http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/
June 14, 2005
The Secret's Out – Now What?
by Ray McGovern
Yesterday, London's Sunday Times published the text of another SECRET
UK EYES ONLY briefing document prepared for senior British officials.
This one was dated July 21, 2002, two days before British intelligence
chief Richard Dearlove gave Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top
national security advisers a briefing based on discussions with
American counterparts in Washington. The minutes recording the
discussion at the July 23, 2002, meeting, published by the Rupert
Murdoch's Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, included Dearlove's
matter-of-fact report that President George W. Bush had decided to
bring about "regime change" in Iraq by military action; that the
attack would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"
(weapons of mass destruction); and that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy."
Creating Conditions
At that meeting, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted that the evidence
regarding "weapons of mass destruction" was "thin." And British
Attorney General Peter Goldsmith pointed out that "the desire for
regime change was not a legal base for military action." But Blair
gave them the back of his hand, ordering them to "work on the
assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."
It is a safe bet that the British seemed a bunch of nervous Nellies in
the eyes of the hard-nosed "neoconservatives" running our policy
toward Iraq. The briefing paper of July 21 shows senior British
officials preoccupied with the question of how to fix it so the war
would be legal. The paper makes it clear that U.S. military plans
assumed, "as a minimum, the use of British bases on the islands of
Cyprus and Diego Garcia." Even this minimum gave rise to serious legal
questions. Pervading the briefing paper is the British leaders' need
to square a circle: how to render legal an illegal, unprovoked attack
on Iraq – or in the words of the briefing paper, how to go about
"creating the conditions … in which we could legally support military
action."
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, offers this clear picture of what
the British see as the U.S. goal. "U.S. military planning
unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi WMD." But, alas, with the
evidence of WMD "thin," and an invasion to bring about "regime change"
illegal, the British found themselves between Iraq and a hard place –
Washington. The document reeks not only of obsequiousness toward the
United States, but also wonderment at Washington's policies –
particularly with respect to international law.
"U.S. views of international law vary from that of the UK and the
international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis
for military action under international law. … Legal bases for an
invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable … but would be difficult
to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and
proportionality."
In lay terms, that must mean that, absent any immediate threat, those
who chose to invade and occupy Iraq anyway would flunk the "test of
proportionality." Grasping at straws, the document raises the
possibility of demanding Iraqi acceptance of an unacceptably intrusive
UN inspection regime:
"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which
Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered
access). … However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most
unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."
The British, you see, knew that the summer months in Iraq are
uncomfortably hot. Thus, January was the time they thought an invasion
would have to begin, or the attack would have to be put off until
autumn. As for a possible attack by Iraq, British government documents
released to Parliament show that American and British aircraft dropped
no bombs on Iraq in March 2002, 10 tons of bombs in July, and 54.6
tons in September. Nevertheless, this failed to provoke Saddam Hussein
into the kind of reaction that could be used as an ostensible casus
belli. And intrusive inspections? Iraq wound up tolerating the
strictest inspection regime in modern history. And when UN inspectors
found al-Samoud missiles with a range greater than that permitted,
Saddam allowed them to be destroyed.
One can visualize the British lawyers wringing their hands: Foiled
again.
Breaking the Laws of War
While the White House may have deemed British government lawyers
lily-livered or perhaps quaint, they were under a good deal of
pressure from the British military establishment, which wields more
influence in the British government than its domesticated Pentagon
counterparts do in Washington. To his credit, British Admiral Michael
Boyce, chief of the defense staff, demanded a straightforward, written
opinion from the attorney general that attacking Iraq would be lawful,
before Boyce would put his troops at risk of subsequent prosecution as
war criminals.
This put the bite on Attorney General Goldsmith, who had long shared
the doubts of the legal establishment about the legality of starting a
war without unequivocal endorsement by the United Nations. After much
equivocation, Goldsmith bowed to Blair and was asked to appear before
the cabinet on March 17, 2003, two days before the war began.
Goldsmith read a brief statement saying he now thought attacking Iraq
was lawful, and Blair quickly moved the discussion on. Questions were
not permitted. The British attorney general reportedly confided to
lawyer friends during February and early March 2003 that he found
himself in an "impossible" position, and he wondered aloud if he
should stay in the job.
Admiral Boyce, upset that he was never shown Goldsmith's more
equivocal advice to Blair prior to March 17, has now said that if
British troops are brought to trial by the International Criminal
Court (ICC), British ministers should be "brought into the frame as
well." The London Observer asked Boyce if Blair and Goldsmith should
be included. "Too bloody right," was his answer.
American forces, of course, do not have to worry about the ICC, since
the Bush administration "unsigned" the signature that President Bill
Clinton had affixed to the treaty in December 2000. Nor have U.S.
government officials shown themselves to be sticklers about
international law. In November 2003, Richard Perle, then a key leader
of the Defense Policy Board and a principal intellectual author of the
invasion of Iraq, left international lawyers astonished when he told a
London audience, "I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing."
The Evidence Strengthens
When asked about the July 23, 2002, minutes at their press conference
last week in Washington, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did a
good job of obfuscating – enough to mislead our corporate press into
the all-too-familiar he-said, she-said reporting. What went unnoticed
was the fact that in the process, the two leaders unintentionally
acknowledged the authenticity of the minutes, which read like a
meeting of Mafioso. They may think no one will read the actual
minutes. In that, they are dead wrong. And these new British
revelations have already strengthened the case against the Bush
administration.
The first paragraph of the Downing Street minutes of July 23, 2002,
warns that they "should be shown only to those with a genuine need to
know its contents." In a democracy, we the people have a genuine need
to know the background of decisions on war and peace – so the
source(s) who leaked the minutes and other documents were performing a
duty that can be seen as truly patriotic. And patriotic leaks can be
done without revealing information that truly needs to be protected.
On behalf of the Truth-Telling Coalition, let me invite any patriotic
truth-tellers out of the woodwork, so that truly courageous leaders
like Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) will not have to depend solely on
patriots in Britain (and Rupert Murdoch!). Conyers has a tip line on
his Web site, and our coalition appeal includes a number of pointers
about patriotic leaking, and what kinds of support are available.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people."
- John Adams, August 1765
This article first appeared at TomPaine.com.
.
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
19 Jun 2005 10:34:47 PM |
|
|
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:42b6347a.352835019@ct-news.iafrica.com...
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/
June 14, 2005
The Secret's Out - Now What?
by Ray McGovern
Yesterday, London's Sunday Times published the text of another SECRET
UK EYES ONLY briefing document prepared for senior British officials.
This one was dated July 21, 2002, two days before British intelligence
chief Richard Dearlove gave Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top
national security advisers a briefing based on discussions with
American counterparts in Washington. The minutes recording the
discussion at the July 23, 2002, meeting, published by the Rupert
Murdoch's Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, included Dearlove's
matter-of-fact report that President George W. Bush had decided to
bring about "regime change" in Iraq by military action; that the
attack would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"
(weapons of mass destruction); and that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy."
Creating Conditions
At that meeting, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted that the evidence
regarding "weapons of mass destruction" was "thin." And British
Attorney General Peter Goldsmith pointed out that "the desire for
regime change was not a legal base for military action." But Blair
gave them the back of his hand, ordering them to "work on the
assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."
It is a safe bet that the British seemed a bunch of nervous Nellies in
the eyes of the hard-nosed "neoconservatives" running our policy
toward Iraq. The briefing paper of July 21 shows senior British
officials preoccupied with the question of how to fix it so the war
would be legal. The paper makes it clear that U.S. military plans
assumed, "as a minimum, the use of British bases on the islands of
Cyprus and Diego Garcia." Even this minimum gave rise to serious legal
questions. Pervading the briefing paper is the British leaders' need
to square a circle: how to render legal an illegal, unprovoked attack
on Iraq - or in the words of the briefing paper, how to go about
"creating the conditions . in which we could legally support military
action."
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, offers this clear picture of what
the British see as the U.S. goal. "U.S. military planning
unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi WMD." But, alas, with the
evidence of WMD "thin," and an invasion to bring about "regime change"
illegal, the British found themselves between Iraq and a hard place -
Washington. The document reeks not only of obsequiousness toward the
United States, but also wonderment at Washington's policies -
particularly with respect to international law.
"U.S. views of international law vary from that of the UK and the
international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis
for military action under international law. . Legal bases for an
invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable . but would be difficult
to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and
proportionality."
In lay terms, that must mean that, absent any immediate threat, those
who chose to invade and occupy Iraq anyway would flunk the "test of
proportionality." Grasping at straws, the document raises the
possibility of demanding Iraqi acceptance of an unacceptably intrusive
UN inspection regime:
"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which
Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered
access). . However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most
unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."
