...and what foreign group was the Taliban fighting to get off their homeland after the Soviet withdrawal?

Next time when the US requests a person be turned over, comply. When they refused to turn Bin Laden over to the US, instead demanind he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial, they made their own bed.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Xcathdra

---

Next time when the US requests a person be turned over, comply. When they refused to turn Bin Laden over to the US, instead demanind he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial, they made their own bed.

Demanding that "he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial" is fair enough...
When will we get to see Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell for the war that they started in Iraq under false pretexts? Or are American government officials somehow immune to prosecution for war crimes?

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.


Read more: www.nypost.com...

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Or are American government officials somehow immune to prosecution for war crimes?

Repeal

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[10]

You are isolating things which do not exist in isolation. Perhaps a good way to win an argument, perhaps not, but definitely not a good way to insure survival. While your head it stuck in the sand, you can't see them coming to cut it off.

Charge them with a "war crime". Seriously. get the paperwork rolling. Let's see how that goes, and if there is enough evidence to justify that charge. In a court, rather than mewlings on the internet.

The Taliban as a group was formed in 1996. It is made up of commanders and fighters from the Muhajadeen. The group was in place long before it formally became known as the Taliban. It took them some time to consolidate their hold over other groups vieing for the same control. That would be when the US stopped providing support, right after the Soviet withdrawal.

Apparently wikileaks doesnt agree with your statement -
www.freeproducttesters.com...

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu

---

You are isolating things which do not exist in isolation. Perhaps a good way to win an argument, perhaps not, but definitely not a good way to insure survival. While your head it stuck in the sand, you can't see them coming to cut it off.

Not isolating anything.
The only heads that are stuck in the sand are the ones believing that they stand the risk of being chopped off by "them". Again, why exactly do you think that a bunch of Afghans fighting off foriegn invaders on their soil might lead to your "extinction", as you mentioned earlier?

Charge them with a "war crime". Seriously. get the paperwork rolling. Let's see how that goes, and if there is enough evidence to justify that charge. In a court, rather than mewlings on the internet.

If mere "paperwork" could serve justice, the whole world would be a better place.[

(on Iraqi WMDs) www.dailymail.co.uk...

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

Care to explain that? Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the US?

RM: Is it true the United States helped bring Saddam Hussein to power, as some allege, and then arm him with WMDs?

IT: This is absolutely ludicrous. I was in the Ba’athist Revolution who received support from the Soviet Union because of the socialist ideology behind it. The Soviet Union openly supported and backed the Ba’athist revolution in Iraq at the time and I am sure you can find news articles about it in European press agencies and others at the time. I was there helping with the revolution and worked on two occasions with Soviet KGB officials to help train us, much like the United States did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. The United States never directly gave us any WMDs but rather ingredients. They were not mixed and these ‘ingredients’ could have been easily used for commercial use but were rather used to build low life chemical weapons.

To be fair, however, my head is likely much more in danger of being chopped off than yours, so I wouldn't really expect you to realize the gravity of the situation. They'll likely save you for last, or may let you skate altogether if you declare yourself muslim or declare yourself christian and agree to pay the jizyah tribute.

So then, I'll take that as a tacit admission that there is no evidence of "war crimes", and so no reason to file charges - otherwise, you'd be busy filing.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Paulioetc15

---

Proof?
As for US involvement with Saddams WMD program... there is plenty to support this claim.

en.wikipedia.org...

You seem to be excusing US connection to Iraqs WMD by asking "Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the USSR?"

So to summarize, America is in no way morally superior to these supposedly "evil" regimes America waged wars against. The war on terror is one big joke.

edit on 15-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

The point is that WMDs were the main reason to go to war with Iraq. This was repeated over and over by the government. Before the iraq war, the MSM was abuzz with Saddams WMDs....but remained silent about its own shady past with Saddam. Why?