No weapons, no ongoing programs, .....not quite the continuing 'threat' that was purported in (1), eh?.

...as to (2), the 'enforcement' of all previous Security Council resolutions, ...there never was a second, or followup to Resolution1441 that granted permission for a pre-emptive war of aggression.
International law leaves that power in the hands of the Security Council and it was not granted.


...and while we are wanting to cite a where-as or two, ......let's not forget Public Law 107-40, (...as cited in the where-as's), ,,,,, ""

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

+++++++++++++++++

Now if you want to argue that Bush has the legal authority to declare whoever he chooses to be a 'terrorist' and hence, a threat to the nation, and that he is granted the power to act on his own to authorize acts of aggression, pre-emptive wars and invasions without Security Council approval, I wouldn't be surprised at all. (...seems to be a few others around Bush that think that way too.)

But 'wanting' to believe in something doesn't necessarily make it a reality, tom.

(..though, come to think of it, ....a personal belief in an alternate reality seems to be a dominant trait that both Bush, and you demonstrate regularly)
-----------------------------------------------
....(funny, eh,...... how the 'law' is so very useful when it appears to serve a lawman's purpose, no? ....and yet, that same 'law' can be so easily dismissed if it happens to be inconvenient or restricts their purpose.)

---

No weapons, no ongoing programs, .....not quite the continuing 'threat' that was purported in (1), eh?.

This is getting repetitive. Iraq was under obligations originating in its cease-fire agreement to verifiably halt all WMD programs. It had to metaphorically put all of the materials and tools to make those materials in a pile, let the UN inventory it, then set it on fire.

No one with even a tenuous grasp on reality has argued that Saddam's Iraq had done this. Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, granting the original coalition authorized by the UN to liberate Kuwait to resume hostilities. At any time. With or without any further justification.

At any point since the Iraqis started playing their shell game with the UN inspectors, Bush, Clinton, or W could have awakened on the wrong side of the bed and launched an invasion. Legally. With the UN resolutions' blessing.

Instead, the UN bent over backwards to appease those who voted for the original cease-fire terms but since wish they hadn't. It was sent to the UN Security Council again, which reiterated the original demands placed upon Iraq. It was sent to the US Congress so that Democrats could claim to be "tough on terrorism" during the 2002 congressional elections. None of this was necessary from a legal standpoint, although there were sound political reasons for going thru the motions (Congress could yank the funding for an invasion).

Whether Iraq had an ongoing WMD program is actually irrelevant. It could have had one, and was acting like it had one, and had nothing to gain from pretending to have one that it didn't have. This is a case of the charge of covering up does not depend on the underlying charge of posessing prohibited weapons.

...as to (2), the 'enforcement' of all previous Security Council resolutions, ...there never was a second, or followup to Resolution1441 that granted permission for a pre-emptive war of aggression.
International law leaves that power in the hands of the Security Council and it was not granted.

The Gulf War was authorized by UN Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678, 686 and 687. That doesn't even begin to count the resolutions citing Iraq during its long period of noncompliance and the final, unnecessary, resolution 1441.

...and while we are wanting to cite a where-as or two, ......let's not forget Public Law 107-40, (...as cited in the where-as's), ,,,,, ""

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, although I don't think anyone now believes that Iraq was involved directly with the 9/11 attacks. The congressional authorization to invade Iraq does state that Saddam was involved with 9/11, and every congressman who voted for the invasion thus "signed on" to that statement, but it was not the basis for the invasion.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

....(funny, eh,...... how the 'law' is so very useful when it appears to serve a lawman's purpose, no? ....and yet, that same 'law' can be so easily dismissed if it happens to be inconvenient or restricts their purpose.)

Pauly-poo, there are lots of people who post to these boards, and across the country, who oppose the war in Iraq on moral grounds. I have no argument with them. You try to make a legal argument against it that completely fails. Calling something illegal does not make it so, calling someone a liar does not make it so. You have to back up your claims with facts and you have utterly fail to do that.

Words in any language have a generally agreed-upon meaning; that’s why there are dictionaries. You specifically said, “Section 3, paragraph B, [which] clearly requires proof that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.” I pointed out that the law did not say that at all. Since you have chosen to ignore my claim, the only logical assumption is that you realize that you were wrong. But since you don’t subscribe to logic, you will more likely claim that you were right all along. You simply can’t show where “Section 3, paragraph B” requires the proof that you said it did. This isn’t spin on my part–you just don’t seem to understand what the words you cited actually mean.

No weapons, no ongoing programs, .....not quite the continuing 'threat' that was purported in (1), eh?.