The British, you see, knew that the summer months in Iraq are
uncomfortably hot. Thus, January was the time they thought an invasion
would have to begin, or the attack would have to be put off until
autumn. As for a possible attack by Iraq, British government documents
released to Parliament show that American and British aircraft dropped
no bombs on Iraq in March 2002, 10 tons of bombs in July, and 54.6
tons in September. Nevertheless, this failed to provoke Saddam Hussein
into the kind of reaction that could be used as an ostensible casus
belli. And intrusive inspections? Iraq wound up tolerating the
strictest inspection regime in modern history. And when UN inspectors
found al-Samoud missiles with a range greater than that permitted,
Saddam allowed them to be destroyed.
One can visualize the British lawyers wringing their hands: Foiled
again.
Breaking the Laws of War
While the White House may have deemed British government lawyers
lily-livered or perhaps quaint, they were under a good deal of
pressure from the British military establishment, which wields more
influence in the British government than its domesticated Pentagon
counterparts do in Washington. To his credit, British Admiral Michael
Boyce, chief of the defense staff, demanded a straightforward, written
opinion from the attorney general that attacking Iraq would be lawful,
before Boyce would put his troops at risk of subsequent prosecution as
war criminals.
This put the bite on Attorney General Goldsmith, who had long shared
the doubts of the legal establishment about the legality of starting a
war without unequivocal endorsement by the United Nations. After much
equivocation, Goldsmith bowed to Blair and was asked to appear before
the cabinet on March 17, 2003, two days before the war began.
Goldsmith read a brief statement saying he now thought attacking Iraq
was lawful, and Blair quickly moved the discussion on. Questions were
not permitted. The British attorney general reportedly confided to
lawyer friends during February and early March 2003 that he found
himself in an "impossible" position, and he wondered aloud if he
should stay in the job.
Admiral Boyce, upset that he was never shown Goldsmith's more
equivocal advice to Blair prior to March 17, has now said that if
British troops are brought to trial by the International Criminal
Court (ICC), British ministers should be "brought into the frame as
well." The London Observer asked Boyce if Blair and Goldsmith should
be included. "Too bloody right," was his answer.
American forces, of course, do not have to worry about the ICC, since
the Bush administration "unsigned" the signature that President Bill
Clinton had affixed to the treaty in December 2000. Nor have U.S.
government officials shown themselves to be sticklers about
international law. In November 2003, Richard Perle, then a key leader
of the Defense Policy Board and a principal intellectual author of the
invasion of Iraq, left international lawyers astonished when he told a
London audience, "I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing."
The Evidence Strengthens
When asked about the July 23, 2002, minutes at their press conference
last week in Washington, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did a
good job of obfuscating - enough to mislead our corporate press into
the all-too-familiar he-said, she-said reporting. What went unnoticed
was the fact that in the process, the two leaders unintentionally
acknowledged the authenticity of the minutes, which read like a
meeting of Mafioso. They may think no one will read the actual
minutes. In that, they are dead wrong. And these new British
revelations have already strengthened the case against the Bush
administration.
The first paragraph of the Downing Street minutes of July 23, 2002,
warns that they "should be shown only to those with a genuine need to
know its contents." In a democracy, we the people have a genuine need
to know the background of decisions on war and peace - so the
source(s) who leaked the minutes and other documents were performing a
duty that can be seen as truly patriotic. And patriotic leaks can be
done without revealing information that truly needs to be protected.
On behalf of the Truth-Telling Coalition, let me invite any patriotic
truth-tellers out of the woodwork, so that truly courageous leaders
like Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) will not have to depend solely on
patriots in Britain (and Rupert Murdoch!). Conyers has a tip line on
his Web site, and our coalition appeal includes a number of pointers
about patriotic leaking, and what kinds of support are available.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people."
- John Adams, August 1765
This article first appeared at TomPaine.com.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dreamwalker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
19 Jun 2005 11:06:44 PM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message news:42b6347a.352835019@ct-news.iafrica.com...
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/
June 14, 2005
The Secret's Out - Now What?
by Ray McGovern
Yesterday, London's Sunday Times published the text of another SECRET
UK EYES ONLY briefing document prepared for senior British officials.
This one was dated July 21, 2002, two days before British intelligence
chief Richard Dearlove gave Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top
national security advisers a briefing based on discussions with
American counterparts in Washington. The minutes recording the
discussion at the July 23, 2002, meeting, published by the Rupert
Murdoch's Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, included Dearlove's
matter-of-fact report that President George W. Bush had decided to
bring about "regime change" in Iraq by military action; that the
attack would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"
(weapons of mass destruction); and that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy."
Creating Conditions
At that meeting, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted that the evidence
regarding "weapons of mass destruction" was "thin." And British
Attorney General Peter Goldsmith pointed out that "the desire for
regime change was not a legal base for military action." But Blair
gave them the back of his hand, ordering them to "work on the
assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."
