Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 410

Thread: Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CHI
    Posts
    2,375

    Default

    I wasn't sure what thread to put this in, but this seems as good a place as any.

    Blackwater Founder in Deal to Sell Company

    I didn't realize this was happening, admittedly I haven't been paying very much attention to current events politics recently, maybe other people were already up on it. well, I knew Blackwater/Xe was having serious problems, and everyone probably remembers the shootings in Nisour Square back in 2007, but I had no idea that Blackwater execs were under federal indictment for weapons charges and rather bizarre ones too - it seems they illegally bought AK-47s and then gave them to the King of Jordan as gifts in the hopes procuring Jordanian business (I'm wondering, why would King Abdullah be impressed by AK -47s? the most common assault rifle in the world? anyway). I also didn't know about the various allegations of weapons smuggling, though that's no surprise. or Blackwater involvement in secret CIA assassination programs or top AQ players, which is surprising, not that the CIA has secret assassination programs (well, of course) but that they'd outsource them to f**king mercenaries. I mean, of all the thing you wouldn't outsource, that'd have to be at the top of my list.

    I don't really know where I'm going with this other than to say that the mercenary business ca. the end of 2010 is a very strange one, now that it's all gone corporate, where you can just rebrand and auction things off to investors and keep right on plugging, like any other Fortune 500 joint, just with guns and helicopters and a bad reputation for itchy trigger fingers. it almost makes one long for the days when mercenaries were crazed Welsh SAS veterans with names like Mad Mike who inspired pulpy novels by hack European writers. I guess it's kinda like the transition from individual robber barons like Vanderbilt or Rockefeller, to the utter impersonality of corporate boardrooms and faceless gray suits, the whole transition from mercenary to "private military company". I mean it's not surprising that mercenaries are on the ascendant, second oldest profession and all that, but all this bid for corporate respectability is just...it leaves a bad taste in the mouth you know?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    desmond tutu on why blair should be tried as a war criminal.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...r-desmond-tutu

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,019

    Default

    I'm sure he's said something dodgy at some time or another, cos everyone has, but Desmond Tutu always seems incredibly spot on whenever I've read what he has to say. The type of guy who would make an excellent president.

    I know someone who worked at the ICC, and it sounds like a complete shambles on top of everything else. Apparently Americans ascend the ranks faster than anyone else, despite/because of the US's refusal to ratify the appropriate statute.

  4. #34

    Default

    Tutu, in 2004, called the Iraq War "immoral"...

    ...which it wasn't.

  5. #35
    droid Guest

    Default

    Crawl back into your sewer Craner!

  6. #36

    Default

    Condoleezza Rice, in her terrific speech at the Republican National Convention last week, noted that "the promise of the Arab spring is engulfed in uncertainty, internal strife, and hostile neighbors are challenging the young, fragile democracy of Iraq," which was more to the point than Tutu's irrelevant blather.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    14,920

    Default

    Oh man, just like old times.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,019

    Default

    Pointing out that the ICC only puts on trial people from less powerful countries can't be described as irrelevant blather. It's simple fact.

    Desmond Tutu speaks like a sane person. Condoleeza Rice is clearly mad.
    Last edited by baboon2004; 03-09-2012 at 12:24 PM.

  9. #39

    Default

    US's refusal to ratify the appropriate statute.
    Not on their own in fairness. China, Israel and a few others are the same but it makes a sham of the whole set up.

  10. #40

    Default

    The thing with the ICC I don't understand is this (among many other things, I must say) -- when a case is brought or made or sought, and based on the amount of people killed by an action or decision, is it based on:

    * the amount of people killed with intention, as in genocide cases where the bodycount is factored into a deliberate policy of extermination, or

    * the amount of people killed without intention, as the result of a policy the aim of which does not factor in a bodycount and, in fact, seeks at the outset the minimise the number who die?

    In the case of Blair and Bush, surely any violations of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention would be due to actions or decisions committed or sanctioned by those under their ultimate command, but not due to any executive decision or policy plan as such? In the case of water-boarding, liability would presumably go quite high up, without necessarily implicating Bush or Blair, but would not constititute much of a case as nobody died as a result of it?

    Also, could violations of the laws or customs of war or crimes against humanity be brought against Bush and Blair in the case of Iraq, who did not sanction or defend any qualifying actions that occurred due to their decision to invade?

    I suspect that if you brought a case against Bush and Blair it would be thin, unlike, say, Milosevic or Charles Taylor.

    I don't think we have any lawyers in Dissensus, and the only forensic-minded personage I can rely on answering me is...Vimothy!

  11. #41

    Default

    Is it culpability or liability?

  12. #42

    Default

    I have written a rather nuanced assessment (I think) of Rice and the Bush Administrations' culpability regarding the tragedy of post-war Iraq here, and I do think I make some pertinent points that are not often aired in this, my favorite, "chat" forum.

  13. #43
    droid Guest

    Default

    You need to familiarise yourself with this:

    The Crime of Aggression is a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The definitions and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime was adopted by consensus at the 2010 Kampala Review Conference by the States Parties to the Court...

    ...Under the Statute, the definition of "crime of aggression" is stated as follows:
    [edit]Article 8bis
    1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

    (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

    (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

    (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

    (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

    (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

    (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

    (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression

  14. #44
    droid Guest

    Default

    Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover from it.

    The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

    That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

    His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, "i) there must be an armed attack upon a state or such an attack must be imminent; ii) the use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) the acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack." None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him: "A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists."

    Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair and his ministers still saunter among us, gathering money wherever they go, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Tutu has exposed.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...hague-iraq-war

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    14,920

    Default

    What was the legal status of the first Gulf war? Did that have UNSC authorization?
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •