Hi Samuel! 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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. SH> For a European mind which understands anything about the need to SH> safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies") SH> there is another possibility. NO see below why. SH> The possibility that is most likely correct is that Bush has the SH> proof, but in order to present the proof to the public as credible, he SH> would have to cite his secret sources. I haven't said that he should present it to the public. But to the UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dammed, this is a big difference !! It is their job to find the weapons, and destroy them. Bush says that he knows where they are, but he doesn't say, because he wants to attack the Iraq and take the oil. SH> If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its SH> oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. SH> Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq. no ... much more is simply wrong. But US still doesn't dare to rob without a "reason". And Iraq and Saddam are in the eyes of Bush good reasons. >> 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. SH> It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject SH> to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). But what do we do if the US doesn't follow them. THIS is the question. As long as they are following it, nobody will be dragged to court. SH> Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a weapon SH> does not mean that he has been given the right to kill anybody he SH> wants. Sure not ... but what do we do if those person kills Fidel Castro with this weapon. This is a murder, and has to be punished. And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him (breaking law and UCMJ) to kill the person ?? SH> You know that. If a servicemeber while on duty were to be SH> accused of llegally killing someone, then he would be prosecuted under SH> the UCMJ, and not by some international court. Wouldn't you rather SH> see Austrian soldiers tried under their own military justice system SH> rather than by an international court? SURE ... this is clear. And this will be the case. Principle of subsidiarity. But what if Bush illegally starts war ?? Will he than be punished by american lawy ?? >> 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 ... SH> The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a SH> fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed in the UCMJ. This is the *PUREST* NONSENS I have ever heared. It is exactly the other way round. We need international law to be fair, because America has shown often that it is incapable of being fair. SH> The UCMJ is approved by the US Congress and signed into law by the SH> President. I DO NOT CARE. Really, believe me I couldn't care less. International law is signed into law by the whole world (nearly). So you think that US Congress will protect Iraqi people from america illegally hitting them ?? DREAM ON !!!!!!!!! SH> Also, if someone is threatening you by pointing a gun at you, it is SH> legal for you to shoot at him *before* he shoots at you But this is not the case. The case is as following: Iraq may has mass destruction weapons. UN sent inspectors to find and destroy them. US says they know where they are. Hans Blix (boss of the insepctors) said that this information would tremendously help. US does *NOT* say where they are, because they *WANT* to shoot. Somebody points a gun at you, police comes and wants to take away the gun from tha attacker, but you don't tell the police where the gun is, because you want to shoot the attacker, and take his pointing the gun at you as an alibi. THIS is the current situation. >> SH> If the US waits for Sadam to attack first >> If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely >> ILLEGAL. SH> The US does not need to have a UN mandate to attack a country, even if SH> some world court thinks it is illegal. The participants in the attack SH> will not have to face the world court. EXACTLY THIS IS THE PROBLEM. THE SHOUTING IS ABSOLUTELY INTENTIONAL BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER EVER READ SUCH A BIG PILE OF SHIT IN MY WHOLE LIVE!!! You are right the US does not need the mandate to start a war. It does only need it to start the war legally. If US doesn't have the mandate than it is an agressor, like Germany was to Poland in WW2. >> There are no arguments for starting a war ... SH> A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument. A war can't prevent the starting of a war. Because in order to prevent the war you have to START one. QED. PS: the ones who can prevent the war are the UN weapon inspectors. >> American court has NOTHING to do with it !! SH> American courts have EVERYTHING to do with it. nothing Hitler lets kill millions of jews. German court says OK ... so for you this is OK ??? Or what ? SH> When international laws conflict with American values, american SH> values will take precedence as far as Americans are concerned. as long as an american kills an american, yes but otherwise NO !!!!!!!!!!! SH> Americans will not tolerate any domination by World Government. It is the other way round. THE WORLD WILL NOT TOLERATE US DOMINATION. If America kills austrians, than American law is to be applied ?? WHY ?? >> Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED. SH> By whom? by the world. SH> by some international court, or by a military court-martial SH> proceeding as prescribed in the UCMJ? depending. If it is inter american, than by some american court, ucmj whatever. otherwise by the international comunity. >> 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 !!!! SH> There is nothing in the US Constitution which binds the US to SH> international law. And exactly this is the problem. There is also nothing there that binds them to human rights. THER SHOULD BE. SH> There are some military field manuals which say that international law SH> shall be respected. Another problem. It has to be respected. SH> The military field manuals reflect standard training and official SH> military doctrine and policies. They must be observed and followed. SH> Failure to adhere to the book is prosecutable as an offense under the SH> UCMJ, but not under the International Court. The international law describes also policies, not following them will lead to prosecution of the international comunity. >> But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... but >> a WORLD ISSUE ... SH> America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable to SH> the great majority of Americans. I DON NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. Hitler asked "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg". And Germans said YES Do you want the total war. Germans said yes. So the majority of germans agreed, so it was OK to start WW2. >> Than the US has commited a crime, and only because a US court says >> it is OK, doesn't mean it is OK. SH> You are sooo paranoid. No US court would say this is OK. As long as this is so, there is no to fight International law. But America does ... >> And especially AMERICA CANNOT HANDLE IN THE NAME OF IRAQI PEOPLE ... >> only iraqi people can do so. SH> Sure. For that reason the US would attempt to install in power SH> an Iraqi leader who, unlike Sadam, is popular with his own people. America has no right to install anything outside america !!!!!! >> 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 ?? SH> No, YOU cannot legally do that. exactly. Same applies to America. SH> However, it would be a perfectly legal thing for a hypothetical enemy SH> soldier to do if he were able to sneak in undetected while wearing the SH> enemy uniform and while bearing arms openly. No it were as illegal. Why should it be legal ? (if they were in war, than sure it were legal, but they aren't) >> 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. SH> I did not say that. You did, and you did it again. If america attacks X, than american law is to be applied. This means nevermind what/where america does crimes, America is the one to judge. SH> US policy is to respect the local culture and their laws and religious SH> taboos, etc. Again I couldn't care less about american policy. American policy has nothing to do with it. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi PS: How http://heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/13972/1.html -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> 1st Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr... <=-
