more iraq

[smokedamage]

US official admits that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Of course, this is the fault of the UN, and particularly France.

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against

Comments

[journalsoup]

His rationales might be a bit off, no doubt. Yet some of the allegations about the UN, France and other countries coming out of the whole oil-for-food/kickbacks scandal kinda makes you reconsider some of the points people raised before the war began about WHY certain nations in the UN were so eager to keep the status quo in Iraq.

The thing about that air war article boils down to one important sentence. "If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally." IF. They don't say that those raid did. Without any proof or even a real suggestion that is the case, then this is non-news. I mean, hell, the U.S. has been bombing Iraq pretty regularly since the first gulf war. They were flying sorties throughout clinton's presidency and that was even further before congress approved the current war.

As for the "napalm" story, personally, I'm shocked to find out that a government official would split hairs when talking to the media. Just shocked. And it doesn't count as a "banned" weapon unless a country agreed that it was banned. Just becuase the UN doesn't like it, that doesn't make it banned for everyone. As for the chemical weapon thing....that's stretching things just a bit there.

The torture story seems pretty weak too. They've said it's unauthorized, not approved and they're punishing those who did it. I don't see anything to make me ashamed to be an american.

Ahhhh yes, Dick Durbin. See, he makes some really good points and I'm totally there with him.....until the last third of his speech where he goes fucking crazy. Is it wrong for these prisoners to be made uncomfortable and have loud music played at them? Yes, most certainly, but it ain't even the same fuckin' sport as the nazis, soviets or pol pot. By going completely over the top, he ruined any possible chance of getting through to people. (Nazis should never be brought up in an argument, unless you're talking about WWII or a game of Axis & Allies. Once the nazi word comes out there is no possibility of productive discussion coming forth.) He completely marginalized himself and his message. He allowed people to bash the living shit out of him (some of which he rightfully deserved) for calling american soldiers nazis. Because he had to go and go crazy he destroyed any possible chance he might have had to make a difference.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Perhaps the arguements to sustain the status quo were based on oil and monetary kickbacks, and economies tied together, but it is certainly the case in many other place where the US has influence. The major difference i see is that going to war makes the US seem like bullies who couldn't get a piece of the pie so tipped the whole thing over so that no-one got any. That, and the fact that the war has cost a lot of people their lives. Some of those people were just taking up arms to fight off the foreign invaders, much the same as anyone would ever do. Hell, you guys have it in the Bill of Rights.

Well about the raids, these raids were flown under the cover as "patrols of the no-fly zone" which immediately makes them suspicious. Combined with a number of other factors such as the Downing Street Memo, and the Bush administrations complete unwillingness to listen any reason in the issue of WMDs, kinda leads me to think that there was a certain inevitability to the war. It was always going to happen.

The semantic acrobatics about "napalm" would be funny if it wasn't something that killed people. Sure, everyone else agreed against the use of napalm and other chemical weapons, why should the US stop, as you say they didn't sign it. But the US has a habit of not signing things it doesn't want to. And of bullying other nations when it does want something. It just seems an immature way to conduct business, and not something that a land of people who like to think of themselves as fair and free would do. Shouldn't the US be leading the way for the rest of the world, after all everyone wants American Democracy don't they? Or is that American Republicanism? i wish i could figure this out.
I have heard a number of things described as chemical weapons from the Pentagon and military, some of which surprised me, and while i cannot find the source, i do remember napalm and even white phosphorous rounds being mentioned.

I went chasing up some info about the torture allegations on the UN website, specifically the Committee Against Torture there wasn't anything about the report (maybe in a few days) but the fact that it's been nearly a year since the UN asked the US if they could visit Gitmo, and they still haven't been given permission makes me wonder, what is taking so long? Is there something they need to hide? Anyway it's this article and i hope the link works

And as much as you may not like it there are a lot of parallels between Germany in the 1930's and modern America. The most irritating of which is this patriotism and flag waving. Add to that the various fundametalist ritualistic behaviours exhibited, and this complete hysteria about burning a flag, and finally this "terrorists could be anywhere, please watch your neighbours" McCarthyism attitude, i can't help but draw the parallel. Torture is torture and it is difficult to say whether a couple of days on the rack would be preferable to 24 hours of rap or r'n'b, especially for someone who culturally might find rap offensive. (i am not saying Iraqis do, but it is an example, instead bringing up the Abu Gharib photos of Iraqi men being humiliated by a woman, which is a big fucking deal). Perhaps "Nazi" was a mistake and a bit over the top, but i suspect that for every one that went "that's too far, he must be full of shit" there might be a few who might actually start wondering and going to do some research themselves.

