More from Iraq: the other side of the coin.

[Tebonas]

1.) As member of the world, you are delusional Dark Dryad. UN asked you to invade Iraq now? Now thats what I call an 180 degree turnaround.

[Margalis]

Nobody is saying that ALL US forces are to blame. I'm sure the majority of them are doing a good job. However, you can't just dismiss it as "these things happen" either.

[Paelos]

Did you people that are so outraged by military guards mistreating prisoners even think for a second about what happens in prisons daily on American soil? Did you think that its a magical fairy land where people check their prejudices at the door? Do you believe that the military can screen out every bad egg of a human being while maintaining forces thousands strong?

If you think the world runs that way, I've got sad news for you. Large groups have assholes in them no matter how well trained, and a few assholes can do a lot of damage. You can't get rid of that factor, you can minimalize it through good training, and you can be reactionary to the problems. That being said, as soon as that happened, the military has dealt with the issue with grave seriousness, and it has punished those involved. The small percentage of people are being held responsible for their actions.

But that's not good enough for some, some want to use every advantage they can get politically to point the finger and say LOOK we're not the good guys, HA! Get a clue, they aren't saints they are soldiers, and they carry with them problems and prejudices you can't even imagine. When you are getting shot at, you don't typically like the people shooting at you, and on top of that, if it's one ethnic group, that will taint your perceptions of them. There were many more soldiers working hard as guards in a prison while knowing that the people they protect would shoot them at first chance.

Some have said that the reason Nick Berg didn't surprise them was because of the terrorists involved. You also seem to think that our soldiers should be 100% good across the board with no faults. Then, you spit on all of them when that illusion is shattered. You wonder why some Americans weren't shocked by the prison abuse? For the same reason you aren't about Nick Berg. We know these men are in a volatile situation, and we know the nature of human beings. That doesn't excuse abuse, but you don't seem to understand that the abuse has not and will not be excused by those in power. They've done nothing but apologize and try to make it right.

Oh and as a side note, arguing that we shouldn't be in Iraq now is possibly the dumbest thing ever. If you want to use that as a reason not to vote for Bush so be it. However, that concept seems only to poison everything else you see in the current light as just another reason we shouldn't be there. Congratulations, stroke yourself off at your superiority for a moment. Done? Ok, reality check then, WE ARE THERE. Your superiority doesn't mean a damn thing, nor will ousting Bush change that fact. You're looking at a bad situation and saying, yep that's a bad situation we shouldn't have done that. Hey, no shit, care to offer something new?

[Righ]

Actually Righ thats a dead bodie in pretty damn good shape as far as dead bodies go. I mean yeah hes got a black eye but levidity aside hes in really good shape. Heart attack maybe ? Possibly . Im not saying these things were right or that they shouldnt be punished. Evidently I have a much more stringent definition of torture than most. So be it call it what you will but plese dont lump all soldiers into one group based on the actions of a group of poorly trained, mismanaged asshats. Our honorable troops deserve better.

At least one prisoner has been beaten to death. At least one has been shot dead. The deaths of at least fourteen others are "under investigation". There are 1800 photographs out there that we haven't seen. Sivits has copped a plea bargain and yet only managed to implicate the people seen in the handful of photos we have seen. There is a mountain of rising evidence suggesting widespread abuse among many other people. The other soldiers awaiting trial are exected to testify against their superiors - that this was systemic behaviour that they were ordered to participate in.

18 USC section 2441 defines as war crimes under civil law breaches of the Geneva conventions. Even though you seem to think that the skin must be flayed from someone's body and their kneecaps drilled before it is torture, the articles of both the Geneva conventions and our own civil law do not agree with you. Lawyers for the government warned them that they needed to distance Al Queda from being seen as prisoners of war if the cabinet was not to be charged with war crimes in the future. That's why we deemed the prisoners at GTMO to be "illegal combatants" not covered by articles of war. Even if that holds up, the problem is that the techniques of "softening" used there appear to heve been ordered to be applied in Baghdad. Unfortunately, there are 3000 people in that prison, many of whom are petty thieves, civilians and soldiers who are suspected to have aided insugents, and "a small number of intelligence sensitive suspects".

