It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US government wants Iraqi regime change!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
A few points some people here need to remember.
#1, the US is not a subordinate of the UN. Going through the UN is a tool to gain support; we can do whatever we choose if we feel the country is threatened. Heck, we could nuke the world, and if congress approves, it is LEGAL. Right is another matter, but my point is that it not illegal. And given the corruption of the UN, France, Germany and Russia in Iraq, UN approval was not ever going to be possible.

#2 You bring up Kosovo, and the genocide there. Ask the Kurds how they feel about the genocide they lived (and died) through. Why is Kosovo okay and Iraq not? Because of bad intelligence? Why does everyone blame the recipient of the bad intelligence instead of the source? Shouldn't we all be concerned that an outside source was trying to influence the US to attack Iraq? Shouldn't we be asking, who, why, and what did they gain, rather than bitching about the end result? As was said at the start of this topic, this is nothing new. Aren't you concerned by decades long manipulation of the US?

#3 As for the curbing of civil rights, there are some points of concern there. However, again, the focus should be on the source, and the reason, and not just finger pointing. The curbing of civil rights is nothing new. For the last 100 years (almost), the government of the US has slowly been gaining more and more control over the lives of it's citizens. Why? Is it power losing control of it's checks and balances, or is it by design? Who loses, who gains, and who has had a hand in it? Forget the superficial side that is thrown around so much. Look for the root of it, and who or what is behind that, then, if it matters to you so much, do something about it. Or, if you're Canadian, worry about your own countries issues, instead of joining the crowd of liberal non-americans who endlessly bash the US, helping to grow the worldwide hatred of the US.




posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
One Key Difference! Clinton didn't invade. (I get the distinct feeling you think i support Clinton, i dont, i realize hes made his share of bad moves.)



I'm pretty sure India and Pakistan could care less about the shield and are more worried about the other having nukes.


Sorry guess i should have clarified, in response to the "shield" China has stated it will increase the amount of Nuclear Weapons it has, and that in response to that it is likely that India and Pakistan will follow. Either way you put it, it doesn't make the world any safer.



Well, we are dealing with a different region. Russia and China have much more powerful armies than the ones in the middle east and may not like too well a superpower fighting so close to them.


I understand that it is a different region, although the last time there was a war there was during the cold war and we were at odds with China and China basically was the reason behind the North not being defeated. Seeing as both are in the Nuclear talks with NK perhaps they too, being at risk, might allow it or take part in it.

But then, if NK is part of the Axis of Evil and we had to take out Saddam, how can Bush justify negotiating with Kim Jong Il? Isn't he a threat to the "free world" if he is left in power? And why if you can talk to Kim Jong Il you can't talk to Saddam, Saddam who doesn't threaten anyone at the time prior to invasion when Kim Jong threatens the use of nuclear weapons once every few months. Why invade, why not assasinate? It's not as if the CIA hadnt come up with a plan for it, why was the Iraq invasion so necessary....gee, i wonder......



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird:

I WROTE: quote: ALSO, the FBI now can take any of your personal info (including your reading habits) without a warrant, and with only the slimmest of suspicion, up to and including wiretapping your phone.

www.westernfrontonline.com...
?

YOU SAID: No where in the article does it say they can do all that without a warrent. You know why? Because they can't.


I suggest you hone up your reading skills. FROM THAT LINK:

The legislation was designed to help the FBI monitor potential threats to homeland security. The act does not require that students be official suspects or that they be notified if their records are seized.

Tom Byrd, Western junior and political science major, said he understands the need for limited federal surveillance laws, but he is concerned the act will compromise his privacy.

"I am particularly disturbed that they can access this information, and they don't have to notify the suspect," Byrd said. "They notify a person when they search their house, and I expect they would notify me if they were going to search my student records."


So they don't have to be official suspects, and the warrant is secret ir even unneccessary.

READ SOMETHING

www.washingtonpost.com...


Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department and FBI have dramatically increased the use of two little-known powers that allow authorities to tap telephones, seize bank and telephone records and obtain other information in counterterrorism investigations with no immediate court oversight, according to officials and newly disclosed documents.

The FBI, for example, has issued scores of "national security letters" that require businesses to turn over electronic records about finances, telephone calls, e-mail and other personal information, according to officials and documents. The letters, a type of administrative subpoena, may be issued independently by FBI field offices and are not subject to judicial review unless a case comes to court, officials said.


