confused. I thought he just did.
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:
Holy Shiit. Now I’m confused. I thought he just did.


Did he? As I said, I didnt see it. I saw
Quote:
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)


which seems to be a final notice, not a go ahead. If its there, Im asking him to point it out. I have no intention of reading all the cra*p he posts when he doesnt have a good answer.
HoboPelican
This is from wiki
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq>
Quote:
The Bush administration did not attempt to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising military force, as France, Russia, and later China all signalled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq.


So, unless S3 has something more authoritative, his comment about the UN approving the attack is just nonsense, as is most of what he says.
horseatingweeds
It is funny that you us a wiki and then talk of authoritative. Regardless, I understand your point. Many have the same view. I think the reason the Bush admin went in is simply they had no choice. Sadam was not complying. The UN was unwilling to respond. The US was freshly attacked. The Bush admin was responsible for preventing additional attacks. Iraq was viewed as a major threat. Certainly, we have the benefit of existing in the future but as far as the decision to go into Iraq, I don’t see it as ridiculous. There were mistakes but it is, in my view, only productive for world freedom and civilization.

One more country is free and this particular country exists amongst a group to whom they may set a devastatingly productive example.

With regard to the UN, any action is better than no action in the face of a threat.
HoboPelican
Actually, I think Wiki is pretty good, especially if you read the discussions and references for the article. A good one-stop for info where both sides get their input recorded.

Anyway, I wont argue that Saddam an evil bastard and the world is better of without him. I will argue that the way we did it was inappropriate and caused ill-will that has, and will, come back to bite us in the butt. And that is my main point. The WAY we do things causes the world to hate us. Terrorist arise from this group. Its our own actions that hurt us.

My other point is that S3 is just a rabble rouser that spouts inaccurate info and then tries to ignore it. Thats okay on the playground, but it kills any intelligent discussion by the rest of us.
horseatingweeds
Wiki is a good place to start. I just get the shivers when it is quoted.

True, the way Iraq was handled was damaging, but honestly, I don’t see how the US could have handles things without looking belligerent. The people who recruit terrorist don’t need the US to make belligerent mistakes. They make everything look belligerent. They prey on the poor, depraved and board.

S3 is OK. We need both sides of the spectrum manned. Regardless, I like his articles. Just don’t read them without further education. Just like when you watch the news.
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:

... but honestly, I don’t see how the US could have handles things without looking belligerent. The people who recruit terrorist don’t need the US to make belligerent mistakes. They make everything look belligerent. They prey on the poor, depraved and board.

Well, we can disagree on this. I just feel we make it way to easy for them with the way throw our weight around.
Quote:

S3 is OK. We need both sides of the spectrum manned...


Laughing What spectrum is that? Rational to lunatic? Wink I don't mind discussing a topic with someone diametrically opposed to my views, but typically his responses are along the lines of "Oh yeah? Well, you're a moron". I mean he has shown a brain at times, but he tries sooooo hard to hide it. Laughing Laughing
simp
Soulfire wrote:
Quote:

"So basically, the Supreme Court will be responsible for making us release all of our known and held terrorists back into the world to kill our innocent civilians, then more foreigners will hate us, and there will be less trust in the government."


You make that sound as though it's a bad thing . . .
Related topics
US Supreme Court rules against file swapping
irony: Liberal Church May Lose Funds Over Sermon
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
U.S. Supreme Court depicts Muhammad
Triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay
Is your country on THIS map?
DO YOU SUPPORT US STAY IN IRAQ?
Is Islam really a menace?
EPA denies California bid to reduce emissions from vehicles
The United States of America are/is?
Supreme Court blocks Republican voter intimidation tactic
Kagan confirmed as Supreme Court justice
Israel Supreme Court: Occupation? What occupation?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.