Our honorable troops do deserve better. They deserve better than a half dozen asshat scapegoats being pilloried as those who bear the full responsibility, when it is clear that it is far more widespread and that orders ran counter to every soldier's training, to every American's acceptable behaviour.

[DarkDryad]

1.) As member of the world, you are delusional Dark Dryad. UN asked you to invade Iraq now? Now thats what I call an 180 degree turnaround.

No please refrain from being and idiot. I was speaking in GENERAL terms much like you were. Let me quallify it for you. IN GENERAL the world comes to the US for help when other countries threaten them. Better? Hope so.

[DarkDryad]

Actually Righ thats a dead bodie in pretty damn good shape as far as dead bodies go. I mean yeah hes got a black eye but levidity aside hes in really good shape. Heart attack maybe ? Possibly . Im not saying these things were right or that they shouldnt be punished. Evidently I have a much more stringent definition of torture than most. So be it call it what you will but plese dont lump all soldiers into one group based on the actions of a group of poorly trained, mismanaged asshats. Our honorable troops deserve better.

At least one prisoner has been beaten to death. At least one has been shot dead. The deaths of at least fourteen others are "under investigation". There are 1800 photographs out there that we haven't seen. Sivits has copped a plea bargain and yet only managed to implicate the people seen in the handful of photos we have seen. There is a mountain of rising evidence suggesting widespread abuse among many other people. The other soldiers awaiting trial are exected to testify against their superiors - that this was systemic behaviour that they were ordered to participate in.

18 USC section 2441 defines as war crimes under civil law breaches of the Geneva conventions. Even though you seem to think that the skin must be flayed from someone's body and their kneecaps drilled before it is torture, the articles of both the Geneva conventions and our own civil law do not agree with you. Lawyers for the government warned them that they needed to distance Al Queda from being seen as prisoners of war if the cabinet was not to be charged with war crimes in the future. That's why we deemed the prisoners at GTMO to be "illegal combatants" not covered by articles of war. Even if that holds up, the problem is that the techniques of "softening" used there appear to heve been ordered to be applied in Baghdad. Unfortunately, there are 3000 people in that prison, many of whom are petty thieves, civilians and soldiers who are suspected to have aided insugents, and "a small number of intelligence sensitive suspects".

Our honorable troops do deserve better. They deserve better than a half dozen asshat scapegoats being pilloried as those who bear the full responsibility, when it is clear that it is far more widespread and that orders ran counter to every soldier's training, to every American's acceptable behaviour.

See I agree fully with you. You left all politics out of this and stated pure simple fact. Good on you. I also agree that the few that are under investigation are being offered as scapegoats and have stated as much before but  when I say systemic I speak in the larger terms of the whole military. In that light its not systemic as I see this issue comming from one source. The theater commander who didnt have the common sense to not task a MP (guard) unit to a MI (ineregators) unit.
Assigning soldiers to jobs that arent in thier job desription asks for trouble as they have recieved no training in this area so thier definition of soften up would be severely lacking. That and now they are asked to do things by supperiors that they may not know are illegal orders. This is a breeding ground for asshats and Taguda says basicly the same thing.
IMHO the theater commander should be relived and tried as well as the civilian interrigators and the CIA operatives involved. This will prove to be a tad difficult as the Military cant try them because they are civilians and cilvilan court has no jurisdiction in a foreign country. What are we to do? I dont have an answer to that but I see the steps being taken now as a good starting point.

[Dark Vengeance]

IN GENERAL the world comes to the US for help when other countries threaten them. Better? Hope so.

