More Gw2 Revelations...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hants
Age: 80
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTD
You will forgive me if I do not agree with you. Running a country has a lot of similarities with running any other kind of organisation. The military certainly is not the same but the successful units are personality led.
Been a lot of fun debating with you. Thanks
Jong
You will forgive me if I do not agree with you. Running a country has a lot of similarities with running any other kind of organisation. The military certainly is not the same but the successful units are personality led.
Been a lot of fun debating with you. Thanks
Jong
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just going back to the earlier posts on this thread. I find it difficult to believe the extent of the lies that we have been fed by Bush and Blair. The War was totally illegal under international law. We (our countries) have made a dreadful error and many many people have died as a result. 9/11 had NO connection to Iraq. I agree with the fact that on that dreadful day over 3000 people were murdered. How is that when over 150 000 Iraquis are likely to have been killed since the start of GW2 the US refers to them as collateral damage!. The gas that Saddam used to kill the kurds was supplied by the US, the Chemical and Biological weapons that we termed WMD were supplied by the US and UK. Bush Snr and the rest of his family made their fortune shipping oil around the world with the 'Bin Laden Shipping Company'. I dont suppose they know that in middle America. Where do we stop! We were conned by people with a very hidden agenda and thousands of US, UK and coilition troops have died as a result.
Blair says he only gets 3 hours sleep a night, hardly supprising really.
And as for giving them democracy, think seriously guys. In the US look at Dubya's first election, had it not been for his brother Geb!!, and with all the Gerrymandering that goes on with with the distribution of power it is a farce to think its a democracy. Guantanamo bay!! And as for us in the UK no wonder Blair doesnt want to go for proportional representation. Regardless of the statistics that you put up the simple fact is that the MAJORITY of people in this country do not want Blair as their prime minister, he is a Liar.
All very sad really, weve all been dupped and we fell for it, i wonder if they can really sleep at night.
rant over!
Blair says he only gets 3 hours sleep a night, hardly supprising really.
And as for giving them democracy, think seriously guys. In the US look at Dubya's first election, had it not been for his brother Geb!!, and with all the Gerrymandering that goes on with with the distribution of power it is a farce to think its a democracy. Guantanamo bay!! And as for us in the UK no wonder Blair doesnt want to go for proportional representation. Regardless of the statistics that you put up the simple fact is that the MAJORITY of people in this country do not want Blair as their prime minister, he is a Liar.
All very sad really, weve all been dupped and we fell for it, i wonder if they can really sleep at night.
rant over!
Thread Starter
And from today's Sunday Times:
"British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
by MICHAEL SMITH
A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.
The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.
The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers — the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.
Democratic congressmen claimed last week the evidence it contains is grounds for impeaching President George Bush. Those at the meeting on July 23, 2002, included Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The minutes quote Hoon as saying that the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.
Ministry of Defence figures for bombs dropped by the RAF on southern Iraq, obtained by the Liberal Democrats through Commons written answers, show the RAF was as active in the bombing as the Americans and that the “spikes” began in May 2002.
However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.
The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.
The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorised military action. The war finally started in March 2003.
This weekend the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists and a world authority on international law, said the intensified raids were illegal if they were meant to pressurise the regime.
He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorising military force.
“Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity,” said Goodhart, who is also the Liberal Democrat shadow Lord Chancellor.
The Foreign Office advice noted that the Americans had “on occasion” claimed that the allied aircraft were there to enforce compliance with resolutions 688 and 687, which ordered Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
“This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement,” it said.
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.
Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month. General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”. The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.
Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.
The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months."
Bliar has got some more answering to do, it seems.......
"British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
by MICHAEL SMITH
A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.
The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.
The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers — the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.
Democratic congressmen claimed last week the evidence it contains is grounds for impeaching President George Bush. Those at the meeting on July 23, 2002, included Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The minutes quote Hoon as saying that the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.
Ministry of Defence figures for bombs dropped by the RAF on southern Iraq, obtained by the Liberal Democrats through Commons written answers, show the RAF was as active in the bombing as the Americans and that the “spikes” began in May 2002.