It is a safe bet that the British seemed a bunch of nervous Nellies in
the eyes of the hard-nosed "neoconservatives" running our policy
toward Iraq. The briefing paper of July 21 shows senior British
officials preoccupied with the question of how to fix it so the war
would be legal. The paper makes it clear that U.S. military plans
assumed, "as a minimum, the use of British bases on the islands of
Cyprus and Diego Garcia." Even this minimum gave rise to serious legal
questions. Pervading the briefing paper is the British leaders' need
to square a circle: how to render legal an illegal, unprovoked attack
on Iraq - or in the words of the briefing paper, how to go about
"creating the conditions . in which we could legally support military
action."
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, offers this clear picture of what
the British see as the U.S. goal. "U.S. military planning
unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi WMD." But, alas, with the
evidence of WMD "thin," and an invasion to bring about "regime change"
illegal, the British found themselves between Iraq and a hard place -
Washington. The document reeks not only of obsequiousness toward the
United States, but also wonderment at Washington's policies -
particularly with respect to international law.
"U.S. views of international law vary from that of the UK and the
international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis
for military action under international law. . Legal bases for an
invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable . but would be difficult
to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and
proportionality."
In lay terms, that must mean that, absent any immediate threat, those
who chose to invade and occupy Iraq anyway would flunk the "test of
proportionality." Grasping at straws, the document raises the
possibility of demanding Iraqi acceptance of an unacceptably intrusive
UN inspection regime:
"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which
Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered
access). . However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most
unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."
The British, you see, knew that the summer months in Iraq are
uncomfortably hot. Thus, January was the time they thought an invasion
would have to begin, or the attack would have to be put off until
autumn. As for a possible attack by Iraq, British government documents
released to Parliament show that American and British aircraft dropped
no bombs on Iraq in March 2002, 10 tons of bombs in July, and 54.6
tons in September. Nevertheless, this failed to provoke Saddam Hussein
into the kind of reaction that could be used as an ostensible casus
belli. And intrusive inspections? Iraq wound up tolerating the
strictest inspection regime in modern history. And when UN inspectors
found al-Samoud missiles with a range greater than that permitted,
Saddam allowed them to be destroyed.
One can visualize the British lawyers wringing their hands: Foiled
again.
Breaking the Laws of War
While the White House may have deemed British government lawyers
lily-livered or perhaps quaint, they were under a good deal of
pressure from the British military establishment, which wields more
influence in the British government than its domesticated Pentagon
counterparts do in Washington. To his credit, British Admiral Michael
Boyce, chief of the defense staff, demanded a straightforward, written
opinion from the attorney general that attacking Iraq would be lawful,
before Boyce would put his troops at risk of subsequent prosecution as
war criminals.
This put the bite on Attorney General Goldsmith, who had long shared
the doubts of the legal establishment about the legality of starting a
war without unequivocal endorsement by the United Nations. After much
equivocation, Goldsmith bowed to Blair and was asked to appear before
the cabinet on March 17, 2003, two days before the war began.
Goldsmith read a brief statement saying he now thought attacking Iraq
was lawful, and Blair quickly moved the discussion on. Questions were
not permitted. The British attorney general reportedly confided to
lawyer friends during February and early March 2003 that he found
himself in an "impossible" position, and he wondered aloud if he
should stay in the job.
Admiral Boyce, upset that he was never shown Goldsmith's more
equivocal advice to Blair prior to March 17, has now said that if
British troops are brought to trial by the International Criminal
Court (ICC), British ministers should be "brought into the frame as
well." The London Observer asked Boyce if Blair and Goldsmith should
be included. "Too bloody right," was his answer.
American forces, of course, do not have to worry about the ICC, since
the Bush administration "unsigned" the signature that President Bill
Clinton had affixed to the treaty in December 2000. Nor have U.S.
government officials shown themselves to be sticklers about
international law. In November 2003, Richard Perle, then a key leader
of the Defense Policy Board and a principal intellectual author of the
invasion of Iraq, left international lawyers astonished when he told a
London audience, "I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing."
The Evidence Strengthens
When asked about the July 23, 2002, minutes at their press conference
last week in Washington, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did a
good job of obfuscating - enough to mislead our corporate press into
the all-too-familiar he-said, she-said reporting. What went unnoticed
was the fact that in the process, the two leaders unintentionally
acknowledged the authenticity of the minutes, which read like a
meeting of Mafioso. They may think no one will read the actual
minutes. In that, they are dead wrong. And these new British
revelations have already strengthened the case against the Bush
administration.