Perhaps it would be better to paint it in terms of International Relations. We are the lone superpower in the world at this point, which carries with it a responsibility and an obligation to try and maintain order and the status quo.

But hey, some people want to believe we can throw away the tights and just be plain old Peter Parker. They need to accept the fact that we are the world's Spider Man. Power, responsibility, yadda yadda yadda.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

EDITED TO ADD: Paelos is my new hero in this thread. Well said, sir.

[Daeven]

1.) As member of the world, you are delusional Dark Dryad. UN asked you to invade Iraq now? Now thats what I call an 180 degree turnaround.

Hi. Just in case some of you have forgotten, we have been in a UN sanctioned state of war with Iraq since 1992. Hussein willfully and flagarantly violated the conditions of the cease fire over and over and over again. We didn't need another resolution to go in, but it was rather polite of us to try.

In fact, the only thing that pissed me off about Clinton's Presidency was that we didn't go in in 1998 when Hussein threw out all the inspectors. (well, ok throw in inaction in Rawanda as well).

[Righ]

IMHO the theater commander should be relived and tried as well as the civilian interrigators and the CIA operatives involved. This will prove to be a tad difficult as the Military cant try them because they are civilians and cilvilan court has no jurisdiction in a foreign country. What are we to do? I dont have an answer to that but I see the steps being taken now as a good starting point.

Allegations suggest that it goes somewhat higher than the theatre commander. The greatest blame may lie outside the military altogether. What are needed in situations such as these are international war crimes trials. That's why every reasonable country in the world signed the Treaty of Rome to create an international criminal court. However, following regime change in the US, the decision has been made to stand alongside China and refuse to ratify the agreement. Attempts are currently being made at a furious pace to try and ensure that non-signatories are not accountable, and serious consideration is being paid to remove the US signature from the treaty. All this despite widespread congressional and senate support, and judicial rulings that the treaty in no way compromises the US constitution.

So the question here is whether we want to stand alongside non-signatories of the Treaty of Rome - Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Cuba, or whether we want to ratify it and continue a long history of adhering to the Geneva conventions. While we're at it, perhaps we could also ask this administration to ratify the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women - all of which we've signed under the previous administation, but none of which we have ratified.

[WayAbvPar]

Actually Righ thats a dead body in pretty damn good shape as far as dead bodies go.

Except, or course, for being, well...DEAD.

[cevik]

Actually Righ thats a dead body in pretty damn good shape as far as dead bodies go.

Except, or course, for being, well...DEAD.

I swear to god, you people always focus on the little details.

[Tebonas]

Daeven, it was not for you to decide to continue that conflict. I agree that before Iraq there was indeed a large involvement of US forces in international peacekeeping missions, the USA having by far the the largest military force of the world and by far the most missionary drive to bring democracy and freedom to "lesser" countries.

I agree as well that the international community as well as the USA began to see you as the police force by sheer virtue of your involvement in all those conflicts. But lets agree that this was before Iraq, you burned your boy scout uniforms for Juniors moment of revenge.

[Paelos]

Allegations suggest that it goes somewhat higher than the theatre commander. The greatest blame may lie outside the military altogether. What are needed in situations such as these are international war crimes trials. That's why every reasonable country in the world signed the Treaty of Rome to create an international criminal court. However, following regime change in the US, the decision has been made to stand alongside China and refuse to ratify the agreement. Attempts are currently being made at a furious pace to try and ensure that non-signatories are not accountable, and serious consideration is being paid to remove the US signature from the treaty. All this despite widespread congressional and senate support, and judicial rulings that the treaty in no way compromises the US constitution.

That seems a bit harsh for the situation. War crime courts are meant to judge the losers of the war IMO. Because really, in war its the victors who set the rules. Now, if we as the winning side of this conflict decide to indict our own, I think we are well within our rights to keep that in house. Besides, we are still knee-deep in the conflict so doing that now would be a huge hit to support, and logically our government would not want any more swing.

