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


Bush Broke the Law?!?





ralphbefree
on July 9 2006 a close supporter of President Bush, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee has disclosed a letter written to the President warning him that covert operations that where not properly disclosed to congress could be a violation of the law. After the letter was written Hoekstra recieved information of such convert operations through a whistle blower.

Quote:
Hoekstra had been briefed about both the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, both of which were leaked to the media.

He said he did not expect to be briefed about everything intelligence agencies were doing but at least one of the secret activities was a major program which Congress definitely should have been informed about.


In the letter, Hoekstra said the lack of disclosure possibly constituted a "breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."


http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-07-09T143910Z_01_N09148126_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-INTELLIGENCE.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

I wonder if any legal follow up will happen with this??? at least a formal congresional hearing?? or something??
Lychee
Bush... Bush... Bush... Rolling Eyes

I'm sure that its not the first time bush broke the law...
What about the war in iraq... or stuff like this...
milkmandan
seriously man... if any other country said, 'we want to invade this country' to which the UN said no way jose and still went ahead and did it, there would have been some major backlashings. what does that say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says?

bush is a f***in' moron who should have never been elected to power in the first place. i mean, it's great that saddam is out of power, but why are there still US troops in iraq that are murdering and raping innocent iraqi civilians? they would have almost been better off with him still there! saddam's gone, there were no 'weapons of mass destruction', nor were there any supplies for that. get the f*** out of there!
Traveller
Lychee wrote:
Bush... Bush... Bush... Rolling Eyes

I'm sure that its not the first time bush broke the law...
What about the war in iraq... or stuff like this...

Uh....the war in Iraq was enforcing the law, not breaking it.

milkmandan wrote:
seriously man... if any other country said, 'we want to invade this country' to which the UN said no way jose and still went ahead and did it, there would have been some major backlashings. what does that say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says?

The U.N. actually issued 17 resolutions over a period of 11 years stating that, if Iraq refused to cooperate fully with inspections, any member nation (that happens to include the U.S.) would have the right to enforce the resolution by military means. Thus, it is not a case of a country's asking the U.N. for permission to invade and not receiving it, but a case of having 17 U.N. documents which already gave permission, and a country's actually using that permission to do what those documents said would be the consequences.

milkmandan wrote:
there were no 'weapons of mass destruction', nor were there any supplies for that.

Aside from the fact that the actual presence of "weapons of mass destruction" was not the reason for the enforcement action, but that the failure to comply with the inspection requirements was, there actually have been some 500 chemical weapons found which sufficently qualify as "weapons of mass destruction" (e.g. projectiles filled with sarin or mustard gas).

There are good reasons to dislike Bush, but the aforementioned issues are not among them.
suntzu3500
Those projectiles, are remenants of a much larger program, that was, to all appearances, abandoned years ago. If our excuse was to stop the human rights abuses, why not intervene instead in the great african war (Former Zaire) and save millions of lives. We could, and should have pushed to bagdad in 1990. We had international support, and kurdish support behind us. Instead, we pulled out, leaving our allies the kurds to be slaughtered by Saddam. We then go in fifteen years later against massive resistance.
carlospro7
Oh please... Everybody, whether they think they do or not, breaks the law. It may be simple things like going a mile over the speed limit. No one is perfect, not even the president. Thats all
rwojick
I was just reading the forum and someone wrote "everyone breaks the law" and I beleive this is a true statement.

Where the US has gotten into trouble is where when someone calls someone on breaking the law the "accused" does not adjust his or her positon.

If I break the law and j walk and no one has a problem with it then I am just living freely in the United States. On the other hand, if a Police officer asks me to adjust my position and I REFUSE to then I am the person creating the problem.

Women are famous for these types of violations in the US. They continually do things like withhold children from the father and then they just lie about it when questioned. If the man responds in anger then the woman and the cops arrest the man for aggrevated harrassment.

If you want me to cite references here I can. The key to an elegant freedom is the willingness to adjust your position if someone points out that you are on the wrong side of the law and since women have been empowered by Family Courts our situations have gotten worse, and worse and worse and worse.

Why, today we are in a war and if someone asked us to PROVE our claims we have to say, "we would, but we don't have any EVIDENCE". In these situations women just change their Hair color and they change the subject and waste another day in their sorry little lives...
Soulfire
I guess I missed the point of this. I sped, I drove 57 in a 55 mile per hour speed zone. I want an article posted on Frihost about me! Alright, so I'm just kidding there.

Seriously, a lot of presidents break laws - I think they think it comes with the whole leading the nation thing. Not sure.
polarBear
Our dear commander in chimp doesn't a)care about, b) have any respect towards or c) know there is such thing as the law. Any law, internationally stablished or not.

Nevermind, every empire falls eventually, and there's a huge chance we will live to see it happening.
HoboPelican
Traveller wrote:
Lychee wrote:
Bush... Bush... Bush... Rolling Eyes

I'm sure that its not the first time bush broke the law...
What about the war in iraq... or stuff like this...

