Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

*IRAQ: latest news and developments

The question I asked, though, is:

Can this be called legal? If Bush has done a deal with the next rulers (even if they are imposed) could this be regarded as legal?

I know its wrong and I doubt its at all legal, but somebody must know upon what basis the Bush junta feels itself capable of selling off its conquests (sorry, British conquests)

They must have employed a team of legal experts to find an excuse. Somebody must have asked them what that excuse is.
 
Once the old regime has been dislodged, the law is whatever the victor says it is.

If the victor chooses to award contracts for whatever lucrative schemes unfold to their favoured contractors, who can complain?

This is the way it works. The US couldn't give two figs for international law anyway but in a post bellum vacuum, there is no law. It is what the conquering power decrees.
 
Originally posted by Jingo Daigoji
Bush is asking for $75,000 million for the war budget, ..............White House Spokesman was shrugging off, and not answering questions as to the mathematics behind Dubya Economics!

I'm not surprised that questions are not being answered! Not only does the US have a massive budget deficit, but Bush is trying to push through a massive tax cut.

There may be no answer. As Jingo says, the $75 billion is only an estimate for the 'short' war. It looks increasingly like that is not going to happen.

By the way, of that $75 billion, only $1.5 billion is earmarked for humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

john x
 
By the way, of that $75 billion, only $1.5 billion is earmarked for humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

Well they are a rich nation with a lot of oil, why don't we let them sell the oil and pay their own bills.

********************* or

Democrats were also expected to complain that Bush's request had only $500 million in humanitarian aid for Iraq and $1.7 billion to rebuild the country. Prior congressional and private estimates suggested the long-range expenses for both those efforts would be many times those amounts, though administration officials are hoping allied nations will help with the financing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20169-2003Mar24.html
 
while the gung ho reaction of some family members of us POWs is completely understandable, what is more interesting is the response of some us war veterans.
Correspondents report that the war is reviving bad memories of an earlier war for some Americans.

Robert Colson, a Vietnam veteran in Nashville, Tennessee, told Reuters that the conflict was giving him "a lot of flashbacks".

"I can't help but feel that [US soldiers] are victims of a government policy gone amok," he said.

Another interviewee, Nicholas Anton of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, said it was naive to think that the Iraqis would be "flag-waving and welcoming".

"That crazy euphoria everyone had in the beginning was very short-lived, and now people have to deal with the consequences of a real war," he said.

read the whole article here
 
federal liberal party (party in power) weasles in canada reverse previous position and now publicly state that canada supports 'regime change' in iraq.
 
from implied statements issued by reporters in iraq i think it's safe to assume that a news clampdown is now in effect and we will be hearing less and from reporters in the field and more and more from embedded reporters feeding us pentagon pablum.
 
Originally posted by joe dick
federal liberal party (party in power) weasles in canada reverse previous position and now publicly state that canada supports 'regime change' in iraq.

source please!!!!

All I can find is that the Alliance party wants them to change their stand.

It's the opposition party's job to oppose whatever the party in power does.
 
Too sensitive to show
(a tepid apologia for american censorship)

"The US administration is very sensitive to these pictures, in fact to anything that it regards as detrimental to its cause. That's why Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld became very angry at the popular Arabic al-Jazeera television network for broadcasting the pictures. Washington has put ample pressure on US networks not to show them in this manner."

http://www.oneworld.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?root=129&url=http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/us030324.html
 
I really can't beleive that we would change our stance on the war.

If it does though, I join you at the next rally...OK.

Time wil tell
 
congratulations on your credulity!

Turkey assures EU, NATO on Iraq

The Turkish ambassador to NATO assured that a possible Turkish military presence on the Iraqi side was for humanitarian reasons and to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, said the Commission spokesman.
"We expect them to respect this fully," said Kemppinen.


http://www.irna.com/en/head/030325175314.ehe.shtml
 
unlike the american media

Originally posted by joe dick
sub,

not about the war - just about regime change. i can't find it but graham made some noises about it - chretien will probably storm back and confuse the issue - if noone knows where we stand - we can't be accused of standing anywhere - anyways next election i vote NDP.

sorry, I misread your initial post.

I keeping thinking that regime change is the politically correct term for the war on Iraq.

I'll try to pay more attention :(
 
can anyone confirm rumors that i heard on french canadian TV that the coalition are reversing their position on sending more troops to the war?


sub,
no worries - noone knows what is going on - either here, or in iraq.
 
Important article for all Americans on treatment of POW's

George Monbiot
Tuesday March 25, 2003
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>

Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".
He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.
This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.
His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).
They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.
The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light.
You would hesitate to describe these prisoners as lucky, unless you knew what had happened to some of the other men captured by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. On November 21 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander, General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Many of them have never been seen again.
As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27. The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.
The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."
Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites".
It should not be necessary to point out that hospitality of this kind also contravenes the third Geneva convention, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", as well as extra-judicial execution. Donald Rumsfeld's department, assisted by a pliant media, has done all it can to suppress Jamie Doran's film, while General Dostum has begun to assassinate his witnesses.
It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.
 
Originally posted by angry idiot
Couldn't you of just posted up the first couple of paragraphs and the link to the article??:rolleyes:

Especially as this thread is supposed to be for news and developments. Not commentaries.
 
Back
Top Bottom