However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.
The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.
The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorised military action. The war finally started in March 2003.
This weekend the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists and a world authority on international law, said the intensified raids were illegal if they were meant to pressurise the regime.
He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorising military force.
“Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity,” said Goodhart, who is also the Liberal Democrat shadow Lord Chancellor.
The Foreign Office advice noted that the Americans had “on occasion” claimed that the allied aircraft were there to enforce compliance with resolutions 688 and 687, which ordered Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
“This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement,” it said.
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.
Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month. General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”. The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.
Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.
The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months."
Bliar has got some more answering to do, it seems.......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR4s were involved in a US-Iraqi operation over the last few days.
Is this a case of "mission creep"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4108098.stm
Is this a case of "mission creep"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4108098.stm
RAF bombs sites in western Iraq
British Tornadoes flew alongside US planes and helicopters
Royal Air Force warplanes have been called into action in Iraq alongside American forces fighting close to the Syrian border.
The British GR4 Tornadoes were supporting a US operation against insurgents, the American military said.
They used laser-guided bombs and missiles to support an attack on a building in Karabila, it said.
Around 1,000 US troops are targeting insurgent hide-outs in the offensive, known as Operation Spear.
The operation has seen heavy fighting in Karabila and other areas around the city of Qaim, in north-western Iraq\'s Anbar province, correspondents say.
This would be an extremely rare if not unprecedented use of British planes since the war
The BBC\'s Jon Leyne in Baghdad said it was not yet clear why the British planes were called in.
He said British forces rarely ventured out of their sector in southern Iraq.
Another Baghdad correspondent, Caroline Hawley, said: "This would be an extremely rare if not unprecedented use of British planes since the war".
She said the Ministry of Defence had yet to comment.
"It seems this could be a politically sensitive subject."
Vehicles and buildings in Karabila were bombed in the offensive.
The US military said a car bomb factory, Iraqi hostages and a house where captives were tortured had been found in the raids.
Reports from the city said around 100 people waving white flags emerged from areas in the city\'s north after a US warning over a loudspeaker that an assault on the district was imminent.
On Saturday, the US military said 50 insurgents had been killed as a result of the operation. A statement attributed to the al-Qaeda group in Iraq said no insurgents had been killed.
Another offensive, known as Operation Dagger, was also under way closer to Baghdad involving US and Iraqi troops.
British Tornadoes flew alongside US planes and helicopters
Royal Air Force warplanes have been called into action in Iraq alongside American forces fighting close to the Syrian border.
The British GR4 Tornadoes were supporting a US operation against insurgents, the American military said.
They used laser-guided bombs and missiles to support an attack on a building in Karabila, it said.
Around 1,000 US troops are targeting insurgent hide-outs in the offensive, known as Operation Spear.
The operation has seen heavy fighting in Karabila and other areas around the city of Qaim, in north-western Iraq\'s Anbar province, correspondents say.
This would be an extremely rare if not unprecedented use of British planes since the war
The BBC\'s Jon Leyne in Baghdad said it was not yet clear why the British planes were called in.
He said British forces rarely ventured out of their sector in southern Iraq.
Another Baghdad correspondent, Caroline Hawley, said: "This would be an extremely rare if not unprecedented use of British planes since the war".
She said the Ministry of Defence had yet to comment.
"It seems this could be a politically sensitive subject."
Vehicles and buildings in Karabila were bombed in the offensive.
The US military said a car bomb factory, Iraqi hostages and a house where captives were tortured had been found in the raids.
Reports from the city said around 100 people waving white flags emerged from areas in the city\'s north after a US warning over a loudspeaker that an assault on the district was imminent.
On Saturday, the US military said 50 insurgents had been killed as a result of the operation. A statement attributed to the al-Qaeda group in Iraq said no insurgents had been killed.
Another offensive, known as Operation Dagger, was also under way closer to Baghdad involving US and Iraqi troops.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"International Law"
Interesting idea, but does it really exist?
In reality there is no police force, and no courtroom therefore it is just the winner of whatever conflict exacting revenge.