[sableagle]

I never read the full speech, but the impression I recall from the bits I saw was that he didn't say they were equivalent but that they were in the same situation in terms of how the world viewed them. He didn't say "What US people are doing is as bad as what the Nazis did," but "The world sees G-Bay as a major bad thing, the same way they saw the Nazis' and Pol Pot's actions." The two are different statements.

The US gov't says they've identified and punished the people responsible ... and that's that and noone else needs to come and see whether it's still going on or what's really going on or whether it's at all possible there just might be someone higher up who's also responsible but who hasn't been punished.

The weapon is 'napalm', but not Napalm. Lovely, eh? That's like having a double cheeseburger without having a BK Double Cheeseburger.

White Phosphorus is illegal for use against enemy personnel. It's still used for instant smokescreen grenades (or grenades smoke screening instant, to make them easier to find in alphabetical lists) but you're not allowed to throw them into bunkers with people in.

I'm not sure whether the parallels with 1930s Germany or the fact the numbers of parallels seems to be increasing scares me more. Warm, slightly humid nights remind me of evenings in New Mexico or Arizona and I kind of wish to be back there on nights like that, but I really don't want to go back to the USA now, with or without my money. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with it.

[smokedamage]

Warm nights in NM or AZ would be great, on a clear night you and your buddies can jump in a pick up and go hunt Mexicans and sink a few brews. Good times.

[journalsoup]

So now we can't enforce our own laws, eh? Untill these people actually do something wrong, they're getting a lot of flak for trying to help enforce existing laws and stop criminals. Neither of which I have a problem with.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Um well, this Chris Simcox was charged with three misdemeanours by Park Rangers in the article.

they are doing something wrong.

The Border Action Network is calling for an investigation into whether civilian vigilante groups have violated the state's anti-militia law, illegally impersonated law enforcement officers, or violated any state laws. They are also urging the government to investigate several incidents in which immigrants were killed or injured, including five cases in 2002, and recommend the state hire an independent investigator to ensure thorough follow-through on complaints about incidents involving civilians apprehending immigrants.

So how is this a case of "So now we can't enforce our own laws, eh?" You have me confused

[yojimbot]

I'm not saying that's not the case, but that article doesn't really say that it is the case. An "investigation" isn't a guilty verdict. I imagine that would be the same in your country as it is in ours. It's these types of assumptions that lead people to invade sovereign nations before they know what's what.

Granted, I'm just going off your quote. I didn't actually read the article. I don't play WoW, I'm not religious, and my wife's too pregnant for us to fuck all the time. However, I did just get the NFL Network. So, I guess you got me there.

Also, I KNOW you're not comparing listening to 2Pac to having your hands chopped off just to see what happens. You can conjure up any music you like and I'll take listening to that over getting repeatedly kicked in the nuts any day of the week.

You have some fairly reasonable concerns here. Just be careful where you're getting all that paint while you're making those broad strokes, buddy.

[smokedamage]

Okay, i haven't had the time over the last few days to really chase up some more stories of the AZ/NM vigilantes.

Yes, i am going to make some assumptions and air some concerns and if it puts me in that same category as Bush and co, that does not worry me, after all he's the fucking President of the biggest gun factory in the world. So instead of telling me i am making the assumptions, go find out what came of these hearings and whether or not Simcox was acquitted or convicted of these misdemeanours and bring me some facts, because i make an effort and it seems only fair, otherwise it's going to end up as
"I'm right"
"you're wrong"
"Am not"
"Are too"
"am not, so ner"
"are too, and a big poo"
"am not, not, not, not, not :P"
"are too, are too, are too, my dad can beat up your dad."
etc

I don't follow the "having your hands chopped off just to see what happens" arguement. That sounds more like a punishment than a torture procedure.

And i don't mean listening i mean being forced to listen to painfully loud, highly percussive, and plosive sounds for twenty four hours straight. I assume you know that at certain levels deafness can result, as well as physiological problems typically brought on by low frequency sounds, i am not a specialist in this field so i cannot give you the details. However, i would expect that the US army might have someone who knows these things and might have written them down somewhere.

