Ed Senate: Torture should not be our legacy

[thaiboxerken]

You want to put everything into neat and tidy boxes of either "stable" or "not stable". Did Saddam threaten the stability of the region? Yes. Did the UN think the instability so severe it demanded an invasion? No.

Also, it was just a little bit of torture, not a lot....

"Bemoan a few instances of waterboarding."

 

[RandFan]

Also, it was just a little bit of torture, not a lot....

"Bemoan a few instances of waterboarding."

Besides, most of them were bad guys.

 

[Crossbow]

I would consider such an argument unusually vacuous when the UN has pointedly cited the methods used to attain the deeply questonable "stability" as among the primary reasons why the object has been declared a Chapter VII rogue and has authorized "all necessary means" to be employed against the rogue to "return" stability to the region.



No. I am saying it is hypocritical to cite the deeply questionable and UN-denied "stability" of the regime as a reason why it should not be overthrown, and then to go on for decades bemoaning a few instances of waterboarding intended to save lives. Often accompanied by vociferous demands that Bush and Cheney be dragged before the Hague to stand trial for "war crimes".

I suggest that you put away your shovel and ask someone for a ladder since the hole you dug yourself into is already quite deep.

 

[Toontown]

Odd that the UN would be against the invasion.

Annan is not the UN. He was never anything more than a powerless figurehead.

It's not at all hypocritical and your continued reference to the UN belies the fact that the UN did not think the invasion A.) Necessary B.) Would make things better C.) Legal.

My references to the UN resolutions were refutations of the claim that the region was more stable when Saddam was in power. I referred to the fact that UN repeatedly said otherwise in resolutions, and authorized member nations to do something about it.

You want to put everything into neat and tidy boxes of either "stable" or "not stable". Did Saddam threaten the stability of the region? Yes. Did the UN think the instability so severe it demanded an invasion? No.

Did the UN authorize all member nations to employ all necessary means to return stability to the region? Yes.

Did the UN dictate the limits of "all necessary means"? No.

Did the UN recall the authorization and declare Iraq in material breach of the conditions necessary for a cease fire to exist in UNSCR 1441? Yes.

Did the UN pointedly offer Saddam "one final chance" to come into full compliance, or else more extreme measures would be taken? Yes.

Did the offer of "one final chance" abrogate the clearly stated authorization (in the same resolution) for member states to use the means they deemed necessary? No.

Does the UN actually mean what it says in it's resolutions? According to you and Annan, no.

 

[Toontown]

I suggest that you put away your shovel and ask someone for a ladder since the hole you dug yourself into is already quite deep.

I suggest that when you quote me, your comment should address the quote instead of being a complete non-sequitur clumsily pretending to address the quote.

 

[RandFan]

Annan is not the UN. He was never anything more than a powerless figurehead.

My references to the UN resolutions were refutations of the claim that the region was more stable when Saddam was in power. I referred to the fact that UN repeatedly said otherwise, and authorized member nations to do something about it.

Did the UN authorize all member nations to employ all necessary means to return stability to the region? Yes.

Did the UN dictate the limits of "all necessary means"? No.

Did the UN recall the authorization and declare Iraq in material breach of the conditions necessary for a cease fire to exist in UNSCR 1441? Yes.

Did the UN pointedly offer Saddam "one final chance" to come into full compliance, or else more extreme measures would be taken? Yes.

Did the offer of "one final chance" abrogate the clearly stated authorization (in the same resolution) for member states to use the means they deemed necessary? No.

Does the UN actually mean what it says in it's resolutions? According to you and Annan, no.

All irrelevant since the UN did NOT vote to allow the US to invade.

I'm sorry, you can list all of the questions and answers you like but at the end of the day the UN did NOT authorize an invasion. It is up to the UN to decide to carry out its resolutions or change its mind.

The US has no unilateral authority to use UN resolutions to act contrary to the UN.

 

[Toontown]

Also, it was just a little bit of torture, not a lot....

"Bemoan a few instances of waterboarding."

Not nearly enough to justify decades of bemoaning. But something tells me that, when we are gone, the serial bemoaning of the few instances of waterboarding will go on and on and on...

 

[Toontown]

All irrelevant since the UN did NOT vote to allow the US to invade.

I'm sorry, you can list all of the questions and answers you like but at the end of the day the UN did NOT authorize an invasion. It is up to the UN to decide to carry out its resolutions or change its mind.

The US has no unilateral authority to use UN resolutions to act contrary to the UN.

But the US does have the authority to carry out a standing UN authorization. Because the UN gave the authority.

Nor is a vote necessary to authorize an authorization. Nor is yet another vote necessary to authorize the authorization of an authorization.

Nor was the decision "unilateral", your previous ludicrous claims notwithstanding. Literally tens of thousands of troops were contributed by other countries, and material support came from dozens of countries.

You'll have a point, as soon as you explain how carrying out a standing UN authorization to use all necessary means is contrary to the UN.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not nearly enough to justify decades of bemoaning. But something tells me that, when we are gone, the bemoaning of the few instances of waterboarding will go on and on and on...

Kind of weird, eh? People complaining about just a little bit of raping of women. Sheesh, they need perspective.

 

[Crossbow]

I suggest that when you quote me, your comment should address the quote instead of being a complete non-sequitur clumsily pretending to address the quote.

Still diggin!

Good for you.

 

[Toontown]

Clearly you people are in over your heads. You need help from the mods.

As always, you'll get it. Be patient.

 

[RandFan]

But the US does have the authority to carry out a standing UN authorization. Because the UN gave the authority.

Nor is a vote necessary to authorize an authorization. Nor is yet another vote necessary to authorize the authorization of an authorization.