[snip, answered by Octagon]

...and while we are wanting to cite a where-as or two, ......let's not forget Public Law 107-40, (...as cited in the where-as's), ,,,,, ""

The “whereas” section of this (or any) resolution states the grounds on which the resolution is based. Weapons of Mass Destruction, ongoing programs, etc. was language used by Congress. You just proved that Congress passed a resolution based on a belief that there were WMD, just like the President and every intellegence agency believed that there were WMD. And as for Public Law 107-40, that was Congress’ authorization, as specifically allowed under the Constitution, for the President to take action to prevent future terrorist attacks. So, Public Law 107-40 does indeed support, and is consistent with the president’s use of force in Iraq.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

You don’t say where you found this paragraph. I can’t find this language in the Joint Resolution that authorized the president to use military force in Iraq. If this is part of Public Law 107-40, it is not inconsistent with the later joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Now if you want to argue that Bush has the legal authority to declare whoever he chooses to be a 'terrorist' and hence, a threat to the nation, and that he is granted the power to act on his own to authorize acts of aggression, pre-emptive wars and invasions without Security Council approval, I wouldn't be surprised at all. (...seems to be a few others around Bush that think that way too.)

I never said that the president can "act on his own" to authorize military action. The president was given authority by Congress to take military action in Iraq. You yourself cited the Joint Resolution that gave the president that authority. Also, this is not a “preemptive” war. It is enforcement of cease-fire agreements agreed to after the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait. I know that I’ve said that over and over again, but you keep ignoring me and you keep failing to show me where I am wrong.

[Edit]: Security Council approval is not required for the United States to take military action. The only approval required by the Constitution is approval by the United States Congress. No country has ever ceded to the United Nations a right to approve or disapprove war.

But 'wanting' to believe in something doesn't necessarily make it a reality, tom.

(..though, come to think of it, ....a personal belief in an alternate reality seems to be a dominant trait that both Bush, and you demonstrate regularly)

This is a particularly ironic attempt to discredit me, when your posts are full of claims that you want to believe, but have no basis in reality. Even your lap dog, Carl, can do no more in your defense than post a weak attempt at sarcasm; but Carl’s post had more truth in it that he intended, and more truth than you have ever been able to manage in any of your posts.

---

Account frozen...

Effort to rebuke Iran facing new hurdles

New York Times News Service

January 24, 2006

WASHINGTON – The U.S. and European drive to rebuke Iran over its nuclear activities ran into new difficulties yesterday, raising doubts about whether the International Atomic Energy Agency would refer Iran quickly to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action, European diplomats said.

The diplomats said Russian resistance to pressing the case against Iran when the atomic energy agency board meets Feb. 2 made it increasingly unlikely that the board would adopt the kind of resolution being sought by the United States and Europe.

President Bush said in a speech yesterday at Kansas State University that the West could be "blackmailed" if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon.

Tom-
Because you disagree with me is not good enough reason to continually disparage anything I might say as a weak attempt at sarcasm trying to serve opionions offered only by others.
Your superior insight and command of your mental, spiritual and linguistic powers excessively excludes and dissmisses any and all who express what they will, in what you seem to consider, substandard vernacular.
Read whatever you want into my language but please try resisting such characterization of those who walk upright, as I'm sure you do, but without the attendant stick up their ass...cc

Tom-
Because you disagree with me is not good enough reason to continually disparage anything I might say as a weak attempt at sarcasm trying to serve opionions offered only by others.
Your superior insight and command of your mental, spiritual and linguistic powers excessively excludes and dissmisses any and all who express what they will, in what you seem to consider, substandard vernacular.
Read whatever you want into my language but please try resisting such characterization of those who walk upright, as I'm sure you do, but without the attendant stick up their ass...cc

Carl,
You don't seem to mind in the least when your friend Pauly-poo "continually disparage(s) anything I might say". Then you chirp in with your barely understandable, non-contribution. Why don't you post a message here to Zippy about how he treats me? And you--you're his closest ally. So, did you think I would apologise to you after you tell me I have a stick up my ass? I give you all the respect you deserve.

I think FRanklin D. Roosevelt said it best about extremes, when he admonished both the Steel Companies and the United Steel Workers with the quote, "a plague on both your houses." The irony here is that I enjoy reading both Tom's and Carl's postings (I leave Paul out of the picture by default). Try to get along.

---

Account frozen...

Audit reveals chaos with cash for Iraq
Reconstruction funds misused, report says

By James Glanz
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

January 25, 2006

A new audit of U.S. financial practices in Iraq has uncovered irregularities including millions of reconstruction dollars stuffed casually into footlockers and filing cabinets, an American soldier in the Philippines who gambled away cash belonging to Iraq and three Iraqis who plunged to their deaths in a rebuilt hospital elevator that had been improperly certified as safe.

