[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I hear the US is complaining about Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war. How can they demand that Saddam respect the Geneva Convetnion when they won't even do it themselves?

Link-> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0111-07.htm

Yes, the treatment of Taliban/Al Qaedi prisoners is just one of the many contradictions between US policy and what the US expects of others.

If they're really interested in 'world peace' why won't they join the international court? Are the troops currently invading Iraq the sort of 'peace keepers' they want to protect by not joining this important cornerstone of international order?

An even better question, of course, is whether the forces supported by Oliver North/John Poindexter are an example of the sort of 'peace keepers' they want to protect by not joining the court treaty. The US repeatedly lost to Nicaragua's complaint at the existing 'World Court' in the Hague during the illegal proxy war on Nicaragua in the 80s -- and so claimed the court did not have 'jurisdiction' over the conflict. What world is Nicaragua in if it's not in this world?

North and Poindexter are war criminals by any rational definition of the term, and morally identical to Osama Bin Laden. They payed for at least as many deaths as Osama has to date, but the bodies were not economically valuable like those high-powered executives in the WTC. This is why they won't join the court. The US govt. thinks its own terrorists are 'heros' and doesn't want its 'heros' prosecuted as the criminals they are.

And why do they whine that Russia is not respecting UN resolutions when it (reportedly) gives GPS jamming technology to Iraq, when the US doesn't respect UN resolutions either? The original Gulf War resolutions explicitly said that Iraq was to be driven out of Kuwait and that the object was NOT to over-throw the Iraqi government. Yet the US is claiming these resolutions, and the newer 1441 which deals only with 'weapons of mass destruction', as authority to force 'regime change' in Iraq. The US can violate UN resolutions in order to enforce UN resolutions? So does the UN have authority or not? Or does the UN only have authority over nations other than the US? Or only when it agrees with the US?

Now Turkey is talking about sending its troops into northern Iraq, or might already have done so. The US of course, doesn't want them to do this. So just what is the US going to do about it? Complain to the UN? How is Turkey less 'authorized' to invade Iraq than the US? I'll be damned amused if they try to get any UN resolutions against Turkey for 'protecting its national interests' on its own borders when the US claims the right to protect its national intertests anywhere in the world. So what does that leave them? Apparently threats of force. Will US forces attack Turkish forces if they are outside Turkey? This is the world GWB has created. Might makes right and the bigger gun is 'more right' than the smaller.

The same thing goes on with domestic politics. The Federal govt. constantly bullies the states by threatening to cut off funds for various things if they don't pass laws to suit the Feds wishes, completely over-riding the supposed seperation of the layers of government provided in the constitution.

In 'response' to the total incompetance of our law enforcement and intelligence communites to prevent the WTC attacks they have passed new laws to make it possible to law enforcement to rummage through your personal affairs at will -- without legal protocols -- and have been arresting even American citizens and holding them without charge or access to legal council. Most recently a draft of another outrage has surfaced where secret arrests are authorized, apparently to avoid the inconvenience of having to defend their actions in court when people find out that someone has been 'disappeared'. Presumably this will have to include some legal sanction against people who dare to reveal that someone they know has been arrested, else it cannot remain secret for long. It was speculated that this was to be submitted in the midst of the war to take advantage of 'patritoism' to intimidate the opposition. Fortunately it doesn't look like the opposition is going to slink away this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try to pass their new powers.

The US Govt. is a monster out of control.

[ March 24, 2003, 20:10: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]