LMAO! That is classic. The guy whos hate ALLEDGED unilateralism wants Belgium to unilaterally use its courts to charge our leaders with war crimes. McMark, YOU MAKE ME SICK.
John yer always sooo right. Aren't you? ---------------------------- Belgium scraps war crimes law Belgium's new government has confirmed it is repealing a controversial law which gives the courts power to try all cases of war crimes no matter where they were committed or by whom. Guy Verhofstadt - who took office as prime minister for a second term on Saturday - said the new coalition had decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law, <b>which has angered the United States. </b> Under a new bill, only war crimes cases involving Belgians, or foreigners living in Belgium, would be considered, he said. Several world leaders - <b>President Bush</b>, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - had cases filed against them under the "universal competence" law. <b>The action prompted the Americans to warn that they would block further funding for Nato's new headquarters in Belgium until the legal threat was withdrawn. </b> It is expected that the bill will be approved by parliament in the coming weeks in a move which was initiated last month, and will bring the law in line with that from other Western states. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3061403.stm I think my job here is done. Good night Johnboy
I know the difference between the court in Belgium, which I knew had dropped its plan to unilaterally charge people, and the World Court. When you said that the charges were coming from other countries, I thought you must have been talking about the Hague. We won't ever understand eachother very much anyway, so why are you surprised at this misunderstanding? Things we may agree upon- Sarah Michelle Geller The Rockets New York Pizza Sarah Michelle Geller btw, I have written many times on this BBS about both courts, and that is a matter of record.
I knew, you do make me sick. If you don't relish the idea of eating New York Pizza off SMG's nude body, you aren't a real American. GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!
It's sad that it has come to this, but can we form a tip jar to help NATO's new headquarters get built?
"This was an allegation that we had behaved in a way which ... if true would have merited my resignation," he added. He stood by the dossier, which said Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within just 45 minutes. "We described the intelligence in a way that was perfectly justified," said Blair, only the second British prime minister to be summoned before a judicial inquiry. While no smoking gun has emerged to support the "sexed up" claim against the government, the inquiry has laid bare the workings of Blair's inner circle in unprecedented fashion. And with no banned weapons found in Iraq, Blair's case for war and handling of its aftermath remain under intense scrutiny. Blair Says Would Have Quit if Iraq Charges True By Dominic Evans and Janet McBride LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said Thursday he would have quit if there were any truth behind a report his government "sexed up" intelligence to justify a war in Iraq (news - web sites) that most Britons opposed. Speaking at an inquiry into the suicide of the scientist who was the main source for the sensational British Broadcasting Corporation report, Blair denied his government had exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq in a key intelligence dossier published last September. But he conceded his government had been under intense pressure from a skeptical public to justify war and acknowledged he wanted the dossier to make "the best case we could have." In a two hour and 20 minute appearance before a packed courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, Blair appeared confident and largely unruffled, referring frequently to notes to respond to questioning. The former lawyer described the main accusation by the BBC reporter -- that the government hyped the Iraqi threat -- as "an absolutely fundamental charge." "This was an allegation that we had behaved in a way which ... if true would have merited my resignation," he added. He stood by the dossier, which said Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within just 45 minutes. "We described the intelligence in a way that was perfectly justified," said Blair, only the second British prime minister to be summoned before a judicial inquiry. However, Blair, whose public trust ratings have plunged during the inquiry, acknowledged he was under intense pressure to make a strong case for disarming Iraq. "The clamor for us to produce evidence was very strong," he said. "We had to disclose what we knew because there was an enormous clamor ... it was important it (the dossier) made the best case we could have." While no smoking gun has emerged to support the "sexed up" claim against the government, the inquiry has laid bare the workings of Blair's inner circle in unprecedented fashion. And with no banned weapons found in Iraq, Blair's case for war and handling of its aftermath remain under intense scrutiny. Although he insisted the contents of the dossier were the work of the intelligence services, the inquiry has shown a series of Blair aides pushed for it to be hardened up. The government has also come under fire for the way it handled weapons expert David Kelly, the BBC's source. Kelly, a soft-spoken scientist unused to the public eye, killed himself last month, just days after being publicly grilled by politicians in Westminster. Critics say he had become a political pawn in the dispute between government and the BBC. Blair said he faced a tough call over whether or not to push Kelly into the limelight. While officials were involved in the decision to out Kelly, Blair said, "I take full responsibility." Scores of people set up camp outside court overnight to see Blair. As the premier arrived, anti-war protesters brandished placards styling him as a "most wanted" criminal and "B.Liar." While nobody expects the government to fall, Blair's standing with the public is now at stake. The only other serving British prime minister to appear before a judicial inquiry was Blair's Conservative predecessor John Major in 1994. That probe also concerned Iraq, and illegal arms sales to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) before the Gulf War (news - web sites) of 1991.
Where are the WMD Blix? Find them or else---! The Bush administration sharply criticized Blix before the war for refusing to back U.S. and British assertions about Iraq's weapons programs in his reports to the U.N. Security Council. U.N. weapons inspectors never found the massive stockpiles of banned weapons that Britain and the U.S. claimed President Saddam Hussein possessed. Neither have the U.S. and British forces who took over the hunt for his arsenal after the war. Blix Felt U.S. Intimidating Him Before Iraq War VIENNA (Reuters) - Former chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix felt Washington was intimidating him to produce reports that would justify military action in the run-up to the Iraq (news - web sites) war, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday. In an interview on BBC television's Hardtalk, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei also said he believed Iraq had not tried to revive its clandestine nuclear weapons program as the United States and Britain insist. Blix and ElBaradei led the hunt for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction for nearly four months late last year and early this year. The IAEA hunted for nuclear weapons, while Blix's UNMOVIC monitoring agency looked for chemical, biological and ballistic arms. Asked if the administration of President Bush (news - web sites) had tried to intimidate him to produce reports support their case for a war on Iraq, ElBaradei said it had not. "I think there were probably more efforts to intimidate Hans Blix, because there were more serious concerns about chemical and biological (weapons)," he said. "Hans complained a lot about the media campaign, some of the administration's efforts to put pressure on him." The Bush administration sharply criticized Blix before the war for refusing to back U.S. and British assertions about Iraq's weapons programs in his reports to the U.N. Security Council. U.N. weapons inspectors never found the massive stockpiles of banned weapons that Britain and the U.S. claimed President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed. Neither have the U.S. and British forces who took over the hunt for his arsenal after the war. ElBaradei said a lesson should be learned about the dangers of cutting short weapons inspections. "If anything comes out from the war in Iraq, it's that inspections take time and that we should not jump to conclusions, because jumping to conclusions on such a vital issue that determines war and peace is very reckless and irresponsible in my opinion," he said. ElBaradei added that he would like to see the situation in Iraq "coming to a closure soon and put an end to that tragic situation." Regarding U.S. and British insistence that Saddam had tried to revive his secret atomic weapons program, which the IAEA says it destroyed in the 1990s, ElBaradei was certain this allegation is unfounded. "I would be very surprised if we were to discover that there was a nuclear weapons program restarted in Iraq," he said. Blix, who headed the IAEA for 16 years until 1997, retired as the director of UNMOVIC at the end of June.
"An interim report on the search for Iraqi weapons is due soon, but there are indications the reports findings might be inconclusive. The Times of London reported this weekend that the report had been postponed because of lack of evidence. But CBS News has learned there is no delay. The Times reports the decision by Britain and America to delay the report's release comes after efforts by the Iraq Survey Group, a team of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, to search Iraq for the past four months to uncover evidence of chemical or biological weapons ended in failure. " http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml?cmp=EM8706 Where's the beef?? 300+ American DEAD Thousands wounded $166 Billion Spent
To anticipate... WMDs are only relevent to the discussion of this war when and if they are found. Until then we are still searching...etc. etc.
The war is over, whether or not we find them is irrelevant at this time. If we don't it will just look like bad intel. If we do...big deal. Taking out Saddam was very important. DD
From Glynch's thread: Quagmire- predicament- dilemma- quandary- insert your favorite synonym for the "sticky situation" in Iraq and another for the lack of even a trace of a Weapons of Mass Destruction find. On and on it goes...
Irrelevant now maybe, irrelevant in Nov. 2004... by then it might gain some importance even in the most jaded eyes. Especially if we continue to have a guerilla war in Iraq that takes about 4 American lives per week. Question- Will we ever hear an announcement from this administration that there are no WMD in Iraq and a specific reason for the intelligence mistakes?
"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said. Before ordering the invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein, President Bush referred to an imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a prime justification for war. "In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs...maybe they'll find some documents of interest," Blix said. After more than five months of searching, no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the Iraq Survey Group, which consists of about 1,500 experts. Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war. In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best. "The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday. "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said. In 1991, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found what it called a secret nuclear weapons program in Iraq. It spent the next seven years dismantling Baghdad's nuclear capability, until its inspectors were thrown out of Iraq. Before ordering the invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein, President Bush referred to an imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a prime justification for war. "In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs...maybe they'll find some documents of interest," Blix said. Blix spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. U.N. inspectors left Iraq in March this year as American and British forces prepared to invade. Calls for their reinstatement have been denied, with the U.S. occupation authorities preferring instead to set up their own body, the Iraq Survey Group. After more than five months of searching, no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the Iraq Survey Group, which consists of about 1,500 experts. U.S. officials said in July that the search had uncovered documents pointing to a program to develop such weapons. But the U.S. media network ABC News reported on Monday that a draft report by the Iraq Survey Group provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded. The U.S. government has consistently said the search for weapons of mass destruction will take time and that it is confident evidence will eventually be uncovered.
Sure Hans !!! I guess that is why they kicked out the inspectors for many years, because they had destroyed all the weapons.... Blix, stix....whatever. DD
Yes, the head weapon inspector's opinion means nothing-- obviously Iraq is teaming with WMD. Maybe another scenario could be the inspectors were kicked out so Saddam could personally deliver all his WMD to Al Qaeda terrorists, either that or destroy them so the invading US military wouldn't find the WMD-- he would never use them to defend his country. Another thought-- maybe Saddam decided not to use his vast arsenal of WMD, because in a few years he could bring them to the Antiques Road Show and make some big bucks.