I think it is naive to talk about it as if it is just like the National laws.
Until the UN becomes properly impartial (no security council, not based in the US and funded by all countries), writes a book of laws and more importantly grows serious teeth and an agressive attitude to dissent, there will be no such thing as International Law. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to grow up.
Interesting idea, but does it really exist?
In reality there is no police force, and no courtroom therefore it is just the winner of whatever conflict exacting revenge.
I think it is naive to talk about it as if it is just like the National laws.
Until the UN becomes properly impartial (no security council, not based in the US and funded by all countries), writes a book of laws and more importantly grows serious teeth and an agressive attitude to dissent, there will be no such thing as International Law. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to grow up.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International Law Commission
Tourist,
Clearly you have not heard of the work of the International law Commission, which is about as independent as you can get in an legal system that recognises the sovereignty of the State and works through the consent of states. If there is no international law, we could not send letters overseas, make international telephone calls, fly safely from one country to the next...these treaties, contibute to the body of international law.
As you may be aware there is considerable effort underway to reform the Security Council with the popssible addition of Brazil and India to the P5; unfortunately that could also make the work of the UNSC even more partisan. Added to the loss of confidence due to allegations of malfeasance amongst the senior leadership...
CC
Clearly you have not heard of the work of the International law Commission, which is about as independent as you can get in an legal system that recognises the sovereignty of the State and works through the consent of states. If there is no international law, we could not send letters overseas, make international telephone calls, fly safely from one country to the next...these treaties, contibute to the body of international law.
As you may be aware there is considerable effort underway to reform the Security Council with the popssible addition of Brazil and India to the P5; unfortunately that could also make the work of the UNSC even more partisan. Added to the loss of confidence due to allegations of malfeasance amongst the senior leadership...
CC
Thread Starter
Quite so, CC!
And tourist, if you want to see the legal advice given to that lying piece of $hit, see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...654697,00.html
I too was most concerned about what the Spams were getting up to towards the end of our time in a certain OOA location......
And tourist, if you want to see the legal advice given to that lying piece of $hit, see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...654697,00.html
I too was most concerned about what the Spams were getting up to towards the end of our time in a certain OOA location......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Law requires
1. The Rules (preferably unambiguous)
2. Someone to enforce it
3. A system of punishment
"International Law" doesn't even complete the first requirement.
You can call it what you like, but until there is an unbiased police force police force to back it up, it is not "law" it is just a selection of suggestions to countries.
1. The Rules (preferably unambiguous)
2. Someone to enforce it
3. A system of punishment
"International Law" doesn't even complete the first requirement.
You can call it what you like, but until there is an unbiased police force police force to back it up, it is not "law" it is just a selection of suggestions to countries.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a system of international law with rules, enforcement and punishment. The ICC, based in the Hague, with Milosevic in the dock.
However, the US doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over its troops and the ICC has no power over "crimes of aggression" and investigates "lesser" crimes such as genocide!
Therefore the only ones to end up in the dock are enemies of the US and British armed forces personnel hung out to dry by the MoD. There's about as much chance of Bliar appearing in the dock as there is of his missus buying a Big Issue.
However, the US doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over its troops and the ICC has no power over "crimes of aggression" and investigates "lesser" crimes such as genocide!
Therefore the only ones to end up in the dock are enemies of the US and British armed forces personnel hung out to dry by the MoD. There's about as much chance of Bliar appearing in the dock as there is of his missus buying a Big Issue.
If somebody called me a LIAR then repeated it......"LIAR LIAR LIAR BLAIR", on a public forum and of course..... I had not lied!!!!!!!! I would sue his a*se off.
For all the friends of Tony Blair out there please please please tell him what I said. I'll use every penny of my military pension, sell the house and get the wife back out there on the streets to nail the smug lying ****. All he has to do is pm and I will gladly give him my telephone number and e-mail address.
Bet he does'nt. Probably cant be bothered, probably thinks I am one of those Thatcherite types that just might punch on the nose for the pure pleasure of it....Guess he's right.