Uh....the war in Iraq was enforcing the law, not breaking it.

milkmandan wrote:
seriously man... if any other country said, 'we want to invade this country' to which the UN said no way jose and still went ahead and did it, there would have been some major backlashings. what does that say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says?

The U.N. actually issued 17 resolutions over a period of 11 years stating that, if Iraq refused to cooperate fully with inspections, any member nation (that happens to include the U.S.) would have the right to enforce the resolution by military means. Thus, it is not a case of a country's asking the U.N. for permission to invade and not receiving it, but a case of having 17 U.N. documents which already gave permission, and a country's actually using that permission to do what those documents said would be the consequences.


Actually, I think you are wrong here. On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The consequences were not named. The UN charter lists 2 conditions for a country to wage a legal war and the first is that a specific resolution must be passed allowing it. While there were several resolutions against Iraq, there never were any that allowed force. That is why Bush and Powell were struggling to make the case for a "pre-emptive" attack (the other situation the UN allows).

Show me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the UN ever okayed the invasion . In fact, France and a couple of others specifically stated they would veto such a resolution.
FunFunkyFritz
I think this quote sums it up quite clearly http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-42690.html&highlight=
nopaniers wrote:

to quote Kofi Anan:
BBC wrote:

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm
HoboPelican
Thanks, TripleF, I was looking for that quote from Kofi, but I could't put my finger on it.
horseatingweeds
WELL, the thing is it doesn’t really matter does it. “What’s the UN”? That’s what Sadam asked.

If the US did something illegal then why didn’t the UN act. Were where the blue helmets protecting innocent Iraq and Sadam?

NOW who is in charge? What if the US IS the ‘BIG EVIL’? Should I just reserve my seat on the hand basket to hell? This is what we get for speaking French at those damned things, SOB!
polarBear
for you, 3 words is too much, so let's go with 2

VETO POWER

rings a bell?
horseatingweeds
Why don’t you answer all of my questions polarBear?

Yup, VETO POWER, good ideal.

Regardless, I’m not retarded. I wasn’t looking for the mechanism that makes the UN useless. It’s like having square wheels on a motorcycle.

“what the hell did you do to your bike?”

“2 words, square wheels”
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:
Why don’t you answer all of my questions polarBear?

Yup, VETO POWER, good ideal.

Regardless, I’m not retarded. I wasn’t looking for the mechanism that makes the UN useless. It’s like having square wheels on a motorcycle.

“what the hell did you do to your bike?”

“2 words, square wheels”


Actually, with all the blither in your last few posts, I thought they were rhetorical questions. Could you maybe turn down your amp to about 6 or 7 and then express the questions again?
S3nd K3ys
hobo and polarbear are in complete and utter denial. They refuse to answer questions and simply ignore much of reality.

It's fun from time to time, but I don't understand how they can be like that so often without it becoming a perminant adversion to reality.

now I'm starting to think hobo and polar are the same person. Notice how polar answers a question directed to hobo as though it were directed to him. I've also noticed other similarities, but haven't really payed much attention to it, as I'm usually LMAO at some of their replies.

Perhaps a discreet IP match would prove me wrong, but I doubt it. Wink
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:
hobo and polarbear are in complete and utter denial. They refuse to answer questions and simply ignore much of reality.

It's fun from time to time, but I don't understand how they can be like that so often without it becoming a perminant adversion to reality.

now I'm starting to think hobo and polar are the same person. Notice how polar answers a question directed to hobo as though it were directed to him. I've also noticed other similarities, but haven't really payed much attention to it, as I'm usually LMAO at some of their replies.

Perhaps a discreet IP match would prove me wrong, but I doubt it. Wink

Wow, you really are getting desparate aren't you, sendkeys. You are the one that always runs and hides when questions are pushed. I've answered every question you've ever put to me, but you can't say the same, can you kid?

As I said, there was a lot of blither in that post and I just asked him to restate the questions he wanted answered. I wasn't even involved. You really need to slow down and get a grip on all of your errors.

Polarbear and me the same person? You wish. You're just having an issue with more and more people seeing you for what you are, a kid who likes to stir the pot, but has to resort to slams when logic fails him.
horseatingweeds
HoboPelican, this topic IS a blither topic, Bush Broke the Law’. It’s meant for people that don’t like Bush to come talk about how stupid and criminal he is. It’s nothing enlightening or serious.

You are correct in assuming my questions to be rhetorical. However, they are also structured in a way that would allow an intelligent person respond to my assumption that the US has proved it’s self useless and this is dangerous.

Instead of having a leftist pity party why don’t we have a productive discussion on the actual state of things. (not rhetorical)
It is operant that the most powerful man in the world is absorbing more power in order to do his job. Or maybe he is part of a Free Mason conspiracy to take over the world and eradicate Islam.