The audit, released yesterday by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, expands on its previous findings of fraud, incompetence and confusion as the U.S. occupation poured money into training and rebuilding programs in 2003 and 2004. The audit uncovers problems in an area that includes half the landmass in Iraq, with new findings in the southern and central provinces of Anbar, Karbala, Najaf, Wasit, Babil and Qadisiya.

The special inspector reports to the secretary of defense and the secretary of state. Agents from the inspector general's office found that the living and working quarters of U.S. occupation officials were awash in shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills.

One official kept $2 million in a bathroom safe, another more than a half-million dollars in an unlocked footlocker.

One contractor received more than $100,000 to refurbish an Olympic swimming pool, but only polished the pumps. Even so, American officials certified the work as completed.

More than 2,000 contracts, ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than a half-million – $88 million in all – were examined by agents from the inspector general's office. The report says that in some cases, the agents found clear indications of potential fraud and that investigations are continuing.

Some of those cases are expected to intersect with the investigations of four Americans who have been arrested on bribery, theft, weapons and conspiracy charges for what federal prosecutors say was a scheme to steer reconstruction projects to an American contractor working out of the southern city of Hillah, which served as a kind of provincial capital for a swath of Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority.

But much of the material in the latest audit is new, and the portrait it paints of abandoned rebuilding projects, nonexistent paperwork and cash routinely taken from the main vault in Hillah without a log to keep track of the transactions is likely to raise questions about how the provisional authority did business and accounted for huge expenditures of Iraqi and American money.

"What's sad about it is that, considering the destruction in the country, with looting and so on, we needed every dollar for reconstruction," said Wayne White, a former State Department official whose responsibilities included Iraq from 2003 to 2005, and who is now at the Middle East Institute.

Instead, White said, large amounts of that money may have been wasted or stolen, with strong indications that the chaos in Hillah might have been repeated at other provisional authority outposts.

Leaping from the often dry language of the new audit is a picture of cash that flowed freely in the Hillah compound. No records were kept as money came and went from the main vault, and inside the vault, it was often stashed haphazardly in a filing cabinet.

That arrangement led to a dispute when one official for the provisional authority, while clearing his accounts on his way out of Iraq, grabbed $100,000 from another official's stack of cash, according to the report.

The move might never have been discovered except that the second official "had to make a disbursement that day and realized that he was short cash," the report says.

Outside the vault, money seemed to be stuffed into every nook and cranny in the compound. "One contracting officer kept approximately $2 million in cash in a safe in his office bathroom, while a paying agent kept approximately $678,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker in his office," the report says.

The money, most from Iraqi oil proceeds and cash seized from Saddam Hussein's regime, also found its way out of the compound and the country.

In one case, an American soldier assigned as an assistant to the Iraqi Olympic boxing team was given huge amounts of cash for a trip to the Philippines, where the soldier gambled away between $20,000 and $60,000 of the money. Exactly how much has not been determined, the report says, because no one kept track of how much money he had received.

In another connection to Iraq's Olympic effort, a $108,140 contract to refurbish the Hillah Olympic swimming pool, including the replacement of pumps and pipes, came to nothing when the contractor polished some of the hardware to make it appear as if new equipment had been installed. Officials for the provisional authority signed paperwork stating that all the work had been completed properly and paid the contractor in full, the report says.

The pool never reopened, and when agents from the inspector general's office arrived to try out the equipment, "the water came out a murky brown due to the accumulated dirt and grime in the old pumps," the report says.

Sometimes the consequences of such loose controls were deadly.

A contract for $662,800 in civil, electrical and mechanical work to rehabilitate the Hillah General Hospital was paid in full by a U.S. official in June 2004 even though the work was not finished, the report says. But instead of replacing a central elevator bank, as called for in the scope of work, the contractor tinkered with an unsuccessful rehabilitation.

The report continues, narrating the observation of the inspector general's agents who visited the hospital on Sept. 18, 2004: "The hospital administrator immediately escorted us to the site of the elevators. The administrator said that just a couple days prior to our arrival the elevator crashed and killed three people."

---

Account frozen...

And then yes...?

---

Account frozen...

Google agrees to censoring in China
Company says limits allow it better access

By Michael Liedtke
ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 25, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO – Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest-growing market.

Google is cooperating with China's government at the same time it is battling the U.S. government over a subpoena seeking a breakdown of one week's worth of search requests – a list that would cover millions of terms.

The Mountain View-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China's Web suffix ".cn," today.

A Chinese-language version of Google's search engine has previously been available through the company's dot-com address in the United States.

To obtain a Chinese license, Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisons on guidance provided by Chinese government officials.

