MontyB said:
I think that given the UN secretary generals statements about the war not being the right thing to do indicate that it was illegal, and exactly how did "all sides mess up badly"?. I am sorry but we now do have the benefit of hindsight and Hans Blix and co must be smirking all the way to the bank now as they were spot on.
Anyway you asked why I dont just let the Americans have their reality and I have explained that reason basically because the US has gone from a nation that meddles in peoples affairs quietly to a nation that is trying to impose its will world wide and I consider that a bad thing therefore if I leave it until the point that it is affecting me then it will be too late.
Managed to keep it simple for times sake.
Ok I'll tell you how all sides messed up.
The US and the UK rushed it and it was a huge risk they took because from day 1 it was pretty unpopular. They didn't take the word from Europe seriously enough.
But here's the thing, by this time, Europe had almost had a rubber stamp saying no to what the US and the UK did anyways so the words of the war opposition fell on deaf ears. Why, this is why even Democrat senators in the US ignored them. Basically Europe cried wolf too many times and when it really mattered, their words just didn't mean anything anymore. That's what I mean by all sides screwing up.
As for the UN, they were HUGE screwups. They had a long record of making resolutions etc. and not backing them. Saddam had violated 1441 (WMD or no WMD) and the security council decided that violation would lead to "severe consequences," which is pretty much political speak for military action. Hell that's all that was left. Iraq was already under sanction. Instead the UN laughed it off. ITS OWN RESOLUTION. Which is why the US and the UK started ignoring the UN.
This is why I say all sides screwed up.
When things like this go wrong, it's rarely because only one side messed up.
Americans... probably suffered from the "yes" men in the intelligence circle. Or the people who processed it for the president. That's a guess though. I can't be sure. But obviously someone here messed up too, but the point is, EVERYONE screwed up.
staurofilakes said:
The UN Convention Agaist torture gives a very clear definition of it:
torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions
For the exintence of torture you do not need many people tortured,with just one is enough.
Right. But just how many of these prisoners were actually "tortured?" Certainly from what we've seen there was no physical pain. There was some mental ones... but you could even argue that locking up someone would be a mental punishment. Basically the problem with the mental part is that it's way too vague. If a prison guard used foul language at a prisoner, would that constitute as a mental punishment?
Now okay let's just assume it was ACTUAL torture. The ones who did it were taken care of, and the commander of the prison was forced to retire. So in other words, the Army took care of it.
Things don't go smoothly in any other occupation. The police have its abuses. What, do we suddenly conclude that the police are bad?
Hell, priests have been sleeping with little boys, do we suddenly decide to ban religion?
Two big kids beat up a smaller kid at a school yard. Whoah, let's just ban school.
Basically the point is, this sort of stuff happens everywhere and anywhere. Chances are, in a time of war, these guys who've shot and bombed the comrades of the prison guards aren't going to get royal treatment. Whatever the case, the Abu Grahib guards certainly failed to exercise the discipline expected from soldiers.
About Article 51.
What if the US and the UK firmly believed their actions involved defending their homeland? What if they (and I believe this) REALLY believed that there were WMDs in Iraq? I mean, okay fine, some of you may never believe the US part, but certainly, there is nothing to suggest why the UK would have been on this if they believed there were WMDs. Then what? Yes they were wrong about defending their own country, but they honestly to God thought they were.