And you are safe, since football hasn't started yet :)

[journalsoup]

"So instead of telling me i am making the assumptions, go find out what came of these hearings and whether or not Simcox was acquitted or convicted of these misdemeanours and bring me some facts, because i make an effort and it seems only fair"

Ahhhhhh, yes, the lack of evidence proving them innocent means, they're guilty. Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Delightful.

"I assume you know that at certain levels deafness can result, as well as physiological problems typically brought on by low frequency sounds"

That's a good point. Unfortunately certain levels of DEATH results from serious torture. You seriously think that what is described as happening is serious, big league torture?

KeL

[smokedamage]

Ahhhhhh, yes, the lack of evidence proving them innocent means, they're guilty. Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Delightful.

it was good enough to invade iraq.

serious, big league torture?

lets have a quick think about torture shall we? Torture is not about finding interesting and painful ways to *kill* someone. It is about breaking down their will so that they will do what you want them to do. And when i say "you" i don't me you, KeL - k? I am sure you can imagine a number of ways that you (KeL) could torture Dana to get her to do something whe didn't want to do, if so inclined (i am not saying you do). Likewise, you probably know where would be a good point to work on a number of people you know -- either physically, or mentally. I suspect threatening to set Chunk on fire might get cobraclutch to co-operate. Anyway, the point is that torture is illegal. Torture of prisoners of war is illegal. I am aware that these people are not considered prisoners of war by the US, but that is so that the US can get around this rule. I mean, they were taken prisoner during war, so perhaps i am being overly literal here, but that would suggest to me that they would come under the category of "prisoners of war". Don;t you think?

[yojimbot]

it was good enough to invade iraq.

Seriously, is that your high-moral fiber defense? You condemn the U.S. Government (and its people) for this action, yet you cite it as your excuse to make wild accusations? Or was that supposed to be irony since you have no excuse for making those wild accusations?

You made a comment earlier in this thread wherein you said something along the lines of, "Hey, if I make assumptions and it puts me in league with Bush, so be it. I'm not the one who's running the most powerful country in the world!" And you're right! You're not running the most powerful country in the world. But why is it wrong for the U.S. Government to do something, and not wrong for you to do the same thing? I'm not suggesting that the U.S. Government's infallible or doesn't use poor judgment. That's fine if you don't think they're doing the right thing. Hell, when you're in America, that's what you get to do! We get to bitch about why we hate it here! But why don't you have to adhere to the same moral standard you expect from America? That really bugs me. I don't know if you were just being facetious or not, but it's exactly that kinda hypocrisy that everyone seems to hate about America. But why don't you hate it about yourself?

I realize that rant's terribly off-topic. And I hope you don't take it as some kinda personal attack. You certainly don't have to defend your morals to the likes of me. But one of my peeves are people who use someone else's poor judgment as free pass for their own questionable actions. My wife used to do this when she was in college. "You got a C!" "But so-and-so got a D!" "So?! You wanna be a fucking retard like that person?" Argh. Drove me nuts. In any case, I guess that's what this entry is gonna boil down to. A simple question I pose to your excuse.

You wanna be a fucking retard like Bush?

[yojimbot]

So instead of telling me i am making the assumptions, go find out what came of these hearings and whether or not Simcox was acquitted or convicted of these misdemeanours and bring me some facts..

I'm using your own evidence for my argument. You cited that passage as your proof that this dude was guilty for whatever crime. I didn't say that I knew if the dude was guilty or not, only that your evidence did not support your claim. To back up my contention, I need only to reference the passage that you supplied. To back up YOUR claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of this man's guilt.

I don't follow the "having your hands chopped off just to see what happens" arguement. That sounds more like a punishment than a torture procedure.

Now you're just trying to split hairs. For the record, the Japanese used to do this to Koreans and Chinese they'd pick up wandering a little too far away from home. It was more of an experiment than a punishment, but make no mistake; it was torturous, too.

And i don't mean listening i mean being forced to listen to painfully loud, highly percussive, and plosive sounds for twenty four hours straight. I assume you know that at certain levels deafness can result, as well as physiological problems typically brought on by low frequency sounds..

What kinda physiological problems? You crap yourself? Big whoop. I'm not trying to make light of the situation over in Guantanamo Bay, but the parallels to Nazi Germany is akin to comparing getting punched in the face by a child and getting punched in the face by a shotgun. Yeah, you can call them both "wrongful treatment" or whatever, but seriously.. Are they really the same?

[journalsoup]

I was referring to the border militas in general, not one specific guy. But since he's the case in point...he claims he accidently crossed an unmarked boundary into a national park where he was busted for possession of a loaded pistol. A mistake certainly, but hardly damning evidence of the whole concept.

"calling for an investigation", "urging the government to investigate" & "recommend the state hire an independent investigator"

That's a lot of investigation and NO actual proof of ANY misdeeds. When (or if) they're found guilty of any of that stuff, you may have a point. Until then they're innocent and should be free to spend their free time as they choose. In fact, the article even mentions that they have been looked at and found innocent.

"Authorities say investigations have ruled out vigilante groups in the October murder of two migrants in Red Rock, Arizona, by men dressed in army fatigues."

Yet, they article still feels the need to bring it up and try to hang it on these guys who have committed no serious crimes. Hopefully, that's cleared up some of the confusion.

KeL

[smokedamage]

How is this "busted with a loaded pistol" a mistake? I can't take a lighter on a goddamn plane, where's my mistake? What if i wanted to ship a few kilos of C4 somewhere? WHy can't i jump on a plane with it in a carry on? What's the big deal? I'm not going to use it, am i? I promise.

There's no fucking proof of WMDs is there? But that's all good enough for the USArmy to go invade Iraq. Where was iraqs free time to be spent as they chose? And reports have found that Iraq was innocent of WMDs, so hows that double standard?

And yes, deligthful, they were ruled out of ONE case of murder. That's teh awesome.

"Over two years ago, the Derechos Humanos (Human Rights) Coalition of Tucson complained that ‘vigilantes’ like Roger Barnett and others have openly violated state and federal laws since 1999, stopping vehicles on public highways, detaining and assaulting people at gun point, and shooting at undocumented immigrants. (American Friends Service Committee, June 2000)"
I tried looking for the actual article but haven't the time to dig through the site. Feel free. http://www.afsc.org

[journalsoup]

It's a mistake if he crossed an unmarked boundary into a national park. It's like if you crossed an unmarked line and suddenly were in an airport and they busted you for having a lighter. C4 is illegal for you to have ANYWHERE, it's perfectly legal (assuming you have the correct permits) to carry a loaded pistol around, except for a few specific places, such as national parks. THAT'S why it's a mistake and it's not even remotly comparable to c4 on a plane.

"There's no fucking proof of WMDs is there? But that's all good enough for the USArmy to go invade Iraq. Where was iraqs free time to be spent as they chose? And reports have found that Iraq was innocent of WMDs, so hows that double standard?"

Ummmmm.....never once have I ever said it was a good thing that the US invaded iraq, so I don't really know where that's coming from or why it's relevant....

"And yes, deligthful, they were ruled out of ONE case of murder. That's teh awesome."

And how many have they been convicted of? ...Exactly.

[smokedamage]

i will not get sidetracked onto the issue of gun possession in this country and admit that yes C4 is illegal everywhere, and it was not a good analogy, but i really can't be arsed thinking of another. Then again, i would wonder about someone who is hunting border jumpers and doesn't know the terrain he was going onto. Tell me are there not signs that tell you that "you are entering a National Park" in this country.

Ummmmm.....never once have I ever said it was a good thing that the US invaded iraq, so I don't really know where that's coming from or why it's relevant....

My point was about the hideous and life costing double standard. Iraq, no WMDs, which we were told before, and after, the start of the war. Even by the end of the war, there were still none. Yet, you insist that there has to be evidence, before YOU will concede me a point. I don't care about my point, i care about the lives, american, coalition of the willing, iraqi, and "insurgents".

I never suggested that you did support the invasion, i pointed out that there was a double standard in your thinking.

Tell me how to access court records for Arizona & New Mexico and i will take the time to find the number of charges and convictions, also if you can buy me access to some news agencies i will dig through and see what i can find for you. Reuters and Associated Press would be the best ones.

If you will not, should i assume that you are hiding something? ...Exactly.