6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


The ICJ has no jurisdiction over states unless they accept it, either generally or on a case to case basis. The US (and I think the UK) do not accept general jurisdiction. And I doubt you can stretch the advisory function of the ICJ to get a "decision" on the issue - in any case, it would only be indirect.

The ICC can deal with war crimes etc, but lacks jurisdiction over states (only individuals) and over the Iraq war for several reasons. The legality of the US attack would be a preliminary question for the ICC, so it would not directly decide on the US attack either.

So you're right in the conclusion.

And it amuses me to no end that some little prickbrick thinks he can argue those issues after finding the ICJ homepage.

I figured they had no authority over sovereign states, but wasn't sure. Where did Nicaragua successfully sue the US over economic warfare of the 80s, then?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I figured they had no authority over sovereign states, but wasn't sure. Where did Nicaragua successfully sue the US over economic warfare of the 80s, then?

The ICJ - but that is no longer possible. The US had accepted compulsory automatic jurisdiction in 1946, and revoked it under Reagan (1984, IIRC) to escape the ICJ. But the ICJ still held that that did not retroactively remove the ICJ's jurisdiction on the case in question. The US team had some other quite pathetic "arguments", but they were pointless. Only a few arguments held water, partly from older US reservations, but that's quite compliacted and I'd have to read it up to be sure.

And btw, "economic warfare" played a small role, it was mostly about US state terrorism. Although the ICJ did not attribute the Contra's actions to the US.

[KrazyHorse]

I thought it was mostly about mining harbour etc. The contra actions were where most of the blood came in, so I thought the suit was more about economic damages.

[HershOstropoler]

Yes, it was mostly about the mining of nicaraguan territorial waters. I'd say "economic warfare" is a euphemism for that, as it sounds like trade war.

[KrazyHorse]

I wanted to avoid terms like state terrorism because then we'd have a bunch of folks shouting at us.

[HershOstropoler]

That's the reason why I use it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Hah! It's been an hour and no Democrat has bothered to defend their party! Are they all asleep?

Perhaps the fact that you're an admitted troll and your initial post was nothing but troll and spin, rather than citing the entire article or the underlying memo?

The crap you posted wasn't worth substantive answer. And the "politicization" was of the white house continuously stonewalling on releasing info that would indicate the proverbial what they knew and when they knew it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Perhaps the fact that you're an admitted troll and your initial post was nothing but troll and spin, rather than citing the entire article or the underlying memo?

OK, MtG, here is the LA Times Story. I will see if I can find a copy of the memo itself on the web.

THE NATION
Democrats' Iraq Inquiry Plan Is Leaked

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — A simmering political struggle behind the Senate inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq boiled over publicly Tuesday with the disclosure of a Democratic memo outlining strategies for "exposing the administration's dubious motives" behind the war.

The leaked memo, which was prepared by the staff of Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, discusses ways that Democrats can steer the existing inquiry toward taking a more critical look at the White House.

It also indicates that Democrats intend to launch a separate independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence as the parties head into the height of the presidential election season next year.

"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq," the memo says. "Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war."

The tone of the memo could be embarrassing to Democrats and provides new ammunition for Republican complaints that Democrats are seeking to use the inquiry for political gain.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the intelligence committee, described the memo as a "slap in the face" to the committee's bipartisan traditions and called the plan an effort to undercut the panel's inquiry.

"It's an attack plan," Roberts said late Tuesday in an interview on Fox News Channel.

In a statement released by his press office, Roberts said the memo "exposes politics in its most raw form…. It's a purely partisan document that appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan objective review of prewar intelligence."

Rockefeller also released a statement, acknowledging that the memo was written by his staff, but saying that it had not been approved "nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else."

"Having said that," Rockefeller added, "the memo clearly reflects staff frustration with the conduct of the … investigation and the difficulties of obtaining information from the administration."

Rockefeller also took a swipe at those behind the leak of the memo, saying it "was likely taken from a wastebasket or through unauthorized computer access."

The disclosure is the latest sign of discord and partisan maneuvering on the committee, which began its investigation of the prewar intelligence on Iraq this summer.

Roberts has repeatedly indicated that he would like to limit the investigation to examining the performance of the CIA and other agencies. He has angered Democrats by making comments to the media suggesting that the probe is "90 [%] to 95%" finished and that certain conclusions have already been reached.

Democrats have argued that the probe should not be confined to the performance of the intelligence agencies, but should also examine whether the administration pressured analysts to reach certain conclusions or misrepresented intelligence findings to the public.

The memo was first reported Tuesday by conservative radio and television commentator Sean Hannity. Fox News Channel, on which Hannity is co-host of a talk show, said it was provided by a source on the committee. A spokeswoman for Roberts denied that he or his staff was behind the leak.

The plans proposed in the memo have for the most part been known and discussed by sources on the committee for some time. Indeed, Democrats had already proposed an independent investigation in a measure that was defeated on the Senate floor. Rockefeller was among those voting against it.

Still, the memo provides a rare glimpse into the workings of the secretive committee. The document advises Democrats to "pull the majority along as far as we can" in focusing the inquiry on the use of intelligence by the White House. It notes that Democrats have already compiled "all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials" leading up to the war.

"We will identify the most exaggerated claims," it says. "We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified." Democrats should "assiduously prepare" additional views to attach to the final report, which is now expected to be completed sometime next year.

Finally, it maps out a plan to "pull the trigger" on an independent investigation "when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority …. The best time to do so will probably be next year."

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/goto/?getPage=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Elatimes%2Ecom%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fla%2Dna%2Dintel5nov05%2C1%2C2435310%2Estory%3Fcoll%3Dla%2Dheadlines%2Dpolitics&return=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edrudgereportarchives%2Ecom%2Fdsp%2Flinks%5Frecap%2Ehtm

[Ned]

Here is a transcript of the Hannity and Colmes report on the memo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102275,00.html

[Ned]

See, MtG. The lack of a Democrat defense to charge of politicizing the investigation into pre-war intelligence has nothing to do with my failure to provide a link the actual news reports.

[MichaeltheGreat]

By definition, every political act is political. Are the Democrats the only ones doing the politicizing, or is the white house also politicizing by refusing to provide data to Congressional committees and to the 9/11 inquiry?

Nixon certainly didn't politicize when he stonewalled, right? Nor did Clinton?

We have a National Security Adviser still in the job over two years after blatantly, undeniably, lying to the American people. "We had absolutely no indications of airliners being used as weapons"

None for that specific day or those specific targets, but it is already admitted that there were two specific pieces of intelligence made available to the National Security Council during the Bush administration regarding al Qaeda use of airliners to attack buildings. The National Security Adviser saw both, and she got up on a podium on worldwide TV and she lied.

Clinton's intel agencies and people are at fault as well, but the executive agencies are at fault.

What is there to be "embarassed" about on the Dem side in this particular case?

The Democrats didn't say Saddam's Republican Guard units would be able to launch WMD's 45 minutes from receiving the orders.

The Democrats didn't talk about the Iraqis having the ability to launch UAV's from ships and fly them "hundreds of miles" into the US "spraying weapons of mass destruction" - I heard Bush say that, and I almost fell over laughing, except for the fact some clowns would believe that kind of crap.

Why shouldn't the inquiry be shifted towards the white house? That's where the executive level policy making occurs.

Funny that the Republicans would whine about the inquiry being "used for political gain" by the Demos. The political gain will depend on one thing only - the truth. If the Bush administration is clean and honest, and the faults lie elsewhere, Bush will gain, or at best break even.

If the admin is shown to have massaged the intel, or outright lied, then the truth will hurt. Who's afraid of the truth?

[Ned]

No one is afraid of the truth in Congress. The point is, MtG, is that even before the Senate Intelligence Committee has ended its investigation the Democrats had a plan to "label" it as insufficient and to call for an independent investigation. They planned to do this during next year's campaign. This has nothing at all to do with finding the truth.

[Ned]

As to Condi Rice. We haven't heard a lot from her or about her since her public run-in with Rumsfeld. I have the feeling that she is on her way out.

[HershOstropoler]

The Democrats still have so much to learn from Karl Rove....