The first paragraph of the Downing Street minutes of July 23, 2002,
warns that they "should be shown only to those with a genuine need to
know its contents." In a democracy, we the people have a genuine need
to know the background of decisions on war and peace - so the
source(s) who leaked the minutes and other documents were performing a
duty that can be seen as truly patriotic. And patriotic leaks can be
done without revealing information that truly needs to be protected.
On behalf of the Truth-Telling Coalition, let me invite any patriotic
truth-tellers out of the woodwork, so that truly courageous leaders
like Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) will not have to depend solely on
patriots in Britain (and Rupert Murdoch!). Conyers has a tip line on
his Web site, and our coalition appeal includes a number of pointers
about patriotic leaking, and what kinds of support are available.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people."
- John Adams, August 1765
This article first appeared at TomPaine.com.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
19 Jun 2005 11:34:00 PM |
|
|
"dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.com> wrote in message
news:82af0$42b640db$40762327$8061@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com...
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
ROLFOFLLLOOOR
Stat.
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:42b6347a.352835019@ct-news.iafrica.com...
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/
June 14, 2005
The Secret's Out - Now What?
by Ray McGovern
Yesterday, London's Sunday Times published the text of another SECRET
UK EYES ONLY briefing document prepared for senior British officials.
This one was dated July 21, 2002, two days before British intelligence
chief Richard Dearlove gave Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top
national security advisers a briefing based on discussions with
American counterparts in Washington. The minutes recording the
discussion at the July 23, 2002, meeting, published by the Rupert
Murdoch's Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, included Dearlove's
matter-of-fact report that President George W. Bush had decided to
bring about "regime change" in Iraq by military action; that the
attack would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"
(weapons of mass destruction); and that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy."
Creating Conditions
At that meeting, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted that the evidence
regarding "weapons of mass destruction" was "thin." And British
Attorney General Peter Goldsmith pointed out that "the desire for
regime change was not a legal base for military action." But Blair
gave them the back of his hand, ordering them to "work on the
assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."
It is a safe bet that the British seemed a bunch of nervous Nellies in
the eyes of the hard-nosed "neoconservatives" running our policy
toward Iraq. The briefing paper of July 21 shows senior British
officials preoccupied with the question of how to fix it so the war
would be legal. The paper makes it clear that U.S. military plans
assumed, "as a minimum, the use of British bases on the islands of
Cyprus and Diego Garcia." Even this minimum gave rise to serious legal
questions. Pervading the briefing paper is the British leaders' need
to square a circle: how to render legal an illegal, unprovoked attack
on Iraq - or in the words of the briefing paper, how to go about
"creating the conditions . in which we could legally support military
action."
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, offers this clear picture of what
the British see as the U.S. goal. "U.S. military planning
unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi WMD." But, alas, with the
evidence of WMD "thin," and an invasion to bring about "regime change"
illegal, the British found themselves between Iraq and a hard place -
Washington. The document reeks not only of obsequiousness toward the
United States, but also wonderment at Washington's policies -
particularly with respect to international law.
"U.S. views of international law vary from that of the UK and the
international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis
for military action under international law. . Legal bases for an
invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable . but would be difficult
to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and
proportionality."
In lay terms, that must mean that, absent any immediate threat, those
who chose to invade and occupy Iraq anyway would flunk the "test of
proportionality." Grasping at straws, the document raises the
possibility of demanding Iraqi acceptance of an unacceptably intrusive
UN inspection regime:
"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which
Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered
access). . However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most
unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."
The British, you see, knew that the summer months in Iraq are
uncomfortably hot. Thus, January was the time they thought an invasion
would have to begin, or the attack would have to be put off until
autumn. As for a possible attack by Iraq, British government documents
released to Parliament show that American and British aircraft dropped
no bombs on Iraq in March 2002, 10 tons of bombs in July, and 54.6
tons in September. Nevertheless, this failed to provoke Saddam Hussein
into the kind of reaction that could be used as an ostensible casus
belli. And intrusive inspections? Iraq wound up tolerating the
strictest inspection regime in modern history. And when UN inspectors
found al-Samoud missiles with a range greater than that permitted,
Saddam allowed them to be destroyed.
One can visualize the British lawyers wringing their hands: Foiled
again.
Breaking the Laws of War
While the White House may have deemed British government lawyers
lily-livered or perhaps quaint, they were under a good deal of
pressure from the British military establishment, which wields more
influence in the British government than its domesticated Pentagon
counterparts do in Washington. To his credit, British Admiral Michael
Boyce, chief of the defense staff, demanded a straightforward, written
opinion from the attorney general that attacking Iraq would be lawful,
before Boyce would put his troops at risk of subsequent prosecution as
war criminals.
