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 won't show pictures of Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"What does the "Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force Against Iraq" mean?"
Link:
miller.senate.gov...


Please...don't even TRY to say that we are not fighting a war of aggression that violates NUMEROUS international laws and treaties...EVEN THE US ARMY FIELD MANUAL SAYS IT IS WRONG. It is CLEARLY a war of aggression, which is ILLEGAL in international law, that Resolution to use force against Iraq doesn't mean a damn thing, we made it up so we could do what we want, we've done that for years.




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Read it.
Irregardless, the "illegial" war was made legal and binding by that document.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Yep...seems to be a pretty legit document:
"House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10"

Link:
usinfo.state.gov...

Excerpt:

"107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."






regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Read it.
Irregardless, the "illegial" war was made legal and binding by that document.


regards
seekerof


The government will always pass resolutions to do what they want. Anyway, we are still breaking INTERNATIONAL laws, plus this resolution to use force against Iraq was procured by fraud, in that Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. This makes it void in the eyes of an international court of law, as at the time we didn't know of any weapons of mass destruction, and we still don't. It was speculation, and still is...if we DO find weapons of mass destruction it is still void, because we didn't know at the time the resolution was passed.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yep...seems to be a pretty legit document:
[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Seekerof]


Yes, the "document" is legit...but only allowing Bush to legally attack Iraq under the US constitution. And, the document was passed as a result of mistruth.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I would think the jury is still out on those "yet to be found WMD's", wouldn't you think?
As long as the US and the "coalition of the willing" have troops in Iraq, the search is classified as still "on-going".
In such, the "lie" is yet to be seen.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
the Bush Jr./Blair war against Iraq clearly qualified as an “aggression” and an “act of aggression” within the meaning of customary international law as set forth, for example, by the United Nations General Assembly in its Resolution 3314 (XXIX) on the Definition of Aggression (1974), and therefore a Crime against Peace. Furthermore, in addition to being a war of aggression, the Bush Jr./Blair war against Iraq also violated “international treaties, agreements or assurances,” such as and most importantly the United Nations Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, both of which Iraq is contracting party to along with the United States and the United Kingdom. In other words, the Bush Jr./Blair war against Iraq constituted a Nuremberg Crime against Peace on both counts.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
No Shotek:

"Yes, the "document" is legit...but only allowing Bush to legally attack Iraq under the US constitution. And, the document was passed as a result of mistruth"

what this resolution did was continue to shred the Constitution. But this is a separtate matter from the "illegial" legal war against Iraq.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Esoterica
Illegal war? Exactly how is the war illegal?


It is an illegal offensive war, they specifically wrote in their security strategy "we recognize that our best defense is a good offense"...the war violates United Nations Charter, Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, as well as the Nuremberg Charter.

Article 6 of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter provides in relevant part as follows:
. . . .
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(1) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
. . . .
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

To the same effect is the Sixth Principle of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, which were adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950:
PRINCIPLE VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(1) Crimes against peace:
(1) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(2) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
. . . .

I don't think anyone needs to see real info regarding this war being "wrong".


Of course, the UN never enforced it's own resolutions of forcibly disarming Iraq when Saddam failed to allow inspectors to, well, inspect...or proving that he had dispsoed of his WMDs...or basically doing their job at all. When the UN fails to uphold it's own job, our responsibiltiy to honor it disappears.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I would think the jury is still out on those "yet to be found WMD's", wouldn't you think?
As long as the US and the "coalition of the willing" have troops in Iraq, the search is classified as still "on-going".
In such, the "lie" is yet to be seen.

I am not saying they do not possess weapons of mass destruction. The fact is, Bush told congress that Iraq DID IN FACT have weapons of mass destruction in order to pass that resolution, and at that time we had no proof, which makes the resolution void, even if we do find weapons of mass destruction.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
No Shotek:

"Yes, the "document" is legit...but only allowing Bush to legally attack Iraq under the US constitution. And, the document was passed as a result of mistruth"

what this resolution did was continue to shred the Constitution. But this is a separtate matter from the "illegial" legal war against Iraq.


I was referring to the fact that this resolution was designed to make it LEGAL to attack Iraq concerning national laws, it qualifies as illegal under international law.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Shotek,
If that is the case, then our aid in regaining Kuwait from Iraq was null-in-void and was among what you proclaim.
Here:

"Persian Gulf Resolution
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution"

January 12, 1991

JOINT RESOLUTION"


Link:
www.uiowa.edu...


This also incorporates the UN, just as the other mentions the "Security Council"...both one in the same.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Finally, U.S. Department of the Army Field Manual FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956) expressly incorporates this Nuremberg Doctrine of Crimes under International Law as follows:
Section II. CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

498. Crimes Under International Law

Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

1. Crimes against peace.
2. Crimes against humanity.
3. War crimes.

Although this manual recognizes the criminal responsibility of individuals for those offenses which may comprise any of the foregoing types of crimes, members of the armed forces will normally be concerned only with those offenses constituting “war crimes.”

499. War Crimes

The term “war crime” is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.

500. Conspiracy, Incitement, Attempts, and Complicity

Conspiracy, direct incitement, and attempts to commit, as well as complicity in the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are punishable.


These prohibitions of U.S. Army Field 27-10 (1956) apply directly to President Bush Jr. in his constitutional capacity as “Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. They also apply to his subordinates in the military chain-of-command: Vice President Cheney, Secretary of War Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of War Wolfowitz, etc. So even in accordance with the terms of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 itself, Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, inter alia, are guilty of committing a Nuremberg Crime against Peace for their war of aggression against Iraq in violation of the United Nations Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, at a minimum.
The same conclusion applies to Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, C.I.A. Director George Tenet, the pro-Israeli Neo-Con Straussian cabal, and other high-level Bush Jr. administration officials dealing with foreign affairs, “defense” and “intelligence,” who plotted, planned, conspired, promoted, incited, as well as aided and abetted this criminal war against Iraq. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) makes it quite clear that these prohibitions of international criminal law apply to everyone, whether civilians or military personnel. Nazi civilian government officials were convicted and hanged at Nuremberg too.

Notice that in accordance with paragraph 500 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), pursuant to the now officially promulgated Bush Jr. Doctrine of Preventive Warfare, the above-named individuals are also currently engaging in an on-going criminal conspiracy to commit more Nuremberg Crimes against Peace which are “punishable.” In other words, the official Bush Jr. Doctrine of Preventive Warfare itself constitutes in fact and in law an on-going Nuremberg Crime against Peace in its own right.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Seekerof
I would think the jury is still out on those "yet to be found WMD's", wouldn't you think?
As long as the US and the "coalition of the willing" have troops in Iraq, the search is classified as still "on-going".
In such, the "lie" is yet to be seen.

I am not saying they do not possess weapons of mass destruction. The fact is, Bush told congress that Iraq DID IN FACT have weapons of mass destruction in order to pass that resolution, and at that time we had no proof, which makes the resolution void, even if we do find weapons of mass destruction.


Every Intelligence agency from MI6 to Mossad was agreeing with the CIA that Saddam might have ahd WMDs, so if it was a #up, it was an international #up.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I would think the jury is still out on those "yet to be found WMD's", wouldn't you think?
As long as the US and the "coalition of the willing" have troops in Iraq, the search is classified as still "on-going".
In such, the "lie" is yet to be seen.



regards
seekerof


That's not strictly true. They claimed many times they knew "exactly" where the WMD where, yet once we got over there they've changed there story ever so slightly again and again to allow them some breathing space.
They based the "facts" about Saddam's WMD on lies, and we all know it. That's why the reason changed from that to "the liberation of the Iraqi people", don't make me laugh.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Every Intelligence agency from MI6 to Mossad was agreeing with the CIA that Saddam might have ahd WMDs, so if it was a #up, it was an international #up.

Why yes, it was. Until we see these weapons, there is no justification.


When the Bush Jr. administration’s aggression against Iraq was over, the United States and the United Kingdom became the “belligerent occupants” of Iraq in accordance with, and subject to the requirements of, the laws of war. Succinctly put, these can be found in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, its Additional Protocol One of 1977, the Hague Regulations of 1907, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Seekerof
I would think the jury is still out on those "yet to be found WMD's", wouldn't you think?
As long as the US and the "coalition of the willing" have troops in Iraq, the search is classified as still "on-going".
In such, the "lie" is yet to be seen.



regards
seekerof


That's not strictly true. They claimed many times they knew "exactly" where the WMD where, yet once we got over there they've changed there story ever so slightly again and again to allow them some breathing space.
They based the "facts" about Saddam's WMD on lies, and we all know it. That's why the reason changed from that to "the liberation of the Iraqi people", don't make me laugh.





Intelligence information on those "exact" locations was:

1) flawed

2) old and not up-to-date information.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Why yes, it was. Until we see these weapons, there is no justification.


Justifiable to who? The UN? Don't make me laugh. THe UN would have sat on its ass until Saddam fired something off at Iran or Israel.

I see you also ignore that Saddam violated prtobably every human rights law on the books. That in itself should have given the UN justification to remove him long ago.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Esoterica]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
In any event, both the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact and the United Nations Charter are still solemn and binding “treaties” to which the United States of America is a contracting party and thus “the supreme Law of the Land” according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. At the Nuremberg prosecution, the gist of the charge against the Nazi leaders for committing a Crime against Peace was based upon their wanton violation of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, to which Germany was a party. Several Nazi leaders were later condemned and hanged at Nuremberg for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. In other words, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom hanged Nazis at Nuremberg for engaging in the same type of reprehensible behavior that Bush Jr. and Blair did against Iraq.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
(God, I've been trying to stay out of this stuff for the last few days, but I just can't help it.)

Just put the pictures of those evicerated children next to some of Bush "landing" on the aircraft carrier and strutting around with a smirk on his face. I think the Saddam did it, so we can do it argument is a weak one. *sigh*

Seekerof,

Yes, yes Saddam was bad. What about the other dictators are killing and have far more people than Saddam? What about the warlords in Africa who are killing and starving their people...the ethnic cleansing?

Should we invade them too? Since Saddamn outsmarted the US and moved the WMDs to Syria or whatever, the only justification we seem to have now is the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Well, no one can doubt that there are many people that would be better off with their dictators removed. So, should we invade countries for that reason? Yes or No.

Don't respond with a bunch of links from GOPUSA or Newsmax, I want to know what YOU think.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join