Nor was the decision "unilateral", your previous ludicrous claims notwithstanding. Literally tens of thousands of troops were contributed by other countries, and material support came from dozens of countries.

You'll have a point, as soon as you explain how carrying out a standing UN authorization to use all necessary means is contrary to the UN.

Sorry, this is all wrong.

Security Council vote

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#cite_note-5

 

[RandFan]

Literally tens of thousands of troops were contributed by other countries, and material support came from dozens of countries.

BFD: Many if not most nations condemned the US for its actions.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | War draws condemnation

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the US-led military action was completely unjustified, while China said the strike violated the United Nations charter.

President Jacques Chirac of France expressed regret at the launch of hostilities without UN backing.

 

[Toontown]

There didn't need to be any hidden triggers. The safety latch was off.

"All member nations are authorized to use all necessary means (unspecified)..."

Nor is an ambassador to the UN anything approaching a final authority.

 

[Crossbow]

Clearly you people are in over your heads. You need help from the mods.

As always, you'll get it. Be patient.

"And that, my liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped."

 

[RandFan]

There didn't need to be any hidden triggers. The safety latch was off.

Not according to the UN.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case.

For those following along, if you don't know why the argument that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is nonsense you only need look at the President's actions.

Bush sent Powell to the UN to get a binding resolution for war. He didn't get it. If he had gotten it there would be no controversy. That Bush sought UN approval is an admission that he didn't have it.

Also, let's not forget the topic of this sub thread.

I would consider such an argument unusually vacuous when the UN has pointedly cited the methods used to attain the deeply questonable "stability" as among the primary reasons why the object has been declared a Chapter VII rogue and has authorized "all necessary means" to be employed against the rogue to "return" stability to the region.

Odd that the UN would be against the invasion.

Now, the proposition that the UN would be against the invasion is either true or it isn't.

Not sure? Resolution 678 was passed while Saddam was still occupying Kuwait.

 

[Toontown]

BFD: Many if not most nations condemned the US for its actions.

Your article mentioned Russia, China and Chirac. Zero summers, one and all, firm believers in the proposition that a weakened U.S. works to their advantage. And that's the crowd you're in with.

But what about The U.K., Japan, Australia, and all the other countries which joined the coalition? Why are you treating them as non-entities?

 

[RandFan]

Your article mentioned Russia, China and Chirac. Zero summers, one and all, firm believers in the proposition that a weakened U.S. works to their advantage. And that's the crowd you're in with.

But what about The U.K., Japan, Australia, and all the other countries which joined the coalition? Why are you treating them as non-entities?

I'm not. Here's the thing, George H. W. Bush understood perfectly well the importance of building a strong coalition. He didn't have the leadership charisma of a Reagan but he wasn't an idiot either. Thanks to the efforts of George H. W., We had the moral authority and the respect of the world to lead a coalition to free Kuwait.

If you think the Iraq war has improved our moral authority and the respect of world leaders like those in France, Germany and Spain then you are simply delusional. I say this as one who voted for Bush twice and defended the invasion on this very forum.

 

[Toontown]

Not according to the UN.

For those following along, if you don't know why the argument that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is nonsense you only need look at the President's actions.

For those following along, he's trying to snow you. He hopes you don't know that UNSCR 1441 invoked 678 and then went on to explain why by declaring that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of the UN requirements for a cease fire from day one. Thus, the authorization to use force had not expired.

Bush sent Powell to the UN to get a binding resolution for war. He didn't get it. If he had gotten it there would be no controversy. That Bush sought UN approval is an admission that he didn't have it.

Bush did that for Blair's benefit. Bush didn't need it. The standing authorization to use force was right there in 1441, and Bush had the congressional authorization to use force as well.

Russia, China, and France contradicted themselves. If they were opposed to the use of force, then they shouldn't have approved 1441, which invoked the authorization to use force and declared Iraq to be in breach of the cease fire requirements. Of course, we know now that those countries did oppose the overthrow of Saddam. They had other uses for Saddam.

Now, the proposition that the UN would be against the invasion is either true or it isn't.

Not sure? Resolution 678 was passed while Saddam was still occupying Kuwait.

The UN is not comprised solely of Russia, China, France, and any other countries opposed to the invasion. Those countries do not run the UN, and they certainly do not rule the world. If any country runs the UN, it is the US. Without US military, political, and economic muscle backing it up, UN resolutions would carry all the weight of a fly landing on your nose. If the UN had to rely on Russia, China, and France for muscle, it would quickly atrophy into a debating society, and rogues would run rampant and unchecked. And Russia would be one of the rogues running rampant, and China might get froggy too.

What about the countries which joined the coalition and sent tens of thousands of troops? Aren't they also part of the UN? Why don't they count?

At any rate, your running buddies in the SC blundered. They voted for 1441, which acknowledged the existence of the standing authorization to use force. Their motives were clear. They wanted to stall the invasion as long as possible, hoping Bush would back down. But Bush didn't play along, so they did the next best thing (for their agenda). They lied. They said the authorization to use force did not exist, when it was right there in plain sight.

If the majority of the UN was opposed to the invasion, then the General Assembly should have passed a resolution against it. It's not as if they didn't know about the troops massing on Iraq's border. They knew an invasion was very likely. Yet they did nothing.

 

[RandFan]

For those following along, he's trying to snow you. He hopes you don't know that UNSCR 1441 invoked 678 and then went on to explain why by declaring that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of the UN requirements for a cease fire from day one. Thus, the authorization to use force had not expired.

According to the UN it had. You still haven't explained why Bush sent Powell to the UN. Why was 1441 necessary? If what you are saying is correct and Bush believed he had the moral authority he would have never bothered with the UN.

Please note: 1441 was voted on, Nov 8th. Powell provided his presentation Feb 5.