YOU WROTE:

Which means you haven't a clue as to what's really going on, you just think you do because you read it on the internet somewhere. Typical.


Exactly what I was thinking about you. Thanks for trying, I can see no reason or fact or logic is going to penetrate your wall of ignorance, so see ya.

redpig: I understand what you're saying, but there is no authorization for it in the text. I will reference an article that explains it better than I can.


What about UN resolution 1441?

Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal.

Resolution 1441 finds Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations under earlier security council resolutions. It gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its obligations and, to that end, establishes an onerous and rigidly-timetabled programme of Iraqi disclosures and UN inspections.

Failures by Iraq to comply are to be reported to the security council, which must then "convene immediately ... to consider the situation and the need for full compliance". The resolution also recalls that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq of "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

But the resolution does not authorise the use of force. The term "serious consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action (the term used is "all necessary measures"). And, in their explanations of their votes adopting resolution 1441, council members were careful to say that the resolution did not provide such an authorisation.


www.guardian.co.uk...


Bottom line is that the War in Iraq is Illegal according to International Law. It was pushed on the American people by an Administration that lied through its' teeth about the reasons, trying to whip the country into a frenzy of fear and using the possibility of another 9-11 as justification.

What is to stop Russia from doing the same to Chechnya? China doing it to Taiwan?

There is nothing to stop them, certainly not the far overreached US Army could enforce this.

jako



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I suggest you hone up your reading skills.
....
So they don't have to be official suspects, and the warrant is secret ir even unneccessary.

Are you joking? Why are you wasteing time. I said the can't do all that without a warrent. Period. That's all I said. That's all I was talking about. All that you wrote did nothing to disprove that.



YOU WROTE:

Which means you haven't a clue as to what's really going on, you just think you do because you read it on the internet somewhere. Typical.


Exactly what I was thinking about you. Thanks for trying, I can see no reason or fact or logic is going to penetrate your wall of ignorance, so see ya.

Dude. You just took what I said WAY out of context.
Nice try though.
That comment still stands however, and you keep proving it with every new post you make.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
A few points some people here need to remember.
#1, the US is not a subordinate of the UN. Going through the UN is a tool to gain support; we can do whatever we choose if we feel the country is threatened. Heck, we could nuke the world, and if congress approves, it is LEGAL. Right is another matter, but my point is that it not illegal. And given the corruption of the UN, France, Germany and Russia in Iraq, UN approval was not ever going to be possible.

#2 You bring up Kosovo, and the genocide there. Ask the Kurds how they feel about the genocide they lived (and died) through. Why is Kosovo okay and Iraq not? Because of bad intelligence? Why does everyone blame the recipient of the bad intelligence instead of the source? Shouldn't we all be concerned that an outside source was trying to influence the US to attack Iraq? Shouldn't we be asking, who, why, and what did they gain, rather than bitching about the end result? As was said at the start of this topic, this is nothing new. Aren't you concerned by decades long manipulation of the US?

#3 As for the curbing of civil rights, there are some points of concern there. However, again, the focus should be on the source, and the reason, and not just finger pointing. The curbing of civil rights is nothing new. For the last 100 years (almost), the government of the US has slowly been gaining more and more control over the lives of it's citizens. Why? Is it power losing control of it's checks and balances, or is it by design? Who loses, who gains, and who has had a hand in it? Forget the superficial side that is thrown around so much. Look for the root of it, and who or what is behind that, then, if it matters to you so much, do something about it. Or, if you're Canadian, worry about your own countries issues, instead of joining the crowd of liberal non-americans who endlessly bash the US, helping to grow the worldwide hatred of the US.



Jakomo- I would have to totally agree with Saturines points, especially #1
We as a sovereign nation have the right to do what our Goverment feels is in its best intrest, the UN is a tool- in many ways
, but just because another country's self intrest don't coincide with what we believe ours are doen't mean we should bow out and comply. Saddam was given a lot of chances to comply and allow inspectors true unfettered access and he never gave it to them. I truly believe that the UN is far too corrupt to be a legitimate body any longer, especially with all the scandals of late. If China decides to invade Tiawan that would be they're choice, point is the UN is not a ruling goverment, if it were would that not make it the NWO government everyone seems to be afraid of?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird:

Are you joking? Why are you wasteing time. I said the can't do all that without a warrent. Period. That's all I said. That's all I was talking about. All that you wrote did nothing to disprove that.