This put the bite on Attorney General Goldsmith, who had long shared
the doubts of the legal establishment about the legality of starting a
war without unequivocal endorsement by the United Nations. After much
equivocation, Goldsmith bowed to Blair and was asked to appear before
the cabinet on March 17, 2003, two days before the war began.
Goldsmith read a brief statement saying he now thought attacking Iraq
was lawful, and Blair quickly moved the discussion on. Questions were
not permitted. The British attorney general reportedly confided to
lawyer friends during February and early March 2003 that he found
himself in an "impossible" position, and he wondered aloud if he
should stay in the job.
Admiral Boyce, upset that he was never shown Goldsmith's more
equivocal advice to Blair prior to March 17, has now said that if
British troops are brought to trial by the International Criminal
Court (ICC), British ministers should be "brought into the frame as
well." The London Observer asked Boyce if Blair and Goldsmith should
be included. "Too bloody right," was his answer.
American forces, of course, do not have to worry about the ICC, since
the Bush administration "unsigned" the signature that President Bill
Clinton had affixed to the treaty in December 2000. Nor have U.S.
government officials shown themselves to be sticklers about
international law. In November 2003, Richard Perle, then a key leader
of the Defense Policy Board and a principal intellectual author of the
invasion of Iraq, left international lawyers astonished when he told a
London audience, "I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing."
The Evidence Strengthens
When asked about the July 23, 2002, minutes at their press conference
last week in Washington, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did a
good job of obfuscating - enough to mislead our corporate press into
the all-too-familiar he-said, she-said reporting. What went unnoticed
was the fact that in the process, the two leaders unintentionally
acknowledged the authenticity of the minutes, which read like a
meeting of Mafioso. They may think no one will read the actual
minutes. In that, they are dead wrong. And these new British
revelations have already strengthened the case against the Bush
administration.
The first paragraph of the Downing Street minutes of July 23, 2002,
warns that they "should be shown only to those with a genuine need to
know its contents." In a democracy, we the people have a genuine need
to know the background of decisions on war and peace - so the
source(s) who leaked the minutes and other documents were performing a
duty that can be seen as truly patriotic. And patriotic leaks can be
done without revealing information that truly needs to be protected.
On behalf of the Truth-Telling Coalition, let me invite any patriotic
truth-tellers out of the woodwork, so that truly courageous leaders
like Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) will not have to depend solely on
patriots in Britain (and Rupert Murdoch!). Conyers has a tip line on
his Web site, and our coalition appeal includes a number of pointers
about patriotic leaking, and what kinds of support are available.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people."
- John Adams, August 1765
This article first appeared at TomPaine.com.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 09:42:04 AM |
|
|
DW wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
DW, I think that any American associating with the above slime should
have this post along with their e-mail and any other info sent
directly to the Sercret Service.
After all if they share his views, they may be willing to help him
with his plans.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 08:24:41 PM |
|
|
<TheSilver@Bullet.com> wrote in message
news:1119278515.9030f6e5fc0c155e5248cd5b0e80cfb8@teranews...
DW wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
DW, I think that any American associating with the above slime should
have this post along with their e-mail and any other info sent
directly to the Sercret Service.
First of all, at least in my book, SLIME is someone who pimps his wife on
the Internet, and advertises himself as a prostitute. You obviously have a
different definition.
Second, this being a prophecy group, I made a prediction to Gartland's
question "Now what?'. I believe knocking out Bush is a possibility under
consideration by those in power as it would defuse this situation and change
the direction of the wind. I could be right, I could be wrong. Only time
will tell.
I didn't say let's assassinate Bush, which actually would be a very bad
thing for the popular movements who have made huge gains during this
administration's rule. Assassinating Bush would only profit those in power,
and who have something to lose with more of the truth on Iraq war coming
out. So if they (they = those who put GWB in power in the first place)
decide to sacrifice Bush to save the day, and blame it on "terrorists", I
for one will know where to look for the smoking gun. But you wouldn't;-)
Third, gutless people like you, Mikey and this new piece of ***** DW assume
that everyone is as gutless as yourselves. You are WRONG. If I was to get
scared of your Secret Service for typing a few words on the Internet
(whatever they may be), I'd have to become a slime just like you.
Stat.