Until then I’ll turn my blither up a bit.

“Waaaaaa, Bushy Wooshy is a terrorist because he terrorizes terrorists, waaaaaa, he broke the law, ppppppppPPPPPPPPPPPPPppppppppp, waaaaaa, I pooped my pants, waaaaaaa, my pants are full of poop".

There you go….. Wink
HoboPelican
horseatingweeds wrote:
HoboPelican, this topic IS a blither topic, Bush Broke the Law’. It’s meant for people that don’t like Bush to come talk about how stupid and criminal he is. It’s nothing enlightening or serious.

You are correct in assuming my questions to be rhetorical. However, they are also structured in a way that would allow an intelligent person respond to my assumption that the US has proved it’s self useless and this is dangerous.

Instead of having a leftist pity party why don’t we have a productive discussion on the actual state of things. (not rhetorical)
It is operant that the most powerful man in the world is absorbing more power in order to do his job. Or maybe he is part of a Free Mason conspiracy to take over the world and eradicate Islam.

Until then I’ll turn my blither up a bit.

“Waaaaaa, Bushy Wooshy is a terrorist because he terrorizes terrorists, waaaaaa, he broke the law, ppppppppPPPPPPPPPPPPPppppppppp, waaaaaa, I pooped my pants, waaaaaaa, my pants are full of poop".

There you go….. Wink


ROFLMAO....Thanks, I needed that! I'm up for a serious discussion on this anytime, so I'll sit around and wait...Maybe a different thread since this one scrolls off to BFE due to the URL. Wink
polarBear
S3, I love you the way you are, we all do, but why don't you try actually THINKING before posting? You are getting even more ridiculous than before.

PS: Please, any mod, whoever, tell him if our IP's are the same.

horseEtc:
Quote:
If the US did something illegal then why didn’t the UN act. Were where the blue helmets protecting innocent Iraq and Sadam?

NOW who is in charge? What if the US IS the ‘BIG EVIL’? Should I just reserve my seat on the hand basket to hell? This is what we get for speaking French at those damned things, SOB!
The reason is, my lovely and fierce knight of shiny armor and pink lingerie, that if any resolution ever got to be shown to the public treating this topic, it would be vetoed. See? That's what happens when you put an imperialist country atop of a world domination structure.
Were where the blue helmets protecting innocent Iraq and Sadam? Check first answer
Quote:
HoboPelican, this topic IS a blither topic, Bush Broke the Law’. It’s meant for people that don’t like Bush to come talk about how stupid and criminal he is. It’s nothing enlightening or serious.

You are correct in assuming my questions to be rhetorical. However, they are also structured in a way that would allow an intelligent person respond to my assumption that the US has proved it’s self useless and this is dangerous.
which has been proven on a yearly basis from 1962 to date actually, so it would be easy enough for any person with CI>30 to assume that and move on to the next question. That is the type of 'clever' rhetorical resources you can't use if you want to look good.
Quote:

Instead of having a leftist pity party why don’t we have a productive discussion on the actual state of things. (not rhetorical)
It is operant that the most powerful man in the world is absorbing more power in order to do his job. Or maybe he is part of a Free Mason conspiracy to take over the world and eradicate Islam.
Or, there could be a simpler reason, like this one:

Quote:

Until then I’ll turn my blither up a bit.
Which, being that you proved you can't try and think in an NPOV way, and being it that you can't think in a more or less global point of view, makes me wonder why are you posting here.
Jaime
All the politics don't break the law only manipulating the law as your convenneince... the interest is the petroleum...
horseatingweeds
I am struggling polerABear, I know there is something that you feel is a very valid point in your post, but I am not finding it. As I addressed earlier, everyone that has a good eye understands the veto power. That is not the answer to my question. I just want to know why you piss and moan about the evil US whilst the UN has no power to do anything. Isn’t the reason for the UN to protect the world? I guess not…….

It is more of a bonus. If you want to stop an aggressor, do it. If the UN backs you <bonus>. If the US doesn’t like you, dig a comfortable hole. If the US does like you, tell the powder monkeys to eat a good breakfast and have a clean pair of sox.

My basic point is that I fear the way my government is trying to protect me and the UN is not able to help. The UN has gone out of it’s way to prove it is useless.
polarBear
Perhaps my point is too simple to write it in english... but I can try one last time:

I don't bitch and moan about the US, it's just that my country (I was born in the US, though raised in other 4 countries) has a long history of ****** up many other countries for profit, and that's what makes any ideologic bullshit coming from it DISGUSTING at the very least.

Need me to explain further?


PS: Wow, bullshit isn't censored. That's new.
Vrythramax
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would want and honest law-abiding President in power. There are many things that go on that the public are blissfully unaware of, and we are that much better off not knowing them. There are times when a bit of dishonesty can actually save lives, would you rather have them tell the whole truth and let the people die?