When I think of war crime trials I just conjure images of ex-Nazis and dictators. It's a stretch for me to lump these soldiers in there.

[Dark Vengeance]

Daeven, it was not for you to decide to continue that conflict. I agree that before Iraq there was indeed a large involvement of US forces in international peacekeeping missions, the USA having by far the the largest military force of the world and by far the most missionary drive to bring democracy and freedom to "lesser" countries.

I agree as well that the international community as well as the USA began to see you as the police force by sheer virtue of your involvement in all those conflicts. But lets agree that this was before Iraq, you burned your boy scout uniforms for Juniors moment of revenge.

Actually, yes it was. We were within our legal rights to invade. Saddam had repeatedly violated the sanctions placed upon him, and resolution 1441 indicated specifically that Iraq would be subject to serious consequences if it did not comply. Quite frankly, the threat of force is the only thing that makes law relevant....passing resolution after resolution and watching Saddam blatantly violate them without an eventual military response served to do nothing but render the UN and international community impotent.

The ass-kissing within the UN before the invasion was primarly just that....we were trying to get the blessing and support of the international community. They refused, based largely on the objections of a few nations that had a clear conflict of interests, so we went in without UN support. That got some noses bent out of joint, as the international community was reminded that we're still the lone superpower in the world, and that we didn't NEED their permission, even though we certainly wanted it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[cevik]

Actually, yes it was. We were within our legal rights to invade. Saddam had repeatedly violated the sanctions placed upon him, and resolution 1441 indicated specifically that Iraq would be subject to serious consequences if it did not comply. Quite frankly, the threat of force is the only thing that makes law relevant....passing resolution after resolution and watching Saddam blatantly violate them without an eventual military response served to do nothing but render the UN and international community impotent.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm">Here is the text of UN Resolution 1441.  It simply says that if Iraq violates the resolution that the council will convene and decide what to do:

..
4.  Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
..
11.  Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12.  Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

It does not give the authority for individual members to unilaterally decide to enforce the resolution.

Furthermore, Iraq http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/21/int1.htm">complied with resolution 1441 by giving a weapons declaration to the UN in the alloted time; however, the US chose not to believe the declaration, which is understandable, but it's also why the UN Weapons inspectors were sent into the country, to verify the text of the weapons declaration required in 1441.  The US chose to cut short the inspections and enforce 1441 unilaterally on the hunch that the declaration was faked, but it's since been proven that the declaration was completely accurate.

[Paelos]

Only really hardcore conservatives are debating WMD still. I'm a conservative, I felt betrayed by the whole deal, and personally I don't think we should have gone over there either on that evidence. It was shady, and the reasons were suspect, and the timing was right.

As I've said before, so what? Where does that get you? We get it, you hate Bush, you want him gone. OK that's fine, but at least give me somebody who's not a bigger assclown to replace him. Do I like Bush's foreign policy thus far? Not especially, but the idea of Kerry's foreign policy scares the shit out of me. Bush can clean up his own mess a lot better than the anti-Bush. So vote your way in November, and I'll vote mine, and that will be that.

Now that we are done with that, I do hope you realize how little that has to do with the current incidents. The fact that you are looking go after higher and higher superiors in this deal is just a political game. Were the shoe on the other foot with a Democrat in office, I just wouldn't expect the same reaction. So if it's political, that's not a good reason. Look at the actual situation and how it's being handled. If you think that the military is not correcting itself the right way, that's fine, but I don't see going after higher individuals as the answer unless they were directly involved.

[cevik]

Now that we are done with that, I do hope you realize how little that has to do with the current incidents. The fact that you are looking go after higher and higher superiors in this deal is just a political game.

And if a Democrat were in office you wouldn't be here posting messages that said "Ohh come on guys, they already arrested a couple of people, isn't that enough?  Leave the poor Democrats alone!"

You believe the people demanding investigations, full real investigations, are politically motivated only because your defense of the people who ordered this torture is political.

