How much does it take...?

[Rhisiart]

The Scottish National Party (SNP) and The Party of Wales (Plaid) joined forces this week to demand an inquiry into why Tony Blair took Britain to war. A vote took place in the House of Commons in London yesterday. The Scottish/Welsh nationalists lost the vote.

Welsh nationalist, Adam Price, said that Britain's involvement in Iraq was akin to the disastous Suez crisis and Neville Chamberlin's naive Munich agreement with Hitler. Despite losing the vote, many British voters are not happy over Iraq.

Likewise in the US, Dubya's on the back foot. The Iraq campaign had no cohesive plan for Day Two. It is all very well Bush & Blair wanting to introduce democracy ino the Middle East, but if you are going to do this, you have to have a plan. I don't think they did.

[bbloke]

Originally Posted by rhisiart

It is all very well Bush & Blair wanting to introduce democracy ino the Middle East, but if you are going to do this, you have to have a plan. I don't think they did.

I think things had not been thought through properly, and there was a bit of a bull-in-a-china-shop approach. (I also think the original motivation/plan had no founding in WMD, terrorism, or liberation.)

In relation to Lt Major Burns' question, I found some more information that may be of interest. From The Library of Congress or GovTrack.us, I found the following:

Originally Posted by S. 3930: Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which is now law)

Section 3 -
...Prohibits a combatant subject to trial by commission from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. Allows commissions to impose upon any person found guilty any punishment not forbidden under the UCMJ, including the death penalty.

...

Prohibits (with a limited exception) a statement obtained by the use of torture from being admissible against the accused.

...

Makes the following offenses triable by commissions: (1) murder of protected persons; (2) attacking civilians; (3) attacking civilian objects; (4) attacking protected property; (5) pillaging; (6) denying quarter; (7) taking hostages; (8) employing poison or similar weapons; (9) using protected persons as a shield; (10) using protected property as a shield; (11) torture; (12) cruel or inhuman treatment; (13) intentionally causing serious bodily injury; (14) mutilating or maiming; (15) murder in violation of the law of war; (16) destruction of property in violation of the law of war; (17) using treachery or perfidy; (18) improperly using a flag of truce; (19) improperly using a distinctive emblem; (20) intentionally mistreating a dead body; (21) rape; (22) sexual assault or abuse; (23) hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft; (24) terrorism; (25) providing material support for terrorism; (26) wrongfully aiding the enemy; (27) spying; (28) conspiracy; (29) perjury and obstruction of justice; and (30) contempt.

...

Section 5 -
Prohibits a person from invoking the Geneva Conventions in any habeas corpus or other civil action to which the United States, a current or former officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its states or territories.

...

Section 6 -
Authorizes the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate standards and regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Directs the President to issue such interpretations through Executive Orders.

Amends the federal criminal code to include the following as violations of the War Crimes Act: (1) torture; (2) cruel or inhuman treatment; (3) performing biological experiments; (4) murder; (5) mutilation or maiming; (6) intentionally causing serious bodily injury; (7) rape; (8) sexual assault or abuse; and (9) taking hostages.

Prohibits any person in the custody or control of the United States, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Make of all that what you will!



You may also like to read an article regarding martial law.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

...

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.

[bbloke]

spb: I'm afraid I felt your reply was a bit unfair in places, I hope I have misunderstood.

Originally Posted by spb

From what I saw in Europe in 2002 I can't say that the US image was too hot to begin with. There were still people in Denmark protesting the US involvement in Vietnam and a museum display opposing the US escalation of the cold war with the USSR.

I seem to remember a fair number of people in the US protesting against the war in Vietnam too! There is nothing wrong with expressing that opposition, it is simply freedom of speech. But a couple of displays in Denmark doesn't mean that all Europeans saw the US as being in the gutter. George W. Bush was/is really good at pushing things in that direction! There are things that Europeans will dislike about US foreign policy and there will be things Europeans dislike about European foreign policy too. One should not confuse opposition to a particular policy/incident as being tantamount to opposition to a whole nation and its people.

Originally Posted by spb

The Afghanistan war was unavoidable

Really? The war in Afghanistan is quite a different issue from, say, Iraq, but I'm still a bit surprised you would say it was unavoidable, as that is quite a strong statement.

Originally Posted by spb

and I believe that any war would be opposed by Europe, unless there were a payoff.

I have to say that view amazes me, and it sounds a bit like you are trying to take the moral highground... Would the US only go to war too if there was a payoff, or are you only levelling this at Europeans? The US has a long history of going to war or supporting oppressive regimes, for self-serving reasons, and often its actions severely harm the local populations.

You can see the list of the "coalition of the willing:"

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

I think that includes a fair number of European countries...

Europe has been torn apart by two major wars (both of which, incidentally, the US was slow to get involved in ), within living memory of some, and so it is natural that Europeans are most cautious about going to war these days. Being hesitant about going to war is no bad thing. That is not to say Europeans never support wars, they are just less rash and gung-ho than the US currently is. If you were really saying that Europeans are greedy and oppose war out of self-protection, but will go to war for profit, but the US is moral and altruistic and goes to war for noble reasons (!), then I think I will need to reply to that later!

Originally Posted by spb

The most vocal opposition of the Iraq war were making the most money in the Oil-For-Food scandal

Hmmm, looking at the facts...

From Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

The programme was introduced by the US Clinton Administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued in 2003 after the United States invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

...

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that

"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of these recipients, Houston-based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers, have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

Are you really singling out a European nation (I'm presuming you have mainly been alluding to France [and Russia], if you see Germany as being different) and making a sweeping generalization about all of Europe based on that, and then telling me the US was innocent with regards to this issue?

Another article (originally from a British newspaper):

...

Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus.

This oil company, run by Primakov's sister, bought oil from Iraq under "oil for food" at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily US companies, splitting the difference evenly with Primakov and the Iraqis. This US-sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of million of dollars for both the Russians and Iraqis, outside the control of "oil for food". It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States.

Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement. And when Saddam proved too adept at making money from kickbacks, the US and Britain devised a new scheme of oil sales which forced potential buyers to commit to oil contracts where the price would be set after the oil was sold, an insane process which quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food programme of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the United Nations.

The corruption evident in the oil-for-food programme was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.

It did also seem odd to me at the time that American conservatives were making such a big deal about this issue and trying to take the moral highground, at a time when the US was under scrutiny. The best defense is a good offense?

Also, if you are referring "Europe" and then only implicating France (Russia is not really considered "European," or is only partly considered to be European), you can see that France is only one part of Europe, so I don't think you should make sweeping generalizations about so many nations. My view is no nation can claim a moral highground overall. European nations have their hands dirty in some matters, yes, as does the US. My concern is when people complain about other nations (eg. being "cowardly" or "selfish") and advocate their own as leading the way in moral terms.

Originally Posted by spb

In general its all OK here.

So you don't mind "disappearances" in the US, detention without trial, torture, increased Presidential powers, erosion of civil rights, increased powers of surveillance, making it easier for the President to impose martial law without the approval of local authorities, a culture of fear, the administration contradicting itself about important facts (eg. dangers and priorities), and a war being started in the name of a phoney cause?

And, in the interest of fairness, I'm presuming you also think it is absolutely OK for, say, insurgents or other nations to detain US troops without trial, for years on end, without access to their families or the Red Cross, for their rights under the Geneva Convention to be denied, and for the captured Americans to be "forcefully interrogated" or sent to other nations where the "interrogation" methods are a bit harsher. After all, it would not be OK to think it is acceptable for the US to do these things to others, but not acceptable for others to do it to US citizens.

[Rhisiart]

I have just bought Bob Woodward's book; State of Denial. It's a hard-hitting critique of Dubya and his Iraq campaign. I have only read a little so far and it's pretty depressing reading.

I think Bush will go down in history as a complete arseh*le, as will his poodle, Blair.

[reed]

Not that things will change if the Democrats take back the Congress and the Senate, but it will send a message all the same. Montana and Tennessee seem to be important Republican States that could change hands. Wait and see.
One thing is sure, the BS from GWB via the CIA with help from the FBI,SEC, USAID,VOA but most importantly aided and pushed by DC, DR, KR, CR, HK, WOLFY, ETC. and from the UK TB, all about WMD and now certain PDP at GB have caused BIG P in DC, the USA, the EC and the AW, in fact the ME in general. The UN is another story. Luckily, there is always WHO and MTV. Then again. The facts will not be found on CNN, BBC, TF1, nor the NYT, the NYP and so on.
TGIF. Rangoon. OUT.

[dlloyd]

Holy crap...could anyone else read that? Too many acronyms....

[Rhisiart]

Irony is so beautiful.

[Rhisiart]

Originally Posted by dlloyd

Holy crap...could anyone else read that? Too many acronyms....

Irony is so beautiful. Rock on Reed.