For all the friends of Tony Blair out there please please please tell him what I said. I'll use every penny of my military pension, sell the house and get the wife back out there on the streets to nail the smug lying ****. All he has to do is pm and I will gladly give him my telephone number and e-mail address.
Bet he does'nt. Probably cant be bothered, probably thinks I am one of those Thatcherite types that just might punch on the nose for the pure pleasure of it....Guess he's right.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICC
Jess
Milosevic is under the jursidiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Crimes against Humanity in Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not the ICC. Nontheless,the ICTY is doing a sterling job and underlines the fact that international criminal law has legitamacy.
The ICC, a laudable approach is making headway with DRC charges I believe (can't be bothered to check the website) but they are hampered by total US non-cooperation. Clinton signed the Treaty but it was not ratified by Congress. Since then the US has put considerable pressure on countries to claim Art 98 derrogation, ie agree not to surrender US personnel to the ICC.
Genocide is already accepted as a crime, and jursidiction rests, inter alia, initially with any country who can bring a prosecution (erga omnes). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has had a number of cases referred to it by countries claiming immunity for senior political figures who have been arraigned in other countries. In this respect we have to respect the efforts of France and Belgium to bring some of the low-lifes of DRC to account.
CC
Milosevic is under the jursidiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Crimes against Humanity in Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not the ICC. Nontheless,the ICTY is doing a sterling job and underlines the fact that international criminal law has legitamacy.
The ICC, a laudable approach is making headway with DRC charges I believe (can't be bothered to check the website) but they are hampered by total US non-cooperation. Clinton signed the Treaty but it was not ratified by Congress. Since then the US has put considerable pressure on countries to claim Art 98 derrogation, ie agree not to surrender US personnel to the ICC.
Genocide is already accepted as a crime, and jursidiction rests, inter alia, initially with any country who can bring a prosecution (erga omnes). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has had a number of cases referred to it by countries claiming immunity for senior political figures who have been arraigned in other countries. In this respect we have to respect the efforts of France and Belgium to bring some of the low-lifes of DRC to account.
CC
Last edited by Cambridge Crash; 20th Jun 2005 at 15:31.
How many years has it been since Milo has been in custody? What is the status of the court case against him?
Justice delayed is justice denied is it not?
Justice delayed is justice denied is it not?
ZH875,
“I don't believe they found a house of torture. I have it on good authority that torture is illegal and is not to be used, that authority is pr00ne.”
Would you care to clarify just what you mean by that claim?
As someone who is part of a group who represent victims of torture for free I find it rather offensive.
“I don't believe they found a house of torture. I have it on good authority that torture is illegal and is not to be used, that authority is pr00ne.”
Would you care to clarify just what you mean by that claim?
As someone who is part of a group who represent victims of torture for free I find it rather offensive.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICTY
The ICTY case against Milosevic is proceeding. His decision to represent himself continues to draw matters out. I am out of date as to the exacrt progress, but the ICTY has been excruitatingly precise to ensure that the case is tried in accordiance with international norms.
CC
ps: I wonder if Milosevic gave his vicitims time to get their affairs in order?
CC
ps: I wonder if Milosevic gave his vicitims time to get their affairs in order?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that some people choose not to b involved shows that it is not law, just a voluntry system.
I wish i could say I decided not to be involved in that troublesome speed limit law, but I cannot, cause its a LAW, that is POLICED, and PUNISHED.
I wish i could say I decided not to be involved in that troublesome speed limit law, but I cannot, cause its a LAW, that is POLICED, and PUNISHED.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ICC is appealing at first sight but it has also made murderous dictators the world over realise that there is now no longer the possibilty of some sort of arranged 'cosy retirement', eg a villa in France and a few million in the bank.
The former UK ambassador to Burma reckons that the military junta were on the point of restoring civilian rule until they saw what happened to Milosevic. Now they will cling to power at any cost - that cost being borne by the population of course.
The former UK ambassador to Burma reckons that the military junta were on the point of restoring civilian rule until they saw what happened to Milosevic. Now they will cling to power at any cost - that cost being borne by the population of course.