Everything that I wrote disproves what you claim. They can and DO do these things without a warrant.

Embrace your ignorance and keep your head in the sand, and wonder why someone who doesn't even live in your country knows more about what's going on there than you do.

But keep paying your taxes and don't disagree with your handlers.


jako



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Everything that I wrote disproves what you claim. They can and DO do these things without a warrant.

Embrace your ignorance and keep your head in the sand, and wonder why someone who doesn't even live in your country knows more about what's going on there than you do.

But keep paying your taxes and don't disagree with your handlers.

Nothing your wrote, nothing you quoted, nothing you linked disproved anything.
Just because you say something or just because you think something, doesn't mean it's true. Who are you?

Just because you read and like what anti american sites have to say, you think you know more about this country than I do?
Don't make me laugh




Deny Ignor- no
Deny Stupidity.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakomoEverything that I wrote disproves what you claim. They can and DO do these things without a warrant.
ko



have you even read this part of the patriot act? it clearly says they need a warrant still, its just notification of the warrant can be delayed.

DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.


and heres the 4th amendment, clearly says nothing about notifying the person being searched.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by namehere]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I have to know... with that list of things that the US has seemingly done on their own etc...

How many of them would be on your list of how The United States doesn't help anyone and doesn't care about human life had they not done anything in those situations?

Just wondering.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
I have to know... with that list of things that the US has seemingly done on their own etc...

How many of them would be on your list of how The United States doesn't help anyone and doesn't care about human life had they not done anything in those situations?

Just wondering.

Are you referring to my original post?

If so that's NOT a list of things the US has done on their own. And that line of thinking is no where near the point of this thread.


If you weren't referring to my original post....
what are you talking about?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
ThatsJustWeird & namehere: Um, try reading more.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has also personally signed more than 170 "emergency foreign intelligence warrants," three times the number authorized in the preceding 23 years, according to recent congressional testimony.

Federal law allows the attorney general to issue unilaterally these classified warrants for wiretaps and physical searches of suspected terrorists and other national security threats under certain circumstances. They can be enforced for 72 hours before they are subject to review and approval by the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
...


Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the government has the power to obtain secret warrants for telephone wiretaps, electronic monitoring and physical searches in counterterrorism and espionage cases. The Justice Department has expanded its use of such warrants since a favorable FISA court ruling last year, which determined that the Patriot Act gave federal officials broad new authority to obtain them.

The warrants, cloaked in secrecy and largely ignored by the public for years, have become a central issue in the ongoing debate over missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks. The FBI has come under sharp criticism from lawmakers who say FBI officials misread the FISA statute in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged terror conspirator who was in custody before the attacks. No warrant was sought in the Moussaoui case, and his computer and other belongings were not searched until after the attacks.

Even less well known are provisions that allow the attorney general to authorize these secret warrants on his own in emergency situations. The department then has 72 hours from the time a search or wiretap is launched to obtain approval from the FISA court, whose proceedings and findings are closed to the public.

Officials said that Ashcroft can use his emergency power when he believes there is no time to wait for the FISA court to approve a warrant. There are no additional restrictions on emergency warrants, other than the rules that apply to all FISA applications, officials said.

Ashcroft told lawmakers earlier this month that Justice made more than 1,000 applications for warrants to the secret court in 2002, including more than 170 in the emergency category. In the previous 23 years, only 47 emergency FISA warrants were issued.


A "secret warrant" which nobody gets to see is not exactly a warrant.

Good try though.


jako



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
ThatsJustWeird & namehere: Um, try reading more.


A "secret warrant" which nobody gets to see is not exactly a warrant.

Good try though.


jako


dont sound secret animore does it, i mean if its secret how washingtonpost got this information.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
deltaboy:

dont sound secret animore does it, i mean if its secret how washingtonpost got this information.


Secret as in the courts never get to see it, nor the public.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
You are right. Although I am against Bush, I can agree that Bush was not the start of any of this. However, Bush, like any President, has the optition to stop. He has not stopped interfering with foreign affairs. In fact, he has started a war and continues to support it. Thats my take..........Ali



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Secret as in the courts never get to see it, nor the public.

1. It doesn't say the courts never see it.

2. If that's implied (that the courts never see it), it also states:
"Federal law allows the attorney general to issue unilaterally these classified warrants"
Meaning they are allowed BY LAW to issue these warrants, whether the courts are involved or not.

3. If it involves national security, who cares if the public doesn't see it.

4. It also states this has been going on for years and has only come to light because of 9/11. Meaning all that predates the Patriot Act.

5. A warrant is still a warrant. A warrant is still required. You still haven't shown me where it says a warrant isn't required like you stated earlier.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
ThatsJustWeird:

2. If that's implied (that the courts never see it), it also states:
"Federal law allows the attorney general to issue unilaterally these classified warrants"
Meaning they are allowed BY LAW to issue these warrants, whether the courts are involved or not.

3. If it involves national security, who cares if the public doesn't see it.

4. It also states this has been going on for years and has only come to light because of 9/11. Meaning all that predates the Patriot Act.

5. A warrant is still a warrant. A warrant is still required. You still haven't shown me where it says a warrant isn't required like you stated earlier.


Um, yeah.

2. If the Attorney General is able to issue CLASSIFIED, SECRET warrants without going through ANY legal processes, how does that make it legal according to the rule of law in the USA? The AG never had these powers beofre the Patriot Act was introduced. That you seem to be in favor of this is not surprising, I don't think you're thinking it through.

3. Yeah, sure. If the government feels for whatever reason that you don't need to see it, you shouldn't see it, right? That's a good little sheep.

4. If you bothered to read the rest you would have read that the amount of these warrants is now growing exponentially. And the Attorney General never had these powers before 9-11. Not in an official capacity anyway.

5. A LEGAL warrant. A secret government warrant issued by the AG and never seeing the light of day, and denying a US citizen from any kind of due process is NOT A LEGAL WARRANT according to United States Law.


Your government is acting like the old East German Stasi whether you realize it or not.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Um lets clear some # up here real quick.

Kosovo was a NATO action. The US didn't go in and just bomb Serbia and Kosovo on its own. NATO demanded it, mainly the European nations who were getting paranoid by this conflict at their doorstep. It wasn't like everyone wanted to go in there. About the time of Bosnia, when I was still in the army, there was growing sentiment in the ranks that we should have disbanded NATO and returned our forces home and let the EU deal with a problem that was, in our opinion, a European one that didnt concern us. So leave Kosovo and the Balkans out of this: it was a NATO lead action we were required to participate in because of our NATO treaty.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
2. If the Attorney General is able to issue CLASSIFIED, SECRET warrants without going through ANY legal processes, how does that make it legal according to the rule of law in the USA? The AG never had these powers beofre the Patriot Act was introduced. That you seem to be in favor of this is not surprising, I don't think you're thinking it through.

wtf?
It's legal according to the federal law of the United States. Can't you read? Whether it's classified or not is irrelevent. You're not thinking it through. You're not reading it. Your article even states that the Courts have to review it.

You're a smart one aren't you?


3. Yeah, sure. If the government feels for whatever reason that you don't need to see it, you shouldn't see it, right? That's a good little sheep.

Don't be ridiculous.
You've obviously never had access to classified data before, so I'll chalk these comments up to ignorance.


4. If you bothered to read the rest you would have read that the amount of these warrants is now growing exponentially. And the Attorney General never had these powers before 9-11. Not in an official capacity anyway.

What does the increase in amount of these warrents have to do with anything?
Since 9/11 there has been greater concentration on capturing terrorists so any increase of warrents was inevitable.
And yes the AG had these powers before (they've been in place at least 24 years). But 9/11 never happened before so those "powers" went unused.


5. A LEGAL warrant. A secret government warrant issued by the AG and never seeing the light of day, and denying a US citizen from any kind of due process is NOT A LEGAL WARRANT according to United States Law.

lol, you don't know our law very well and it shows. If you can show me where a perfectly legal warrant is not considered legal, then please, by all means show me.
And please show me



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird: Hey man, if you have no problem with your government spying on you and your neighbours and infringing on your privacy (without your knowledge) all under the LAUGHABLE guise of protecting you from terrorism then you ARE a sheep.

And you don't argue with a sheep.


See ya!

Jakomo



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
ThatsJustWeird: Hey man, if you have no problem with your government spying on you and your neighbours and infringing on your privacy (without your knowledge) all under the LAUGHABLE guise of protecting you from terrorism then you ARE a sheep.

If you go around thinking the government has nothing better to do than to look through phone books trying to pick out who to spy on next then you're very ignorant.

Get a clue as to how things are run in this country, then post. Until then.....you're going to keep making yourself look (not smart).




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join