Register to reply

In Response to the War Crimes caught on video Thread...

by Mattius_
Tags: crimes, video
Share this thread:
Adam
#37
Apr6-04, 03:52 AM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Michael D. Sewell
I can't blame the police for any violence that took place. The police didn't organize this protest. The protest was not their idea.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Mr. Robin Parsons
#38
Apr6-04, 05:32 AM
P: 1,560
Operative word is "peaceably", and that is subjective, plus, they sometimes throw in a "rouser", stuff like that had been done in some places to incite riot as to gain opportunity, under cover of riot, to loot....been reported upon as organized in some riots, in some cities, sooooo "peaceably" is the operative word, one person can cause all of that to fall and thereafter "look like"........

Balance is democracy...and not an easy one to maintain....
Adam
#39
Apr6-04, 05:47 AM
P: 454
No. One person can not cause it all to fall. If that document has any value, then you can have a thousand protests ending in violence, started each time by one screwed-up person, and everyone else still has the right to assemble. Using any excuse to justify limiting such assemblies screws the entire deal.
Mr. Robin Parsons
#40
Apr6-04, 05:52 AM
P: 1,560
I meant 'one person' can cause the "peaceably" to fall, NOT the Constitution of the United States......
Mr. Robin Parsons
#41
Apr6-04, 07:56 AM
P: 1,560
But as Mr. Sewell reminds us, there was this guy who, once, wanted to try that, sooo...

It is nice to live in Countries that have the right 'built in protections' in there democratic structures that such things, of such political nature, are, well, hopefully impossible, but that isn't reality, so really really well Protected and Watched, as command of an army, is potential, for either, Good/evil
skywise
#42
Apr6-04, 11:03 AM
P: 42
Considering that $8 million (tacked on to the budget for Iraq) was given to the Miami police force for the sole purpose of the FTAA protests, it is no surprise that they instigated the violence in the first place. They would have looked pretty foolish out there with their tanks and helicopters and hundreds of riot cops if there hadn't been been any action.
Michael D. Sewell
#43
Apr6-04, 12:32 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
That situation just couldn't be the same if hundreds of avi's start circulating around the world that show entire families being shot or gassed.
Wrong, sadaam gassed thousands of kurds and would still be in power if you had your way.
Michael D. Sewell
#44
Apr6-04, 12:34 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Adam
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

How is throwing bricks, and destroying private property "peaceably"?

Great constitution isn't it? We got by winning a war. (works!)
Adam
#45
Apr6-04, 01:00 PM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Michael D. Sewell
Wrong, sadaam gassed thousands of kurds and would still be in power if you had your way.
1) Many people clinging desperately to their illusions make the assertion "If we hadn't bombed the hell out of Baghdad and killed thousands of civilians, a bad man would stillbe in charge there". This completely ignores the possibility of other courses of action, picking one of the worst case scenarios as the only alternative, in order to show that the bombing and invasion and all was right after all. It's rather pathetic.

2) Please read the following:

A War Crime or an Act of War?

It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent � that is, a cyanide-based gas � which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades � not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition � thanks to United Nations sanctions � Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
(Stephen C. Pelletiere, The New York Times, January 31, 2003)

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
Adam
#46
Apr6-04, 01:02 PM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Michael D. Sewell
How is throwing bricks, and destroying private property "peaceably"?
Once again you need to go back to the many previous statements about this, which you apparently missed.
Njorl
#47
Apr6-04, 02:21 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
I grew up in Philadelphia PA in the 1960's. In 1968, when King was assassinated, every big city with a sizable black population erupted in riots. The response of most cities was to send out police to attack the rioters. Mayor Tate, much to the chagrin of the police, essentially pulled the police completely off the street and allowed the rioters free rein. The rioting in Philadelphia ended long before that of other cities, with much less destruction. I don't think that this is always the proper course, but sometimes, the active attempts at suppression are the only thing that keeps a disturbance going.

Njorl
Adam
#48
Apr6-04, 02:28 PM
P: 454
Odd that you mention that. A long time ago here in Melbourne, the police went on strike. Completely. That turned into a big mess very fast.
Ivan Seeking
#49
Apr6-04, 03:03 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Quote Quote by Michael D. Sewell
Wrong, sadaam gassed thousands of kurds and would still be in power if you had your way.
And we knew about it didn't we. I remember the pictures.

There were many options that Bush chose not to pursue. I think he should have stayed focused on terrorism instead of personal vendettas.
Monique
#50
Apr6-04, 03:23 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Monique's Avatar
P: 4,642
Quote Quote by Njorl
I grew up in Philadelphia PA in the 1960's. In 1968, when King was assassinated, every big city with a sizable black population erupted in riots. The response of most cities was to send out police to attack the rioters. Mayor Tate, much to the chagrin of the police, essentially pulled the police completely off the street and allowed the rioters free rein. The rioting in Philadelphia ended long before that of other cities, with much less destruction. I don't think that this is always the proper course, but sometimes, the active attempts at suppression are the only thing that keeps a disturbance going.

Njorl
I've heard stories about Philadelphia PA, and it leads me to think that the city has the same contrasts as Detroit.. with historical riots as the root. What exactly caused this in Philadelphia? The 1968 racial riots? I know Detroit was damaged severely in the 1967 racial riots, of which it is still recovering..
russ_watters
#51
Apr6-04, 04:12 PM
Mentor
P: 22,301
Quote Quote by Adam
No. One person can not cause it all to fall. If that document has any value, then you can have a thousand protests ending in violence, started each time by one screwed-up person, and everyone else still has the right to assemble. Using any excuse to justify limiting such assemblies screws the entire deal.
That is not now, nor has it ever been true. Perhaps the Australian bill of rights works that way, but ours does not.
I've heard stories about Philadelphia PA, and it leads me to think that the city has the same contrasts as Detroit.. with historical riots as the root. What exactly caused this in Philadelphia? The 1968 racial riots? I know Detroit was damaged severely in the 1967 racial riots, of which it is still recovering..
Communications, Monique: people hear about a riot somewhere else and they riot too.
Adam
#52
Apr6-04, 04:16 PM
P: 454
Russ_waters, I think you just entirely missed the point.
Loren Booda
#53
Apr6-04, 04:52 PM
Loren Booda's Avatar
P: 3,408
Try the alternative to free assembly - outlawing groups of people.
Mr. Robin Parsons
#54
Apr6-04, 08:59 PM
P: 1,560
Lived In Montreal (Quebec/Canada) during a police strike, thereafter legislation was passed making it an 'essential service' prohibiting full strikes because of the rioting/looting that happened...quickly, also in Mtl ,after an NHL win by the Habs there ensued a "Nice peaceful celebration" that was shown on television to have turned into a riot due to instigators who deliberately started 'stuff' as to follow through with looting durung the melee that followed....and the meeting in Quebec City where they had problem with the police, after trying to shower the police with rocks and stuff....clear enough who was the instigator there...was NOT the police....


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Psychics who solve crimes General Discussion 101
High Crimes and Treason! Current Events 53
New Orleans Police Beating Caught on Tape (VIDEO) Current Events 13
USA marines, war crimes, caught on video... Current Events 91
US war crimes or other international law violations? Current Events 18