Were the shoe on the other foot with a Democrat in office, I just wouldn't expect the same reaction.

I take it you were out of the country for Clinton's presidency?  Or does he no longer count as a Democrat?

If you think that the military is not correcting itself the right way, that's fine, but I don't see going after higher individuals as the answer unless they were directly involved.

There have been a dozen stories linked in this thread that implicate that higher ups, potentially as far as Rumsfield, directly had their hand in the abuse.  There are 1800 photographs, there are leaked memos, there are tons of whistleblowers, there is a large deal of evidence that indicate that the orders for http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/16/1084646074861.html">Operation Copper Green were approved by Rumsfield himself.

[DarkDryad]

Actually, yes it was. We were within our legal rights to invade. Saddam had repeatedly violated the sanctions placed upon him, and resolution 1441 indicated specifically that Iraq would be subject to serious consequences if it did not comply. Quite frankly, the threat of force is the only thing that makes law relevant....passing resolution after resolution and watching Saddam blatantly violate them without an eventual military response served to do nothing but render the UN and international community impotent.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm">Here is the text of UN Resolution 1441.  It simply says that if Iraq violates the resolution that the council will convene and decide what to do:

..
4.  Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
..
11.  Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12.  Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

It does not give the authority for individual members to unilaterally decide to enforce the resolution.

Furthermore, Iraq http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/21/int1.htm">complied with resolution 1441 by giving a weapons declaration to the UN in the alloted time; however, the US chose not to believe the declaration, which is understandable, but it's also why the UN Weapons inspectors were sent into the country, to verify the text of the weapons declaration required in 1441.  The US chose to cut short the inspections and enforce 1441 unilaterally on the hunch that the declaration was faked, but it's since been proven that the declaration was completely accurate.

I think he meant Res . 678

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

      1.  Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and
all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all
its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of
goodwil, to do so;

      2.  Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area;

      3.  Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the
actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

      4.  Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council
regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

      5.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[Dark Vengeance]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm">Here is the text of UN Resolution 1441.  It simply says that if Iraq violates the resolution that the council will convene and decide what to do:

See, I went ahead and read the text....you missed a part:

1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

          2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

13.     Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The specific language that Iraq will face serious consequences was HUGE, and was supposed to be the part of the resolution that actually gave it some teeth.

It does not give the authority for individual members to unilaterally decide to enforce the resolution.

We didn't need to be granted that specific authority. See Daeven's post above.

Furthermore, Iraq http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/21/int1.htm">complied with resolution 1441 by giving a weapons declaration to the UN in the alloted time; however, the US chose not to believe the declaration, which is understandable, but it's also why the UN Weapons inspectors were sent into the country, to verify the text of the weapons declaration required in 1441.  The US chose to cut short the inspections and enforce 1441 unilaterally on the hunch that the declaration was faked, but it's since been proven that the declaration was completely accurate.

I thought we found some missles with a range greater than 150km, didn't we? Regardless, our assessment was that he was not fully compliant, specifically with paragraphs 4 & 5, which would constitute material breach by omission and/or impediment. You'll want to note that even interference with the inspectors constituted material breach.

We may have proven that the materials reported upon were accurate, but you can't exactly prove what he did or did not omit. Hidden, sold, given away, there are any number of possible explanations. Just because the crackhead says he doesn't have any drugs, and the cop doesn't find any drugs, doesn't mean he doesn't actually have any. My expectation is that he smuggled them out and got them into the hands of another anti-American government or terrorist group. Just because they aren't there now doesn't mean he didn't have them at the time.

Kind of a silly point to really argue, really. Even if we find some eventually, it wasn't all that our intel thought was there....so the detractors will continue to hammer upon that. The US interpretation of paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, & 13 seemed to differ with that of the UN. *shrug*

Our decision was certainly unpopular, but I don't think we did anything illegal....if we did, the UN certainly hasn't really done much of anything about it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Margalis]

In American prisons bad things happen too. But that is often from other prisoners, not guards. In addition, the standards for getting thrown into prison in Iraq in the first place are MUCH lower.