After all if they share his views, they may be willing to help him
with his plans.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 11:48:22 AM |
|
|
Stat wrote:
<TheSilver@Bullet.com> wrote in message
news:1119278515.9030f6e5fc0c155e5248cd5b0e80cfb8@teranews...
DW wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
DW, I think that any American associating with the above slime should
have this post along with their e-mail and any other info sent
directly to the Sercret Service.
Second, this being a prophecy group, I made a prediction to Gartland's
question
No you didn't. You clearly said:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
I didn't say let's assassinate Bush
Yes you did, those were your first words.
You are WRONG. If I was to get
scared of your Secret Service for typing a few words
Stat.
The people that associate with you may think differently.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 12:03:51 PM |
|
|
Stat's explanation is sufficient for me. He'll have to let us know if he
hears from the Secret Service or not.
We all want Mr. Bush to live a long and healthy life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Su Zanadu" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 01:35:33 PM |
|
|
John wrote:
We all want Mr. Bush to live a long and
healthy life.
Yeah.....just somewhere other than Washington! ;)
Here's a toast to his health!
<downs an RC Cola and a Moon Pie>
SuZanne
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 02:02:04 PM |
|
|
"Su Zanadu" <tugbertswife@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22318-42B9AF75-5@storefull-3213.bay.webtv.net...
John wrote:
We all want Mr. Bush to live a long and
healthy life.
Yeah.....just somewhere other than Washington! ;)
Somewhere he can rollerblade with the snakes.
Here's a toast to his health!
My toast popped up this morning with his picture on it and below it said
"Guilty, guilty, guilty".
<downs an RC Cola and a Moon Pie>
SuZanne
HA!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't watch Dave, you watch Jay, I know. Clinton was on Letterman the
other night. He was talking about how he and George the First have become
such close friends. So much so that Barbara Bush has started calling Mr.
Clinton "Son". Bill said Bar only does that because she's really after
another child that's a president. Mr. Clinton then said he was going to
try to get them to adopt Hillary.
See, it's all so diabolical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 12:47:02 PM |
|
|
John F. Lemke wrote:
Stat's explanation is sufficient for me.
That's because you are a Liberal, selfloathing American.
He'll have to let us know if he
hears from the Secret Service or not.
We all want Mr. Bush to live a long and healthy life.
Not Stat, his intentions are clear.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 05:17:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
John F. Lemke wrote:
Stat's explanation is sufficient for me.
That's because you are a Liberal, selfloathing American.
He'll have to let us know if he
hears from the Secret Service or not.
We all want Mr. Bush to live a long and healthy life.
Not Stat, his intentions are clear.
Tony
I thought you had a job ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Master" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 12:51:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
DW wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
DW, I think that any American associating with the above slime should
have this post along with their e-mail and any other info sent
directly to the Sercret Service.
After all if they share his views, they may be willing to help him
with his plans.
Tony
I'm planing a 'Burning Bush' party next week. Anyone like to come?
The Master
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
19 Jun 2005 11:21:27 PM |
|
|
dreamwalker wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oPqte.31315$Kk4.143711@news20.bellglobal.com...
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
NTAC, Mr Bell Canada.
IP 64.228.83.75
What was it you were saying about taking this ***** to seriously?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 04:29:41 PM |
|
|
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 08:12:13 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zGte.82477$HT1.28679@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
It's a miscommunication. The heading was "The secret's Out - Now What?", and
I answered "Assassinate Bush". Meaning it as a possibilities under
consideration in the corridors of power, as it would benefit the
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, and everyone else who has something to lose
in all of this. This is what I meant by "The sacrificial lamb": sacrifice
Bush to save the day... It's a predfiction (or perhaps a prophecy?)
I did not mean that I want to assassinate him myself, or even desire his
assassination. With this latest saga, I want him to stay alive more than
ever before so we can advance to the next chapter. But if he gets knocked
out (which I unfortunately think he will), we the people will take two giant
steps backward, and they (the Mighty and the Powerful) will take a huge step
forward.
I know my message was hard to decode. It's because I wrote another message
30 minutes before it (see below), where I made the same prediction. That one
has the proper context, so when writing the one here, I kind of carried the
context over, without actually writing it out.
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
From: "MonsieurStat" <monsieurs...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:01:48 -0400
Local: Sun,Jun 19 2005 11:01 pm
Subject: Re: More leftist media lies.
"dreamwalker" <backfrom...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:7e074$42b60938$40762833$15075@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com...