Although China has loosened some controls in recent years, some topics, such as Taiwan's independence and 1989's Tiananmen Square massacre, remain forbidden subjects.

By creating a unique Web address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world's most populous country.

Because of government barriers set up to suppress information, Google's China users previously have been blocked from using the search engine or encountered lengthy delays in response time.

The service troubles have frustrated many Chinese users, hobbling Google's efforts to expand its market share in a country that expected to emerge as an Internet gold mine over the next decade.

China already has more than 100 million Web surfers, and the audience is expected to swell substantially – an alluring prospect for Google as it tries to boost its already rapidly rising profits.

Initially, Google's Chinese service will be limited to searching Web pages and images. The company also will provide local search results and a special edition of its news service that will be confined to government-sanctioned media.

Baidu.com Inc., a Beijing-based company in which Google owns a 2.6 percent stake, runs China's most popular search engine. A recent Keynote Systems survey of China's Internet preferences concluded that Baidu remains vulnerable to challenges from Google and Yahoo Inc.

Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

Google's decision rankled Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog group that has sharply criticized Internet companies, including Yahoo and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.com, for submitting to China's censorship regime.

"This is a real shame," said Julien Pain, head of Reporters Without Borders' Internet desk. "When a search engine collaborates with the government like this, it makes it much easier for the Chinese government to control what is being said on the Internet."

When Google censors the results in China, it intends to post notifications alerting users that some content has been removed – to comply with local laws.

The company provides similar alerts in Germany and France when, to comply with national laws, it censors results to remove references to Nazi paraphernalia.

Reflecting its uneasy alliance with the Chinese government, Google isn't releasing all its services.

Neither Google's e-mail nor blogging services will be offered in China because the company doesn't want to risk being ordered by the government to turn over anyone's personal information.

The e-mail service, called Gmail, creates a huge database of users' messages and makes them instantly searchable. The blogging services contain a wide range of personal background.

Yahoo came under fire last year after it provided the Chinese government with the e-mail account information of a Chinese journalist who was later convicted for violating state secrecy laws.

Suppose that the NSA intercepts a phone call between an American citizen and someone whose number was programmed into a captured al Qaeda cellphone. Perfectly normal conversation is overheard. Grandmother is doing well; uncle is having his foot surgery next week; there was minor flooding in the recent rains. This goes on for three or four days. FISA says there is no probable cause to continue tapping. Fourth or fifth day they start plotting to blow up a major metropolitan train station.

Intelligence gathering is more art than science. Interception before an act has occured is not the same thing as gathering evidence after an act has occured. Court-issued warrants are not the appropriate oversight mechanism.

Now, there needs to be some kind of oversight mechanism, but it more likely falls under Congress's oversight role over Executive agencies rather than the Judicial branch. The FISA court was set up under the false premise that intelligence is to be used to eventually accuse the American of espionage. Intelligence is used to protect the country first; prosecution is not the priority.

The intelligence folks would rather prevent a massive terrorist strike than let one happen but have "clean" evidence against those who did it.

(edit for spelling)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Congressional oversight, that's funny, the last time I looked both Houses had Republican majorities. Could it be they're been preoccupied by bending over for K Street?

---

Account frozen...

Congressional oversight, that's funny, the last time I looked both Houses had Republican majorities. Could it be they're been preoccupied by bending over for K Street?

Last time I looked, Democrats were on every committee with oversight powers. If something blatent were being done, they (the Democrats) would at least know about it.

We're talking about two different things here: violations of civil (note the word civil) liberties, and use of the President's war powers. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, shut down newspapers that sided with the South and had Federal authorities conduct searches without warrants, all in the name of prosecuting the Civil War. That power is constitutional. In time of peace, it is not constitutional to do those things, so a special court was set up a few years ago to authorize wiretaps and other searches. For people in America who do criminal acts not related to the war, all civil liberties still apply.

Congressional oversight, that's funny, the last time I looked both Houses had Republican majorities. Could it be they're been preoccupied by bending over for K Street?

The US Consitution allows for checks and balances to prevent any one branch from usurping the others. In the past century or so there has been an increasing tendency to see the Judiciary as the cure for all disputes. This is now how the government was designed. Judges are just as corruptable and fallable as anyone else. The problem is not that the Legislature or the Executive is somehow incapable of performing its duties, rather the tortuous logic that the Judiciary has applied to political speech has created a campaign finance system that most would equate to institutionalized bribery.

(I know that bribery is technically for quid pro quo agreements, but 'influence peddling' doesn't have the right ring to it.)

So much for the Judiciary as saviors.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

---

Account frozen...

Kings don't have to win elections.

Kings don't have to win elections.

OK, one out of two ain't bad.

---

Account frozen...