Flame me as you will....the way the posts are going down hill around here it would be worth the time Very Happy
JoeFriday
milkmandan wrote:
seriously man... if any other country said, 'we want to invade this country' to which the UN said no way jose and still went ahead and did it, there would have been some major backlashings. what does that say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says?

bush is a f***in' moron who should have never been elected to power in the first place. i mean, it's great that saddam is out of power, but why are there still US troops in iraq that are murdering and raping innocent iraqi civilians? they would have almost been better off with him still there! saddam's gone, there were no 'weapons of mass destruction', nor were there any supplies for that. get the f*** out of there!

I love ignorant statements like that.. it makes me feel better knowing I'm not a complete idiot

what does it say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says? I guess it says that you have integrity and scruples.. considering the UN is possibly the most corrupt organization in the political spectrum.. let's talk about all the millions of dollars in bribes Kofi Annan and his staff took from Saddam.. or let's talk about the UN peacekeepers that run sex slave circles in Africa.. gosh, I'm really concerned what their opinion is!

as for WMD.. gee, I guess the fact that we've already found large caches of the nonexistent WMDs is a rather inconvenient fact.. but for those who feel we haven't found 'enough' of them (how many hundreds of thousands of potential victims would there need to be before there were enough?), keep in mind that all the WMDs could be concealed in one semi-trailer hidden somewhere in a country the size of Arizona.. so if we haven't found any (more) yet, that's proof that they don't exist! just the same that since you can't see air, it must not exist, either!

and yeah, Iraq sure would have been better off with Saddam in charge.. the rape rooms, childrens' prisons, over 100,000 people killed by Saddam over the past 10 years.. women denied education or the ability to drive a car, or even go anywhere without an escort.. that's all small potatoes compared to a handful of people that have been mistreated by an army of tens of thousands.. all our soldiers are evil, right?

tell ya what.. we'll take you over there next week, and right after you settle in, we'll pull out all the soldiers.. and we'll make sure all the terrorists know we're leaving.. hope you have fun!

or better yet, why don't you shut up and let the people who are affected by our presence there decide if we should stay or leave.. oh wait.. they did.. they overwhelming asked for our troops to stay.. so maybe we can drop you off in Iraq instead.. that's the closest you'll get to what you want
HoboPelican
Vrythramax wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would want and honest law-abiding President in power. There are many things that go on that the public are blissfully unaware of, and we are that much better off not knowing them. There are times when a bit of dishonesty can actually save lives, would you rather have them tell the whole truth and let the people die?

Flame me as you will....the way the posts are going down hill around here it would be worth the time Very Happy


No flame, Max, I like talking better Wink . I think I am willing to suffer
for honesty. I think you have to be moral in your leadership or else where
do you decide when it is too much? If you feel you have to break laws to do
what you honestly think is best, then you should go ahead, but when your
term is up, fess up and take the punishment. I know I'm a dreamer, but if
you just say, "oh, everyone does it" or "This time it is OK" it's just gonna get
worse.
Vrythramax
HoboPelican wrote:
No flame, Max, I like talking better Wink . I think I am willing to suffer
for honesty. I think you have to be moral in your leadership or else where
do you decide when it is too much? If you feel you have to break laws to do
what you honestly think is best, then you should go ahead, but when your
term is up, fess up and take the punishment. I know I'm a dreamer, but if
you just say, "oh, everyone does it" or "This time it is OK" it's just gonna get
worse.


I much prefer talking myself Wink But unfortunatly morality and honesty don't always walk hand in hand. I could cite many example, but I know your intelligent enough to know what I mean. I also agree that if if committing a crime is better for the greater good...then it should be done, but as you pointed out, you should also be willing to accept the fact that the crime you committed was also a sacrifice (usually of your freedom, rights, job, or even life). Would that in itself be considered a moral act even though it was an illegal one?

It's only my personal opinion that there are some things that should be kept secret from public knowledge, especially considering the way the media makes a feeding frenzy out of the slightest wrongdoing that would make a shark puke.
HoboPelican
Vrythramax wrote:


I much prefer talking myself Wink But unfortunatly morality and honesty don't always walk hand in hand. I could cite many example, but I know your intelligent enough to know what I mean. I also agree that if if committing a crime is better for the greater good...then it should be done, but as you pointed out, you should also be willing to accept the fact that the crime you committed was also a sacrifice (usually of your freedom, rights, job, or even life). Would that in itself be considered a moral act even though it was an illegal one?

It's only my personal opinion that there are some things that should be kept secret from public knowledge, especially considering the way the media makes a feeding frenzy out of the slightest wrongdoing that would make a shark puke.


I'm no expert on morality, but I think if your conviction says to do something illegal and you pay the piper afterwards, you are at least being honorable and moral to the best of your abilities.

Secrecy is a tricky issue. There are somethings that should be kept secret for a time, but there should be someway to monitor it to ensure that it is not being abused. I grew up in the Nixon era, so enough said on that. Smile
Would it be out of line for a special judicial branch group be required to review items? Big job, but it would at least be a check outside of the executive branch.
Vrythramax
HoboPelican wrote:
I'm no expert on morality, but I think if your conviction says to do something illegal and you pay the piper afterwards, you are at least being honorable and moral to the best of your abilities.

Secrecy is a tricky issue. There are somethings that should be kept secret for a time, but there should be someway to monitor it to ensure that it is not being abused. I grew up in the Nixon era, so enough said on that. Smile
Would it be out of line for a special judicial branch group be required to review items? Big job, but it would at least be a check outside of the executive branch.


Please do mistake me my friend, I am no expert on morality or morality issues (btw...I grew up in the Lyndon era). There are indeed limits on secrecy, I myself had to sign one that stated in fact "that I ould not disclose the nature of my missions or actions and any and/or damages done to persons public or private".....for 50 years!!! As a note, I was a assigned to the 101st Airborne Battalion, attachted to the the 5th Special Forces Group....straight our of FT. Bragg No. Carolina, JFK Special Warefare Center. As a step further, my older brother was grouped with 82cnd Airborne, 3rd Special forces....we had 7 tours of duty between us....just to keep our older brother stateside. I think you know what I mean. I may be fupped duck in my thinking, but I believe certain information is strictly on a "need to know" basis. I was "forced" to do things things that fit niether the Moral, nor Legal classification. I did my duty. However, in speaking of my own defence, if I were given an order that I believed was totally out of line, the issuer was in danger of being shot himself. My actions in the service has had some bad results (I won't even go into the VA and thier questioning), but my church (I am Roman Catholic) has shunned me, not becuase of what they know, but what they suspect.

Bottom line...some things should be kept secret, I believe it is better for all involved. If you wish to speak to me of military issues, please PM me, I'd rather not speak in forum.

Peace Brother Smile
HoboPelican
Vrythramax wrote:


Peace Brother Smile


I know exactly were you are coming from, not personally, but from friends in similar sits(I was born in '54). I won't even think to pass judgment on what guys had to do back then (and now). But on the secrecy issue, let me ask you 2 things.
A) Do you believe that some secrets should NEVER see the light of day?
B) How bad would it be to have judicial oversight in place of legislative subcommittee?

I guess I fear the abuse possible more than the dangers of more openess.
ralphbefree
Quote:
Oh please... Everybody, whether they think they do or not, breaks the law. It may be simple things like going a mile over the speed limit. No one is perfect, not even the president. Thats all


"it is only against the law if you get caught" this was a saying that I grew up with. It seems to me that finally the president is getting caught. BUT since the time that I started this topic the war between Israel and Lebanon and the US position in that conflict is the ONLY topic of discussion on the news media. How convienent, Bush only has to last in office for another two years.

Is Bush just going to keep inventing wars to keep the public eye from looking at what is really going on?

I wonder what effect an Impeachment hearing would have on the conflict in the middle east?
Vrythramax
HoboPelican wrote:
I know exactly were you are coming from, not personally, but from friends in similar sits(I was born in '54). I won't even think to pass judgment on what guys had to do back then (and now). But on the secrecy issue, let me ask you 2 things.
A) Do you believe that some secrets should NEVER see the light of day?
B) How bad would it be to have judicial oversight in place of legislative subcommittee?

I guess I fear the abuse possible more than the dangers of more openess.


Your fears are unfortunatly well founded in this day and age. In answer to your first question, I would have to say yes, there are somethings that should never see the light of day. I can't think of any examples right off the top of my head, but my thoughts on the concept of total secrecy, in some circumstances, remain (just being honest).

Your second question really made me think. I think there should be both. Some cases may merit one and not the other. I know I am over simplifying that, but I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say.
rwojick
I know a bit about law as I have taken down New York State Lawyers on two occasions. By New York State lawyers I mean "all of them".

You seem to put putting yourselves behind the 8 ball when you imply that if Bush tells congress then whatever he does it ok. This is false as both parties can be legally wrong.

The US is off its own democratic rocker these days in that we are continually trying to fight terrorism from the wrong side of the law.

The American Lawmaking process puts laws in place for the purpose of having an additional reference point for someone actions in case we find them offensive.

To stand on the wrong side of the law and say you are fighting terrorism is rediculous. You fight terrorism by standing on the true side of the law and telling the truth.

The best Bush could do at this point is suggest a lawmaking process for nuclear arms and then be willing to go by that one law (or set of laws) the same as all Countries in the process. You could use the World Cup divisions as a guide to the weights of Countries.

You oppose tyranny by looking to the law in times of dispute and using evidence to support your claims. If you are found to be on the wrong side of the law then YOU MOVE to maintain freedom.
Vrythramax
@rwojick

An excellant post indeed, but it raises an essential question with me. I don't claim to having your expertise with the written letter of the law, but it would seem to me that any law made, or past, in the US would only apply to domestic issues, any other action(s) handled outside of the US's jurisdiction would require another higher authority to either proclaim it legal or otherwise. With that statement in mind, should not that "higher" authority be able to impose (at the very least) sanctions against any party or parties who did not follow thier proclaimations?

This is a question of law in and of itself....I am not taking any side whatsoever.
Da Rossa
Quote:
Traveller wrote:
Uh....the war in Iraq was enforcing the law, not breaking it. [/b]


Why?
Based on what?
Which law?
Whose law?
milkmandan
Quote:
I love ignorant statements like that.. it makes me feel better knowing I'm not a complete idiot

what does it say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says? I guess it says that you have integrity and scruples.. considering the UN is possibly the most corrupt organization in the political spectrum.. let's talk about all the millions of dollars in bribes Kofi Annan and his staff took from Saddam.. or let's talk about the UN peacekeepers that run sex slave circles in Africa.. gosh, I'm really concerned what their opinion is!

as for WMD.. gee, I guess the fact that we've already found large caches of the nonexistent WMDs is a rather inconvenient fact.. but for those who feel we haven't found 'enough' of them (how many hundreds of thousands of potential victims would there need to be before there were enough?), keep in mind that all the WMDs could be concealed in one semi-trailer hidden somewhere in a country the size of Arizona.. so if we haven't found any (more) yet, that's proof that they don't exist! just the same that since you can't see air, it must not exist, either!

and yeah, Iraq sure would have been better off with Saddam in charge.. the rape rooms, childrens' prisons, over 100,000 people killed by Saddam over the past 10 years.. women denied education or the ability to drive a car, or even go anywhere without an escort.. that's all small potatoes compared to a handful of people that have been mistreated by an army of tens of thousands.. all our soldiers are evil, right?

tell ya what.. we'll take you over there next week, and right after you settle in, we'll pull out all the soldiers.. and we'll make sure all the terrorists know we're leaving.. hope you have fun!

or better yet, why don't you shut up and let the people who are affected by our presence there decide if we should stay or leave.. oh wait.. they did.. they overwhelming asked for our troops to stay.. so maybe we can drop you off in Iraq instead.. that's the closest you'll get to what you want


whoa, relax dude. no need to get our panties in a knot.

i don't know, i disagree that it shows that a country has 'integrity and scruples'. they may be corrupt, but what country/organization today isn't? (take a look at the states for example). i think going against a world organization shows how much they're not willing to cooperate with the rest of the world, and how much they don't fit in. maybe they should be looking at why it's not recommended to wear a u.s. flag on your bag anywhere except for in the u.s.

what i was basically getting at was that he had no real reason for going in there, other than for oil (which i should have mentioned in the previous post). if he was so concerned with the presence of WMDs, why didn't he go for north korea who have blatenly stated that they are building/housing nuclear weapons?

as for the saddam comment, i was being sarcastic. obviously no country would be well off with a leader like that.
Da Rossa
JoeFriday wrote:

I love ignorant statements like that.. it makes me feel better knowing I'm not a complete idiot

what does it say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says? I guess it says that you have integrity and scruples.. considering the UN is possibly the most corrupt organization in the political spectrum.. let's talk about all the millions of dollars in bribes Kofi Annan and his staff took from Saddam.. or let's talk about the UN peacekeepers that run sex slave circles in Africa.. gosh, I'm really concerned what their opinion is!

as for WMD.. gee, I guess the fact that we've already found large caches of the nonexistent WMDs is a rather inconvenient fact.. but for those who feel we haven't found 'enough' of them (how many hundreds of thousands of potential victims would there need to be before there were enough?), keep in mind that all the WMDs could be concealed in one semi-trailer hidden somewhere in a country the size of Arizona.. so if we haven't found any (more) yet, that's proof that they don't exist! just the same that since you can't see air, it must not exist, either!

and yeah, Iraq sure would have been better off with Saddam in charge.. the rape rooms, childrens' prisons, over 100,000 people killed by Saddam over the past 10 years.. women denied education or the ability to drive a car, or even go anywhere without an escort.. that's all small potatoes compared to a handful of people that have been mistreated by an army of tens of thousands.. all our soldiers are evil, right?

tell ya what.. we'll take you over there next week, and right after you settle in, we'll pull out all the soldiers.. and we'll make sure all the terrorists know we're leaving.. hope you have fun!

or better yet, why don't you shut up and let the people who are affected by our presence there decide if we should stay or leave.. oh wait.. they did.. they overwhelming asked for our troops to stay.. so maybe we can drop you off in Iraq instead.. that's the closest you'll get to what you want


Bro, with all due respect, you were nothing but funny in this post, perhaps it reflects your thoughts and your personality.
Kofi Annan taking bribes? Oh God, you have access to priviledge information! Let's just remember that the five (US UK CH FR RU) are not that firendly with each other, so if you know something you shouldn't, they would know it too, and the issue would be solved quickly, pacificaly or not. Saying that Annan takes bribes in that way you said would be the same as saying that the Moon landing in 69 was a cinematographical trick to fool the world, without even the KGB, the rival agency, to accuse it of being bogus.

