On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:21:56 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel! > sorry ... very long ... and very OT > But it contains very important views at the end. > About how America wants american law everywhere, and about the RIGHT OF AMERICA > TO DO WHAT IT WANTS, to kill people etc. > 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SH> Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to > SH> each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a > SH> successful suicide bombing mission. > SH> I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true. > Exactly this is the problem ... > Bush works exactly the same way ... and the propaganda is GREAT. > Eg. he says that he has proof of Iraq having atomic weapons again. > But he refuses to a) show the proofs to his allies > b) refuses to give them to the UN insepctors. > For a european mind there are 2 possibilities: > 1) US doesn't have any proof, but wants Iraqi oil > 2) US has indeed prove, but wants US-Iraq war instead of a UN-Iraq mission For a European mind which understands anything about the need to safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies") there is another possibility. The possibility that is most likely correct is that Bush has the proof, but in order to present the proof to the public as credible, he would have to cite his secret sources. If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq. > Both are inherently bad. > SH> North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft > US aircrafts are not flying over N Korean terretory. Because US would have no grounds for asserting a right to fly over N. Korean territory. The US does have the right to fly over the Iraqi No-Fly Zones because Sadam conceded that right to coalition forces in the treaty he signed with them after his defeat in the 1st Gulf War, ca. 1992. > <very idiotic example from me> > What would bush do if austrian airplanes <haha> fly over texas to protect the > people sentenced to death from execution. > OK a very bad, extremely far fetched and absolutely incorrect example ... > Anyways here is what I think: > 1) Saddam is a highly insane person, which is very dangerous > 2) Saddam has no problem with mass murdering > 3) Saddams goal is to get atomic and biological weapons > (especially biological ...) > but: > 1) nobody can take actions against not yet commited crimes > 2) the US has no right to take any actions against any country, which the > other countries government did not directly attack america or an american ally. > THESE 2 POINTS ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE ... and I don't think that US > understands them. > They mean: > If america (country) attacks another country, without before being attacked by > the official military of the other country, than america is the AGGRESSOR ! > America is than guilty of breaking international law. > If the UN (stands above any single country) thinks (eg CIA shows proofs) that > Saddam is going to build atomic/biological weapons (which is IMO 95% likely) > than they send Inspectors. > 2 possibilities: > 1) Iraq doesn't let them in, than UN (2. letter is an N not an S) can take > measires ... like sending troops (66% america, 80% american .... > the only importance is that the actions are controlled by the UN ... and not by > the US) > 2) they can do their work > again if they find somethinh U_N_ takes measures, if not, than we have to > leave saddam in peace (also we would sleep better if he weren't in power ... > there is no international right which we can use) > My problem is that > 1) America still thinks of itself as standing above other countries > 2) America _REFUSES_ International court > for point 1) see > http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/13763/1.html > for point 2) > http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12716/1.html > Especially point 2 "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" is a *HUGE* > problem. It says that americans and american allies can kill anybody, and that > International court can't react. It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a weapon does not mean that he has been given the right to kill anybody he wants. You know that. If a servicemeber while on duty were to be accused of llegally killing someone, then he would be prosecuted under the UCMJ, and not by some international court. Wouldn't you rather see Austrian soldiers tried under their own military justice system rather than by an international court? > Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... > and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... > than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed in the UCMJ. The UCMJ is approved by the US Congress and signed into law by the President. > This is in my eyes a much, much, much more serious problem, than Iraq, Isreal, > North Korea, etc. > And this is why 75% of Europeans think that the US is the biggest threat to > peace in 2003 (according to times survey I posted recently) > SH> and they aren't sending suicide bombers streaming into South Korea. > I'm not sure that Iraq supports them ... but IMO it can very, very possibly be > so. > SH> There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel > SH> some time in the near future. > There are strong indications that US is planning to start war with Iraq. > (without Iraq commiting any crime against the US) Iraq is clearly acting as a belicose threat against the US, although Sadam persists in denying it. Why do they keep shooting at US aircraft in the No-Fly Zones? > SH> It isn't a very smart military strategy to wait and let one's enemy > SH> continue to build up his weapons and his logistics and his forces so > SH> that he can plan his attack according to his own time table. > And it is *ILLEGAL* to attack a country which hasn't done anything. If someone pulls the pin on a grenade and makes gestures and threatening remarks as though he intends throw it at you, then it is perfectly legal to shoot him *before* waiting for him to throw his grenade at you. Also, if someone is threatening you by pointing a gun at you, it is legal for you to shoot at him *before* he shoots at you, even if it is later determined by invesigators that the perpetrator was only bluffing and his gun wasn't even loaded. > But it is *VITAL* that an organization standing *ABOVE ANY SINGLE COUNTRY* > monitors the weapon production and takes countermeasures. > SH> If the US waits for Sadam to attack first > If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely ILLEGAL. The US does not need to have a UN mandate to attack a country, even if some world court thinks it is illegal. The participants in the attack will not have to face the world court. > It starts a WAR, and *IT* is the aggressor. > If than iraq brings the US to the International court, than it has to speak > them guilty. Iraq cannot bring the US to the International Court. The only people who go to the International Court are those who fought for the losing side. > SH> then there will be more destruction and more lives lost than would > SH> happen if we were to attack first. The moral arguments about how we > SH> should wait until Sadam attacks first can easily be countered by > SH> simply explaining that the longer we wait the more lives will be lost. > There are no arguments for starting a war ... A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument. Such an argument is no more absurd than an argument which holds that we need to fight for peace. > And you forget THAT UN INSPECTORS *ARE* *CURRENTLY* in the Iraq, to look if > american unproofen accusations are true. > SH> There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any > SH> US leaders except in US courts. > THIS IS WHAT THE US WANTS YOU TO THINK BUT IT IS TERRIBLY WRONG !!!!! > SOrry for shouting ... > example: > Austrian chancelor says: "Bush I don't like you, and I want your oil anyways" > and than attacks the US. > So now only austrian court can speak justice ?? > NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > For intra american (only americans affected, on american terretory) crimes, > american courts are to be used. > FOR INTER COUNTRY (crimes between 2 countries) the internetional court is to be > used. The US is not a party to any international accords which recognize this, except perhaps in areas of white-collar crimes such as patent and copyright infringements and banking and securities frauds. The US passed the Amrican Servicemember's Protection Act to advise to the world that we do not recognize the International Court as having any authority for trying American servicemembers accused of war crimes. We don't need the International Court for this because we have our own UCMJ to prosecute such accusations > American court has NOTHING to do with it !! American courts have EVERYTHING to do with it. > SH> The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our > SH> accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European > SH> prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values. > There are no american values. > There are international laws. When international laws conflict with American values, american values will take precedence as far as Americans are concerned. Americans will not tolerate any domination by World Government. > Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED. By whom? by some international court, or by a military court-martial proceeding as prescribed in the UCMJ? > This is a very vital point to me ... > Anything else is AMERICAN WORLD DICTATORSHIP. The US does not have a history of wanting to hold onto for very long any territories it has conquered in the last 155 years or so. > SH> Americans want to do their own thing. > I don't care ... > america is bound to international law, just like any other country. > America is not better or worse like any other country !!!! There is nothing in the US Constitution which binds the US to international law. There are some military field manuals which say that international law shall be respected. The military field manuals reflect standard training and official military doctrine and policies. They must be observed and followed. Failure to adhere to the book is prosecutable as an offense under the UCMJ, but not under the International Court. > SH> We don't wqnt to have "world government" imposed on us. > No problem. > As long as america STAYS ON *ITS* terretory, nobody will intervene. > But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... but a WORLD > ISSUE ... America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable to the great majority of Americans. > If W says I don't like Ricsi ... let's kill him. > And they send a drone or squad that kills me here in Austria. > Than the US has commited a crime, and only because a US court says it is OK, > doesn't mean it is OK. You are sooo paranoid. No US court would say this is OK. > And my relatives HAVE ALL RIGHT to go to the international court, and ask for > right. > If we disagree here, than there is no use speaking on. > This is the most basic thing. > SH> I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are > SH> not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and > SH> occupying their territory and to steal their oil. > See above ... the intentions ARE NOT IMPORTANT > STARTING a war is a crime. > That is a fact. True, but the question of who starts it is arguable. In a case like this nobody should care and it doesn't matter because it is very well known that both sides have been at each others throats for much longer than a decade. There never was an intervening period of relative harmony and agreement. Also there never was a very long period in which Sadam tolerated the presece of the UN weapons inspectors during the couple of years immediately following the 1st Persian Gulf War. Surely he is probably hiding something. > SH> US intentions are only to disarm Sadam > no ... these are the intentions of the UN Inspecors. > Yeah ... right those ones where Bush says that they don't get the information > where the alleged weapons are kept. > SH> replace Sadam's regime with Iraqi leaders who favor peace and who are > SH> more sensitive to the best interests of the Iraqi people. > Are you joking ?? > THE US HAS NO POWER over the iraqi leader. > If he attacks america, than america can defend itself. > If america has information, than they can give it to the UN to act on it. > And especially AMERICA CANNOT HANDLE IN THE NAME OF IRAQI PEOPLE ... > only iraqi people can do so. Sure. For that reason the US would attempt to install in power an Iraqi leader who, unlike Sadam, is popular with his own people. > SH> Why should anyone but Sadam and his murderous cronies have a problem > SH> with that? > see above. > Sorry Sam ... > What you wrote is: > If I don't like Bush, and I think that he is bad for the american people, I can > invade America, assasinate Bush, and that would be a legal thing ?? No, YOU cannot legally do that. However, it would be a perfectly legal thing for a hypothetical enemy soldier to do if he were able to sneak in undetected while wearing the enemy uniform and while bearing arms openly. In such a hypothetical case the enemy soldier would be a legal combatant attacking a legitimate military target and conducting a military operation in accordance with the internationally recognized rules of engagement. So that would be OK in the sense that it is not at all a criminal offense. If the hypothetical enemy soldier gets caught on US soil while in civilian clothes, then he is a suspected spy and he can legally face execution immediately after a brief hearing and found to be a spy by a military tribunal. It is not a crime for enemy soldiers to be spies. They can be executed for spying only as a measure to strongly discourage spying, but their spying is not a crime. If the US were to take the position that spying by enemy soldiers is a crime, then we would have to acknowledge even our own spies as criminals too in order to be logically consistent. > And on top of that nobody can do anything to me, because Austrian court says it > is OK, after the austrian government passed the "KILL THE US PRESIDENT ACT" ?? > Basically what you say is that AMERICAN LAW can be applied to the whole world. > And this is ENORMOUSLY wrong. > American law is for america. I did not say that. US policy is to respect the local culture and their laws and religious taboos, etc. There are many military manuals on civil affairs about how to get along with and conduct liaison activities with the civilan governments in territories formerly held by enemy forces which the US must temporarily occupy during the course of a war. > International law, is for _inter_ nations ... so if more than one nation is in > it. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