These people have not gone to trial and been found guilty of anything. Many of them are innocent and will eventually be quietly let go. In the US guys don't get picked up off the street and thrown in maximum security prisons the next day.

[cevik]

I think he meant Res . 678

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

      1.  Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and
all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all
its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of
goodwil, to do so;

      2.  Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area;

      3.  Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the
actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

      4.  Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council
regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

      5.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Wow, I'd hope not, because then he'd really be wrong.  Resolution 678 allows for any member of the security council to unilaterally assit Kuwait uphold the conditions of http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres660.html">Resolution 660 which requires Saddam to pull out of Kuwiat and only to pull out of Kuwait:

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

So if he did mean Resolution 678 he'd be rather foolish since resolution 678 only "Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660."  

So 678 allows any member state of the security council to unilaterally impliment and uphold resolution 660, and 660 demands that Iraq withdraw it's troops from Kuwait, in order to justify the invasion with Resolution 678 you'd have to be under the very mistaken assumption that Iraq had reinvaded Kuwait..

[Anonymous]

Yes, but you should leave those poor republicans alone.  After all, it's not like they are democrats or anything.  *rolls eyes*

Ahh partisanship.  It brings a tear to my eye.

[cevik]

See, I went ahead and read the text....you missed a part:

1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

          2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

13.     Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The specific language that Iraq will face serious consequences was HUGE, and was supposed to be the part of the resolution that actually gave it some teeth.

You completely skipped over the part that I quoted above that says the serious consequences will be decided on by the entire security council once the entire security council decides there is a violation, which it never did.  Iraq didn't violate 1441, but even if they had it still didn't give any member state the authorization to unilaterally act on that violation.  In fact it speficially dictated that a violation of 1441 would result in a meeting of the security council and nothing else.  Nice try at lying your way through that one though.  Well no.. it really wasn't a very nice try at all.

[DarkDryad]

Well not to toss any monkey wrenches but we did sign a conditional ceasefire agreement with Iraq which they have repetedly violated that alone makes it legal  to go back in UN be damned.

[Dark Vengeance]

Wow, I'd hope not, because then he'd really be wrong.

I didn't....but as long as we are still playing the game, let's review another snippet you overlooked:

to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area;

I'd certainly consider 1441 to be a subsequent relevant resolution, seeing as how they all basically stem from the Gulf War and Saddam's subsequent resistsance to UN resolutions, specifically those regarding disarmament.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[DarkDryad]

Damn beat me to it. ALL SUBSEQUENT AND RELAVENT RESOLUTIONS. Pretty much says it all there dont it hoss?

[Paelos]

Cevik, the reason I don't address many of the ideas that the higher level offiicals are involved in your articles you've posted is because of a key fact: the articles have no evidence. Read more than the headlines and you'll see that. It's simply he-said/she-said between investigative journalists with vague sources and the government. Example,

"According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials," Hersh wrote, "the Pentagon's operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

So some guy says he has a source inside. Well hell, nothing like journalists lying about that to get a story across has EVER happened. Forgive me in the light of such evidence that I see it as pure bandwagoning by the press because they smell blood in the water. Catchy headlines scream that Rumsfeld is involved, but the fine print might as well say, we think. Here's a little side article about your boy Hersh who broke that story: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000982.html

From your earlier articles about the deaths, most of them were either self-defense or escape attempts, and the ones that weren't were/are being investigated with a couple of offenders already court-marshalled. The whole thing reeks of a smear campaign. I've never denied wrongdoing by the few, but saying now that their were orders handed down from the top? Your definition of "evidence" is far from what matters in a court of law.