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php
It's too late for that. Damage is done. Soon Bush will be faced with either
going all the way by openly defying the Law and declaring himself the
Untouchable, or have his ***** kicked around and out. Lose-Lose situation for
his corporate bosses who are getting nervous about the prospects of
uprisings and the waking up of the masses in the good ol' U.S. of A.. My
guess is that if Georgy can't push this one under the carpet rather quickly,
they'll just have him assassinated. That'll immediately defuse the
situation, save a lot of asses, be less embarrassing for the government, and
all the special interests and lobbyists who supported this war. Not to
mention a great moral booster for the population. We Iranians will be very
sad though. He's been just a good friend.
Stat.
----------------------------------------------------
So no, I don't prone any kind of violence against anyone to solve today's
world problems. Our main problem in the world today is that there is way too
much violence. Adding to it will just make things worse.
Stat.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 05:39:32 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zGte.82477$HT1.28679@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
Woods
I was actually shocked that Stat would post such a thing! Although we
disagree, he always struck me as being more rational than that!
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
20 Jun 2005 06:13:01 PM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zGte.82477$HT1.28679@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
Woods
I was actually shocked that Stat would post such a thing! Although we
disagree, he always struck me as being more rational than that!
Yeah, really. The only think I could think of was that he was
completely bombed out of his mind and posted in drunken jest - but that
doesn't sound like him, either.
I suppose someone could have forged his account, but I no longer have
the software needed to perform a perfunctory check on that.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
22 Jun 2005 11:44:36 AM |
|
|
Woods wrote:
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zGte.82477$HT1.28679@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
Woods
I was actually shocked that Stat would post such a thing! Although we
disagree, he always struck me as being more rational than that!
Yeah, really. The only think I could think of was that he was
completely bombed out of his mind and posted in drunken jest - but that
doesn't sound like him, either.
Sounds like Chris.
Tony
I suppose someone could have forged his account, but I no longer have
the software needed to perform a perfunctory check on that.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
23 Jun 2005 07:59:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Woods wrote:
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zGte.82477$HT1.28679@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
Woods
I was actually shocked that Stat would post such a thing! Although we
disagree, he always struck me as being more rational than that!
Yeah, really. The only think I could think of was that he was
completely bombed out of his mind and posted in drunken jest - but that
doesn't sound like him, either.
Sounds like Chris.
Tony
Not me pantyboy...nah, I'de just send dubya to a laboratory...that's
where they do experiments on monkeys. No point in killin' something
that can somehow be usefull to the human race is there?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Secret's Out - Now What? |
23 Jun 2005 11:31:21 AM |
|
|
Chris The Gay Muslim Convert & IRA Member wrote:
TheSilver@Bullet.com wrote:
Woods wrote:
Jane wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zGte.82477$HT1.28679@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
MonsieurStat wrote:
Assassinate Bush.
Win-Win for everyone.
Corporations, Zionists, Neocons, general population...
Everyone will benefit, including Bush himself.
The sacrificial Lamb.
Stat.
Wha-at?!?! 0-o
Even if you hated Bush with every fiber of your being, you're way off to
wish any physical harm to him!
Woods
I was actually shocked that Stat would post such a thing! Although we
disagree, he always struck me as being more rational than that!
Yeah, really. The only think I could think of was that he was
completely bombed out of his mind and posted in drunken jest - but that
doesn't sound like him, either.
Sounds like Chris.
Tony
Not me pantyboy..
WH
Exactly like you.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Oh well, guess what peoplez ?!?!?! Yeppers, yes siree yes indeedy deedy deedily do !!! It'z that time of the day once again to say the now world famous goodbye HOOROO !! to all of my favorite peoplez out there in APN land, Adios, aufwiedersehen, au r
Get those fuckin' idiots out of there! NOW
I dont drink alcohol anti-semite propaganda shits! you show yourselves for the liars you are, you dumbos! you are all sick and get out my group now! hahahahaa...!
It's All Out in the Open Now
And Now Tammy raps out!
17 suicide dirty bombers to hit NYC GET OUT OF NYC NOW
The EARTH Is SOO "Out Of WACK" Right NOW - Not Even The Second 'Coming' Of Christ - COULD HELP YOU NOW..
You've done your good deed - Now get out of Iraq
| US should pull out of Iraq now
We Love you ***** Cheney, Now Get the ***** Out of Office You Imbecile
Oh well, the time iz now 19:25 here in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Planet Earth, The Milky Way on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 AD....so, it'z HOOROO to all of my favorite peoplez out there in APN land, au revoir, adios, aufwiedersehen, sayonara, joy g
The Real Americunts are talking now
US now attacking churches
Now for your Monthly Quatrain/s
9-11 Commissioner now is blamed for 9/11 safety breakdowns
|
|
|