The most corrupt organisation in the political spectrum is the Brazilian House of Deputies.

As for your statement about wmd, please don't test our intelligence. This kind of comparison is childish. Your 'ultrapowerfull' country has the proper technology to find things smaller than the wmd, then it is at least suspicious that you haven't found them yet, huh?

And who asked "you" to stay in Iraq? The rebellion acts with missles and bombermen were one hundred times less frequent before your army got in there.
sunildm4u
how come.. bush do such kind of stuff//// being in such a position it demands some maintainence of law
Da Rossa
sunildm4u wrote:
how come.. bush do such kind of stuff//// being in such a position it demands some maintainence of law


AND some law breaks. Invading a poor country based on false alegations, killing thousands and letting his own soldiers die without even care, just to make it good for the party and for the american way of life.
paul_indo
JoeFriday wrote:

what does it say to the rest of the world when you go against what the UN says? I guess it says that you have integrity and scruples.. considering the UN is possibly the most corrupt organization in the political spectrum.. let's talk about all the millions of dollars in bribes Kofi Annan and his staff took from Saddam.. or let's talk about the UN peacekeepers that run sex slave circles in Africa.. gosh, I'm really concerned what their opinion is!


Can you quote any sources of verification for these claims?

JoeFriday wrote:

as for WMD.. gee, I guess the fact that we've already found large caches of the nonexistent WMDs is a rather inconvenient fact.. but for those who feel we haven't found 'enough' of them (how many hundreds of thousands of potential victims would there need to be before there were enough?), keep in mind that all the WMDs could be concealed in one semi-trailer hidden somewhere in a country the size of Arizona.. so if we haven't found any (more) yet, that's proof that they don't exist! just the same that since you can't see air, it must not exist, either!


First I've heard of this? As far as I know there have been no WMD found to this date. Many people involved in CIA and other organisations which supplied Bush with intelligence on Sadam have resigned in disgust at the distortion of facts he used to justify the war.

JoeFriday wrote:

and yeah, Iraq sure would have been better off with Saddam in charge.. the rape rooms, childrens' prisons, over 100,000 people killed by Saddam over the past 10 years.. women denied education or the ability to drive a car, or even go anywhere without an escort.. that's all small potatoes compared to a handful of people that have been mistreated by an army of tens of thousands.. all our soldiers are evil, right?


Better off than what? certainly better off than they are now, with bombings and murder the dailty norm. Whether it can improve is yet to be seen.

JoeFriday wrote:

tell ya what.. we'll take you over there next week, and right after you settle in, we'll pull out all the soldiers.. and we'll make sure all the terrorists know we're leaving.. hope you have fun!


Well that is not logical. The only reason the soldiers are needed is because America destroyed the previous government and law enforcement authorities. They were not perfect granted, but nor is America.

JoeFriday wrote:

or better yet, why don't you shut up and let the people who are affected by our presence there decide if we should stay or leave.. oh wait.. they did.. they overwhelming asked for our troops to stay.. so maybe we can drop you off in Iraq instead.. that's the closest you'll get to what you want


They sure do want them to stay now, there is no other option. They just didn't want them to come in the first place.
Mannix
The overwhelming majority of Iraqis treated the US troops as liberators when they first came, now they are starting to see it more as an occupation. They know if we were to leave, they country would more then likely have a civil war. So what we have to do is get it so the Iraqis can take care of the Iraqis, and while doing so gradually take our troops out. That's the plan, what we need to avoid is partisan rivalries getting out of control, the county becoming too dominated by the majority, the government becoming corrupt to a point where it creates civil unrest, among many other things. Not exactly the easiest thing to take a country that has been controled through fear for the last 75 years and turn it into a democracy. Are they better off now? Ask the Iraqis.

Now that i've commented on that, I'll comment on what this topic started as.

He broke the law, and I think he SHOULD be tried for it. Though he probably won't be.
Raijenki
Lychee wrote:
Bush... Bush... Bush... Rolling Eyes

I'm sure that its not the first time bush broke the law...
What about the war in iraq... or stuff like this...

Agree...
I never liked Bush and never will like, he sometimes makes idiot things...
For 1 year the americans had ALL stuff monitored (phones, mails, etc) and he never told anyone, and know, he thinks that he is the law and with he's president power he will dominate the world...
LOL
Vrythramax
*sigh*...it must be alot of fun to sit back in front of your safe computer and pick apart another persons way of life....especially if it gives you something to talk about.

I am from the US, and at no time did I personally send anyone to war to fight,kill, or die, for any reason....why should I be punished?