In another article about Reuters' staff being abused, it goes on and on about this serious allegations until at the very bottom it says, "In its report, the US military said there was no evidence the Reuters staff had been tortured or abused." Oh yeah, and in this case the victims were Baghdad based journalists. Their motives couldn't be suspect.

The point is your sources suck, and at best they raise questions, but don't provide answers. Yeah, I question whether the top people were involved, but I don't feel the need to write an article with no proof saying that I KNOW they were. Because we don't know, all that other crap is just supposed to stir up the nest.

[cevik]

Damn beat me to it. ALL SUBSEQUENT AND RELAVENT RESOLUTIONS. Pretty much says it all there dont it hoss?

No it doesn't, you guys are overlooking the word "relevant" (and in some cases misspelled it in atrocious ways).  In order for the resolution to be relevant to 660, it would, according to the UN Security Council as well as the International Community have to be related to the withdrawal of troops from Kuwait.  1441 has nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait, therefor it's not relevant to 660.  With your line of reasoning any resolution ever passed with the word Iraq in it was "relevant" to 660, which clearly was well beyond the intent of Resultion 660.  Nice try though.

[Daeven]

Daeven, it was not for you to decide to continue that conflict. I agree that before Iraq there was indeed a large involvement of US forces in international peacekeeping missions, the USA having by far the the largest military force of the world and by far the most missionary drive to bring democracy and freedom to "lesser" countries.

Welp, I'm going to simply have to disagree with you. I think it is *our* (as in the US and Europe's) responsibility to remove the odious govermnents of the world the we saddled them with due to our Metternichain pursuit of anti-communits stability during the cold war.

I think a big part of the problem is that some people don't realze that a lot of us on this side of the pond have decided that status-quo in the middle east and africa is no longer a desirable thing.

Finally, if as it turns out that 'Oil For Food' is as bad as it looks to be, we had every right, and even a responsibility to ignore the consensus of the international community and go it alone.

Of course, you could file a petition with the International Court in The Hague and we'll see what sort of enforcement rights that unelected body has.

Honestly, I really do think this is the Middle East's golden hour for change. Because if Iran is successfull, if Tel Aviv or DC disappears in a NCB attack, well, all the hand wringing or condemnation from the 'International Community' won't mean diddly squat.

P.S. I love how you harp on generalities I've (at least) never proposed. I nver said we deserved the 'boy scout' uniform. I'm convinced we burned it well and good during the cold war in the name of survival. How's your's doing? Still rotting from the 30-years war?

[cevik]

Cevik, the reason I don't address many of the ideas that the higher level offiicals are involved in your articles you've posted is because of a key fact: the articles have no evidence. Read more than the headlines and you'll see that. It's simply he-said/she-said between investigative journalists with vague sources and the government. Example,

...

The point is your sources suck, and at best they raise questions, but don't provide answers. Yeah, I question whether the top people were involved, but I don't feel the need to write an article with no proof saying that I KNOW they were. Because we don't know, all that other crap is just supposed to stir up the nest.

My sources suck?  You think that Hersh is lying to make a story?  Do you even have any clue who Hersh is?  http://www.fact-index.com/m/my/my_lai_massacre.html">Ever heard of the My Lai Massacre?  The Righties were saying the exact same thing about Hersh back then that you're trying to say now.  

Maybe it's time for http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/">you to start reading beyond the headlines.  We aren't talking about a story from some unbelievable two bit journalist who's trying to make a name for himself.  This guy has already done exactly the same thing with another war, and you know what, the guilty people back then kept saying "there is no evidence, you're lying"..

[Paelos]

Of course I know who Hersh is, and I know from his experience with the military he is severely positioned against them. He's also well known for going after Kissinger in the Nixon White House.

As for him lying, he IS lying about a lot of things as the article about his interview with O'Reilly indictates. They aren't flat out lies, its just embellishment for shock value. I don't doubt somewhere up the chain of command that these abuses were indirectly condoned, but I don't believe it reaches as high as Hersh wants to believe. Especially since he's not naming names like he did when he broke the story on My Lai. There were no holds barred there. Why not now?

