Skip to comments.
Al Jazeera: US hawk admits Iraq war 'illegal'
Al Jazeera ^
| Friday 21 November 2003
| Shaheen Chughtai
Posted on 11/21/2003 2:20:17 PM PST by presidio9
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
1
posted on
11/21/2003 2:20:17 PM PST
by
presidio9
To: presidio9
Problem (if any) is with "international law", not with anything we did.
2
posted on
11/21/2003 2:21:34 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is Slavery)
To: presidio9
I'm sure that hiding Anne Frank was illegal. Should the family sheltering her have just done the legal thing and turned her in?
To: presidio9
It is a flight of fancy to believe that international law has any resemblance to actual law. International law is in reality nothing more than international custom.
4
posted on
11/21/2003 2:28:28 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
("A republic, if you can keep it.")
To: BenLurkin
I'm not yet willing to buy this.
5
posted on
11/21/2003 2:29:12 PM PST
by
Maelstrom
(To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
To: presidio9
Saddam Hussein was illegal!!!! The Mass graves were illegal!!!! The mass murders were illegal!!!! The shredding of humans through plastic shredders were illegal!!!! The torture was illegal!!!!
6
posted on
11/21/2003 2:35:28 PM PST
by
David1
To: presidio9
Looks like more America bashing by the Arab media. Who does Al Jazeera think they are, CNN?
7
posted on
11/21/2003 2:36:23 PM PST
by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
To: Question_Assumptions
"Burgin said the recent bomb attacks in Istanbul showed the illegality of the Bush-Blair campaign was "fuelling the level of terror around the world".
How convienient. ALWAYS, ALWAYS blame the victim, never the perpetrator. A true sign of mental illness. Burgin, go f#ck yourself.
8
posted on
11/21/2003 2:37:01 PM PST
by
Levante
To: presidio9
Antiwar campaigners told Aljazeera.net on Friday they were astonished by Perles admission. Wait a minute. Wasn't this guy Perle one of those the A.N.S.W.E.R. group paid to speek in their anti-Bush documentary? If so, how much did they pay him for this? More than his retirement would pay?
I'm sure this guy is one of the people they bought. Anyone remember the thread about the anti-Bush documentary??
To: Oldeconomybuyer
It's more likely that CNN thinks it's AL Jazeera.
10
posted on
11/21/2003 2:39:54 PM PST
by
PokeyJoe
(Texas BBQ is the currency that talks to my heart.)
International law requires that the US surrender sovereignty to our enemies.
Globalists use international courts like US leftists use US courts... to illegitimately usurp power.
To: presidio9
From a February 11th, 2003 interview with Bill Clinton:
Katie Couric: Do you think the U.S. should wait for a second Security Council Resolution authorizing force?
Former President Bill Clinton: As a matter of international law, I dont think we have to.
12
posted on
11/21/2003 2:51:40 PM PST
by
zencat
To: presidio9
Check this out.(The New Yorker).....Khashoggi (Iran contra guy)is still brokering. In January of this year, he arranged a private lunch, in France, to bring together Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East, and Richard N. Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, who is one of the most outspoken and influential American advocates of war with Iraq.
(snip)
Perle is also a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P., which was registered in November, 2001, in Delaware. Triremes main business, according to a two-page letter that one of its representatives sent to Khashoggi last November, is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. The letter argued that the fear of terrorism would increase the demand for such products in Europe and in countries like Saudi Arabia and Singapore.
(snip)
As chairman of the board, Perle is considered to be a special government employee and therefore subject to a federal Code of Conduct. Those rules bar a special employee from participating in an official capacity in any matter in which he has a financial interest. One of the general rules is that you dont take advantage of your federal position to help yourself financially in any way, a former government attorney who helped formulate the Code of Conduct told me. The point, the attorney added, is to protect government processes from actual or apparent conflicts.
(snip)
Four members of the Defense Policy Board told me that the board, which met most recently on February 27th and 28th, had not been informed of Perles involvement in Trireme. One board member, upon being told of Trireme and Perles meeting with Khashoggi, exclaimed, Oh, get out of here. Hes the chairman! If you had a story about me setting up a company for homeland security, and Ive put people on the board with whom Im doing that business, Id be hada reference to Gerald Hillman, who had almost no senior policy or military experience in government before being offered a post on the policy board. Seems to me this is at the edge of or off the ethical charts. I think it would stink to high heaven.
Sooooo. Saudi ties, and this guy makes money off terrorism?
To: zencat
I'm not an international lawyer, I just play one on FreeRepublic.
But ... it seems to me that the violation of 16 UN Security Council Resolutions by Iraq was adequate justification for us to enforce compliance. Further, if it was a violation, there would be a string of ACLU lawyers from SF to Boston filing suit against the US government and our coalition partners.
This is bunk. And probably a misquote by a sloppy or biased journalist.
14
posted on
11/21/2003 3:00:09 PM PST
by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
To: presidio9
So what is considered a legal war by these Islamis and commies? Their bloody Jihad? A war that the UN approves of?
'Slamics like to brand illegal all actions taken against their idiotic Jihads
15
posted on
11/21/2003 3:00:11 PM PST
by
dennisw
(G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
To: concerned about politics
I have always respected Richard Perle. I think he is on our side and he supports GWB; we will see how this shakes out...
To: At _War_With_Liberals
What is Perle trying to prove? It is amazing seeing the neocons trying to save themselves by attacking each others policies and Perle now admitting that they broke the law. Naturally aggression against another is against international law. And to think that Perle is still on the Defense Policy Board. This whole board needs booted out of the Bush administration before they cause more damage.
17
posted on
11/21/2003 3:02:54 PM PST
by
meenie
To: presidio9
"Go ahead, skin it! Skin that smoke-wagon, 'n see what happens."
18
posted on
11/21/2003 3:06:23 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: meenie
See post #13. The more terrorism, the more money he makes through a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P.,
Being on the side of the anti-war groups helps his business ties with Saudi Arabia and Singapore.
It sounds like his conflict of interest has changed to favor his business side, rather than his US security/Bush side.
Maybe he was told to get out of business, or get out of Washington.
To: David1
Saddam Hussein was illegal!!!! The Mass graves were illegal!!!! The mass murders were illegal!!!! The shredding of humans through plastic shredders were illegal!!!! The torture was illegal!!!!
What you said.
SIC
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson