Another Abu Ghraib?

the_13th_redneck said:
The conduct of the prison guards on the prisoners was unacceptable, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it torture.
It's just the way you wouldn't call someone killing one other person a massacre.
Torture... that is not a word to be taken lightly. From a torture chamber, people emerge with missing fingernails, fingers, hands, arms, feet, legs, eyes, tongues... sometimes carved into the shape of a "pig." That is their hands and feet are cut off as well as the tip of their nose. All kinds of permanent mutilation. You think I'm making this up? And then there's rape (which certainly qualifies as torture). THAT'S torture. Being stacked up naked into the shape of a pyramid is completely unacceptable and it is certainly abuse (if anything of the authority the prison guards have been issued) I think it's a tad silly to call it torture.
When you shoot a guy (which is a heck of a lot worse than stacking him up in a pyramid shape while alive), you commit murder. You haven't committed a massacre nor have you committed an atrocity nor are you guilty of crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...


The UN Convention Agaist torture gives a very clear definition of it:
torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions


For the exintence of torture you do not need many people tortured,with just one is enough.
 
I think the whole going into Iraq was debated like h3ll in here. And I think the charge that it was "illegal" is extremely ambiguous. I think all sides messed up badly in the runup to the war. Also remember, WMDs were actually just one part of the whole argument, but of course the one that got sensationalized both in the UN and in the press. There were other violations of 1441 that Saddam violated that the UN turned a blind eye to.
Click to expand...

I think that given the UN secretary generals statements about the war not being the right thing to do indicate that it was illegal, and exactly how did "all sides mess up badly"?. I am sorry but we now do have the benefit of hindsight and Hans Blix and co must be smirking all the way to the bank now as they were spot on.

Anyway you asked why I dont just let the Americans have their reality and I have explained that reason basically because the US has gone from a nation that meddles in peoples affairs quietly to a nation that is trying to impose its will world wide and I consider that a bad thing therefore if I leave it until the point that it is affecting me then it will be too late.

Managed to keep it simple for times sake.
 
The UN SG's opinion does not make anything illegal. No more than the UNSC's opinion makes anything illegal. They are unenforcable opinions.

What people seem to forget is that membership in the UN does not mean a nation gives up it's freewill to self protection or self determination . No member Nation needs to seek the approval or permission from the UN for anything. The UN paper tiger.
 
03USMC said:
The UN SG's opinion does not make anything illegal. No more than the UNSC's opinion makes anything illegal. They are unenforcable opinions.

What people seem to forget is that membership in the UN does not mean a nation gives up it's freewill to self protection or self determination . No member Nation needs to seek the approval or permission from the UN for anything. The UN paper tiger.
Click to expand...

You are wrong:

Charter of the UN

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html


The UNSC has a LOT to say!!!!!!!!



 
Read Article 51 (as quoted by YOURSELF above, for future reference, reading what you copy before you past it might be a good idea).
 
The Charter of the UN is just that. A Charter. Bylaws of an Organization.


Not International Law. Not in anyway shape or form can it be construed as such. The most that can be effected by the Charter is removal of the Nation from Organization.

So yes they have a lot to say. Mostly US bashing as they get deeper into Oil for Food Scandals. But no they don't legislate anything.
 
Redneck said:
Read Article 51 (as quoted by YOURSELF above, for future reference, reading what you copy before you past it might be a good idea).
Click to expand...

I am the one that should laugh at you. Even english is your tongue language it seems that you do not understand. WHEN did Saddam attacked you????????????????????????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
yep....article 51 does not justify the invasion of iraq. in fact, pre emptive war is not covered...ummmmm. ANYWHERE


so, yes afghanistan was the right thing to do....evryone can accept that the US was completely in the right to attack afghanistan and depose the taliban. that's why no one really kicked up about it.


but when the gaze turned to iraq, thats when things got muddy for you, and you know what, i think you would've had a better chance of convincing the world what you were doing had the US attacked Nth Korea or Iran.
 
He presented a threat to our own security and that of others, but I guess a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?


And chewie, as 03USMC has said MANY times, world opinion has absolutely zilch, zero, nothing to do with whether our actions were right or not, they were right for our own security and that of our citizens. And that is the only justification I believe we need.
 
03USMC said:
The Charter of the UN is just that. A Charter. Bylaws of an Organization.


Not International Law. Not in anyway shape or form can it be construed as such. The most that can be effected by the Charter is removal of the Nation from Organization.

So yes they have a lot to say. Mostly US bashing as they get deeper into Oil for Food Scandals. But no they don't legislate anything.
Click to expand...

I think you should read a litle bit about this issue. The charter are the rules countries accepted to rule their relations, and YES it is international law, one of the most importants. They CAN legislate. What do you think that the UN Resolutions are???????? :oops: I think that if you wanna write you opinion you should know what you are talking about, and obviously you are not.

Just take a look: http://www.un.org/ga/59/
 
Redneck said:
He presented a threat to our own security and that of others, but I guess a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?


And chewie, as 03USMC has said MANY times, world opinion has absolutely zilch, zero, nothing to do with whether our actions were right or not, they were right for our own security and that of our citizens. And that is the only justification I believe we need.
Click to expand...

That sounded really arrogant. If you read carefully you will see that art 51 says if an army attack occurs...Never heard of Iraqui missiles hiting in Missouri, did you?????
 
Redneck said:
And chewie, as 03USMC has said MANY times, world opinion has absolutely zilch, zero, nothing to do with whether our actions were right or not, they were right for our own security and that of our citizens. And that is the only justification I believe we need.
Click to expand...

but it is world opinion and it does affect the way the world deals with the US. look at europe sizing up china. how to you think condaliza rice's request last week will be recieved?

how much belief do you think there will be the Next time WMD's are mentioned?

if all of your friends and everyone around you are saying what you're doing is wrong....there's a pretty good chance you ARE doing something wrong.

the ONLY good thing to come out of the invasion of iraq is that saddams gone...THATS THE ONLY THING
 
staurofilakes said:
03USMC said:
The Charter of the UN is just that. A Charter. Bylaws of an Organization.


Not International Law. Not in anyway shape or form can it be construed as such. The most that can be effected by the Charter is removal of the Nation from Organization.

So yes they have a lot to say. Mostly US bashing as they get deeper into Oil for Food Scandals. But no they don't legislate anything.
Click to expand...

I think you should read a litle bit about this issue. The charter are the rules countries accepted to rule their relations, and YES it is international law, one of the most importants. They CAN legislate. What do you think that the UN Resolutions are???????? :oops: I think that if you wanna write you opinion you should know what you are talking about, and obviously you are not.

Just take a look: http://www.un.org/ga/59/
Click to expand...


No they cannot legislate. For the UN to Legislate Nations would have to give up their own right to Self Goverment and put it in the hands of the UN.

The UN is not a Governing body, Judical Body, or Legislative Body.
The Charter is not International Law. It is a set of bylaws adopted by the UN to govern the actions of that particular Organization. It has no legal or binding effect on Nations outside of how it relates to their membership in the UN. On nonmember nations it has no effect.

Resolutions are not laws, not legislation they are nothing more than the UN's opinion on issues. Notice Rwanda, Congo, Somilia. The UN passes resolutions daily condemning actions of Nations and Groups with little to no effect. Not legislation.


chewie I do understand your view as far as perception in the World goes. But I believe as Redneck we did what we felt was necessary.
 
ok....my perception is this;


the US was attacked by al quieda. so the US destroys afghanistan, the Taliban and hunts osama to the end of the world. fair enough

but before finishing THAT job (ie by capturing Osama) Bush draws valuable troops away to iraq to start a war on pretty dodgy reasoning (WMD). how saddam was able to build/hide WMD in the period after gulf war II is pretty hard to understand seeing that military targets were being bombed almost every week for years.

so then, no WMD. that leaves the US with;

saddam is a bad man (which he was) and

it was self defence.

riiiiiight.

self defence from a nation pretty much bombed right into the stone age during and after the gulf war. a nation with questionable ability to reach out past it's own borders let alone to the other side of the world.

Iraq has NEVER attacked the US.

if it really was about self defence north korea is probably pointing missles at US bases (such as guam) right now.

the US isolated it's self from world opinion, went it's own way and has ended up in a huge mess. i reckon that if Bush had just said, "you know what, saddams a bad guy and we're going to clean house abit (because after all it is our fault)", there probably wouldn't be as much argument.

but as it stands right now it is just too easy to believe that the US administration lied to the world.

so whenever i hear "we invaded Iraq because we were defending ourselves" it just doesn't wash.

IMHO
 
Okay as far as WMD's are concerned IMO. With the amount of time and warning Saddam had it's likely they are buried like the MIGs. And as far as their exsistance goes at the beginning of the war and prior too. The United Nations Inspection Teams could niether confirm or deny etheir. They had been blocked from inspecting. Not a big jump to assume he had them.
 
03USMC said:
Okay as far as WMD's are concerned IMO. With the amount of time and warning Saddam had it's likely they are buried like the MIGs. And as far as their exsistance goes at the beginning of the war and prior too. The United Nations Inspection Teams could niether confirm or deny etheir. They had been blocked from inspecting. Not a big jump to assume he had them.
Click to expand...

hans blix? remember what he said before hand?

"It's sort of puzzling, I think, that you can have 100 per cent certainty about the weapons of mass destruction's existence, and zero certainty about where they are."

"In the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly 'found' them."
Sarcastic reference to the British and American governments' insistence that there are WMD in Iraq after Blix had already concluded and reported there was nothing to be found.

re: Belief that Saddam Hussein destroyed WMDs without telling anyone (09/20/2003)
"You can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,' without having a dog."
 
Yes he thought it was a weak reason......................But this is the same Gentleman who was head of IAEA 1981 TO 1997. The same Gentleman from whom Saddam managed to hide a Nuclear Weapons program until it was discovered in 91 due to the 1st Gulf War. Grain of Salt as far as I'm concerned.
 
While head of the IAEA in the 1980's, Blix made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor before its destruction by the Israeli Air Force. Blix and the IAEA never discovered a highly advanced nuclear weapons program being pursued by Iraq since 1971, and Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation. Blix personally praised the cooperation of the Iraqi government in August 1990, around the same time Iraq had began a crash nuclear weapons program to prepare itself for its Invasion of Kuwait. It was only after the first Gulf War that the full extent of Iraq's nuclear programs, which had greatly increased since the destruction of Osriaq, were known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

quick question...at what time was the US supporting iraq against iran and is it possible that this had anything to do with the IAEA not finding anything (not accusing, just questioning)


The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002-2003, when George W. Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. Under United Nations actions regarding Iraq, in place since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was banned from developing or possessing such weapons. Bush repeatedly backed demands for disarmament with threats of invasion. The Bush administration began a military buildup in the region, and pushed for the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to Iraq.

Bush and Tony Blair met in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15-16 2003, after which Bush declared that "diplomacy had failed", and stated his intentions to use military force to force Iraq to disarm in compliance with UN 1441, according to Bush administration. On March 19, 2003 a coalition of primarily US and British forces invaded Iraq, see 2003 Iraq War. After the war, a number of failed Iraqi peace initiatives were revealed, including a U.S. offer conditioned on the abdication of Saddam Hussein.

No WMD were found by the Iraq Survey Group after the invasion of Iraq.


[/b]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top