My government (that I don't like), is no better, or worse than any other in existence...we just make ourselves heard a bit better.
Da Rossa
Raijenki wrote:
Lychee wrote:
Bush... Bush... Bush... Rolling Eyes

I'm sure that its not the first time bush broke the law...
What about the war in iraq... or stuff like this...

Agree...
I never liked Bush and never will like, he sometimes makes idiot things...
For 1 year the americans had ALL stuff monitored (phones, mails, etc) and he never told anyone, and know, he thinks that he is the law and with he's president power he will dominate the world...
LOL


This kind of privacy disrespect may be "justified" as "measures to take care of the permanent threat"... that the own Bush administration planted on your country.
Bikerman
Vrythramax wrote:
*sigh*...it must be alot of fun to sit back in front of your safe computer and pick apart another persons way of life....especially if it gives you something to talk about.

I am from the US, and at no time did I personally send anyone to war to fight,kill, or die, for any reason....why should I be punished?

My government (that I don't like), is no better, or worse than any other in existence...we just make ourselves heard a bit better.


Whilst I have no wish to make generalised comments about US folks (who IMHO are pretty similar to most, including us in the UK) it is worth pointing out that Bush is different on a couple of counts.
a) He is the first President I know of who actually stole the election (he lost the first one if the real votes are tallied).
b) He is more openly contemptuous of international laws, customs, bodies and treaties than previous incumbents I can recall
c) He has stupidly and wantonly squandered huge international good-will and support after 9/11

Most US voters didn't vote for him. That is nothng unusual - most UK voters have never voted for the winning PM here - even Thatcher at her peak in the 80s never got much above 40% of the votes cast. In fact we don't even vote for the pm - we vote for the local politician and the party elects the pm. In that sense our democracy is even more notional and mis-termed than the US version.

The real point is that Democracy is often shouted as the thing which distinguishes the good from the bad. Whenever the US or UK are found guilty of some attrocity (too many examples to go into detail - a couple would be AbuGrade torture, Guantanamo, British in India and so on) the defence is always - we are democratic and that is how we found out about these 'isolated' incidents and, unlike the baddies, we didn't mean it to happen and we will stop it when we find it.
It sounds plausible but is really part of the big lie.
I could go into great detail and cite numerous supporting references but I'll confine myself to a couple and leave it.
1) The US torture of prisoners in Iraq was not some isolated bad troops. The more extreme examples of humiliation were, no doubt, unsanctioned, but the general policy was (and is) dictated from Rumsfeld downwards - he admits this openly and it is a matter of record. Rumsfeld has even tried some preposterous semantic wriggling to argue that it is not torture according to a dictionary. Religious humiliation has been widespread and condoned. Physical torture - constant light, 'water boarding' and others are officially sanctioned. The Pentagon list of 'official' methods included :
# Use of scenario to convince the detainee that death or severe pain could be imminent for him or his family
# Exposure to cold weather or water
# Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.
# And mild noninjurious physical contact such as grabbing someone's arm, poking them in the chest or light shoving.

The US, of course, has ruled that the Geneva convention does not apply, civil rights do not apply and that it is perfectly legal and, even if not, they can do what they like because the prisoners are 'non combatants' and, as such, have no rights of any sort.

Contrast this with the 'bad guys' treatment of hostages.
Example - Terry Waite, held hostage for years in the middle east. His treatment was terrible, chained up for months and constant threat of death. I hold no brief for his captors or for anyone engaged in hostage taking or similar crimes.
He was, however, fed what his captors ate, provided with a Bible, not tortured or threatened with torture and not religiously humiliated or demeaned, despite his christianity and his captors mulsim faith.

Even the nutcases who have been beheading westerners in Iraq do not, as far as we know, torture their victims first or humiliate them and their religion.

The general point I'm making (before I get too far off topic) is that the difference between the current US administration and previous ones seems to me to be the open contempt for international law, treaties and organisations; the pious and sanctimonious justifications offered for criminal acts in terms of justifications and the stupid and self-defeating squandering of huge international good-will that was present post 9/11 to the extent that the US is now genuinely despised in a very large part of the globe.

I abhor generalisations about americans based on their Governmant since I know that many US folk feel as strongly or even more strongly about Bush as I do. I feel angry when people congratulate me (as they have) on the stance taken by Blair in supporting the Iraq invasion. I was marching with 2 million others in protest beforehand.
Many, however, do not trouble to disentangle foreign policy from citizens wishes and feelings and tar us/you all with the bloody brush of our governments.

Regards
Chris
Related topics
bush and condi talking...
Bush’s Openly Religious Language
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
Al Gore and GW
You can't fight terrorism from the False side of the law
Support Danish
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
Civil war? What civil war?
Define Religion?
Chemical Attacks - by US Forces // Impeach Bush
EPA denies California bid to reduce emissions from vehicles
Federal Judge: Bush's wiretapping program was illegal.
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.