[cevik]

As for him lying, he IS lying about a lot of things as the article about his interview with O'Reilly indictates. They aren't flat out lies, its just embellishment for shock value. I don't doubt somewhere up the chain of command that these abuses were indirectly condoned, but I don't believe it reaches as high as Hersh wants to believe. Especially since he's not naming names like he did when he broke the story on My Lai. There were no holds barred there. Why not now?

Read that blog again, the guy who wrote it was a moron.  First instead of tackling the Hersh article, he disects an interview with O'Reily which already makes the blog entry more than worthless.  Then he goes on to attempt to discredit Hersh by claiming the things he said that were absolutely true are "lies".  

For example, Hersh points out in the Taguba report Taguba says that 60% of the captives are not a threat.  If you read the Taguba report you'll see that this is indeed what Taguba claims, then the blog writer goes on to say this is a "lie" without giving any evidence to support his claim.  Hersh recites Taguba's statistic and the blog writer says it's untrue without supporting his allegation and uses that to discredit Hersh, and that's just the very first thing in the article you linked.  I'd hardly call that a good reason not to believe what Hersh has to say.  It looks like a poor attempt at a partisan attack to me, a very poor attempt.

[Paelos]

For the sake of argument and so this doesn't just turn into us arguing sources the whole time, let's assume that Hersh is correct. That this is in fact a giant order coming from the very top officials in our government that we should subject prisoners to the this kind of punishment. What do you want?

Suppose you can prove that even Bush and his people were involved in this entire thing and are systematically ordering torture while taking a break from kicking puppies. Everyone gets indicted, everyone gets tossed out of office by an election. Bush loses, Democrats win, and Kerry goes into office. There, we've declared your perfect scenario for the liberals. Relish in it.

Now, and here's my point before the partisan train pulled into town, what do we do? We've got men on the ground and an unstable situation. Realize for a second what that whole scenario does to our perception as the "do-gooder" superpower in the world. Realize that terrorists and despots don't give two damns about party lines. Also, realize that European nations, allies, and enemies will all see that as vindication for all their years of America hating. You may think of it as cleaning a dirty house, but that wouldn't be the perception elsewhere. The entire middle east has functioned for millenia on a put up or shut up macho attitude, and if we walk out, disaster will ensue. What went from hundreds of our own people dying will skyrocket to thousands of innocents dying in a bloody changover. You could basically kiss any and all goodwill we had goodbye.

[cevik]

Bizarre, your defense has become "let the criminals be criminals because doing anything else will be admitting defeat?"  Seriously, that's the sickest answer you could possibly give.

What do I want to happen?  I want the guilty people to suffer the consequences of their actions.  If that's 7 random military guys who acted bad, then those guys go to jail.  If it's the upper ranks at the pentagon, then those guys go to jail.  If it's Bush then he goes to jail.  It's not partisan, it's reality, if you break the law you pay for it.  I want the administration to finally take responsibility for their actions, instead of constantly pushing it off on someone else.

Only someone so biased towards their party as yourself could possibly think this has anything to do with party alignments.  This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, this is about giving illegal orders then trying to hang the good men and women who serve our country out to dry when the heat comes down.  This isn't about elections, well it's not to those of us in the Real World, it's about breaking the law.  The only people who are being overtly partisan about this whole mess are people like you who are willing to say and do anything before admitting they are wrong.  It's just sick that you want to give a free pass to criminals who are ordering the torture of people simply because you hate to see your political party in disarray. It's sick.

[Righ]

When I think of war crime trials I just conjure images of ex-Nazis and dictators. It's a stretch for me to lump these soldiers in there.

Good grief. We're back to frat pranks versus torture again, are we? The very practices named in the army report are defined by our own laws as war crimes. But don't take my word for it.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html