Rumsfeld & The Lies of Iraq/ Helen C. NZ 2007-02-09 23:56:23
Given the latest news out of the US proving that there was no connection or communications between Osama bin Laden and Iraq and that the w.m.d information was 'over-estimated', I am just so glad that New Zealand did not get involved. It once again proves that the analysis that Mr Luf makes from time to time are 'right on the money'.
The case against Rumsfeld/ JB/UK 2007-02-08 12:39:12
As an attorney dealing with International Law matters, I must agree with your journalist. He is obviously in the wrongs profession. He should be an attorney. I would hate to see him as the Judge in any of my cases. Twenty years would be part of his opening remarks, with the sentence in any proven case likely to be double that.
Trading leaders/ Henk Luf 2007-02-07 21:00:47
No, I was not thinking of trading Bush for Howard. I was thinking more along the lines of selling Bush, would not be getting much, and throwing John Howard' in as a bonus. But I think Harper it shall be.
Regards
Henk
trading leaders/ pryvateer 2007-02-06 22:26:47
Do you think that Bush is an improvement over Howard? If I am forced to choose - make mine Harper, the potential making of a true classic liberal.
Looking forward to reading your future articles and engaging in more intelligent reparte.
Bill
US and World Opinion/ Henk Luf 2007-02-06 10:35:27
Hi Pryvateer. Another sound contribution. Indeed, the grey areas as you mentioned should apply to all cases, including the Mosque theory and other 'civilians' with various types of weapons hidden under coats, jackets and other places just as they did during both your and my time in Vietnam. The legal precedence will be set if proposals before the ICC as well as a couple of current case will be successfull. The proposals, brought forward by a number of international experts, will tighten up the defintions substantially and some of the current cases will also confirm the theory as put. It will then open up a whole host of options in terms of prosecutions. There are other laws and legal definitions at play here with various countries but the opportunities are encouraging. Mind you, while I might be chasing Rumsfeld at the moment, others are in my sights as well.
In terms of the world's view of the US. The scenario that the US is in now happened once before in Vietnam. Different times, different scenarios, but the overall situation looks and smells familiar. I would dearly love to see a much less hostile US on the world scene. A US much less willing to stick its neck out for deadbeat situations and sometimes, deadbeat countries. The reason why I am saying this is because every time the US ventures into a place, its reputation goes down the drain, the debt levels go through the roof, and US citizens become a target for all sorts of fruitcakes. My view is, defend the US by all means, by control the half-wits within the country, and we have of few of those here as well, that are trying to make a name for themselves or get a bit of revenge.
In relation to Iraq having wmd's, and I know this first hand without going into too much detail. Iraq was attempting to develop wmd's. It used a crude form of weapon, for want of a better term, in the kurdish area and it used rather crude devices during its war with Iran. Subsequently, while some basic 'bits and pieces' were found during inspections, we could not find either complete or near-complete weapons or weapon systems, which explains the Scuds firings into Israel in the first war without a major payload. On a more lighter note. Should you wish to trade your President for a better one, can I suggest a package deal that we could include John Howard, our Australian PM. Take care. Henk
US and World Opinion/ pryvateer 2007-02-06 08:16:05
Henk Luf, I sometimes find it difficult to find intelligent life in the universe - mostly screaming when you contest their 'faith' based arguments with facts. Thanx for the quality of your arguments.
By your own admission, most of those areas are grey when it comes to fighting the Vietnam's, Somalia's, Afganistan's, etc., which makes my point. An International Court would have to first create legal precedence on whether fighters dressed as civilians and using civilian's as hostages and their sanctuaries like Mosques are covered under the Geneva - then Rumsfeld et.al. behavior could be ruled illegal. Until then, the behavior is unpopular, not illegal.
Now for world opinion and the US. Since the vast majority of the world are customers for our products and services, it is in our best interest to be popular, however placing the defense of the nation at it's mercy is not. The US, like all sovereign nations, must make the best decision for their countries future based on it's own self-interest. The fact the US has an inarticulate President doesn't diminish the argument. As for your contention about WMD, VP Cheney cautioned the administration not to go down that rat hole - making the reason for action the weapons - instead of a broader (and right) purpose. As a former scientist/engineer - if those weapons where disposed of or dumped, ample evidence would exist. Iraq had the weapons, as verified by the UN, and after broadcasting for 6 months we were going to attack - the WMD disappeared. To steal a line from Casablanca "I'm shocked". If we were lying, then how do you explain every national intelligence agency agreeing with our assessment? Even the countries that opposed the war with Iraq agreed with the assessment. This little fandango amuses me - Bush is all knowing when it comes secret inside intelligence, but then an idiot when it comes to everything else.
BTW - just to level the playing field. I am a Libertarian, did not vote for Bush and would not if given another opportunity.
Case against Rumpy/ Henk Luf 2007-02-05 20:53:44
Hi Pryvateer. Ah those mandatory classes. I remember them well. It seems that every 'western' military outfit in the world had those and, like yourself, I certainly had my fair share. I think we might be running cross-purpose. Indeed, your argument in relation to the Geneva Convention is sound but it applies to 'normal', if there is such a thing, wars that are declared. However, the grey area comes in when a country, in this case the US, walks into a place and basically takes over in its own right or through local entities. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq and others are examples. In such situations, the matter of conducting an operation which may involve taking prisoners also becomes rather grey upon which it becomes very easy to find breaches, very easy in fact. In the case of Iraq. Indeed there were 17 UN resolutions. However none gave automatic offensive options. And the basis upon which the major Powell presentation was made was outright false. I think where, the US needs to go as to avoid being 'hated' around the world even in countries that are normally supportive of the US as a nation, is to start looking at its international standing. This will mean going into places only when invited, more peace keeping roles, chasing people like yound Osama and generally stay out of the domestic affairs of other countries totally. It is not defeatist, it is not a defeat, it is simply reality and a way to salvage some of the America's reputation which, internationally looks like the perverbial brown matter at the moment. In essence, I think that the US needs to learn that its military power essentially ends 12 miles off-shore and along its borders. I also think that the US has a right to find and capture the like of Osama and others responsible for the direct attacks on New York and Washington which may mean smaller, more specialised forces such as the Navy Seals and SAS-style forces.
I hope you have fun with this one. Tke care. Henk.
Henk Luf, thanx for the well considered response to my post. My position and argument on the issue of the Geneva Convention is simple, they are not covered and therefore outside this international agreement. As a former military officer who conducted yearly classes (mandatory) on the the articles being discussed, these individuals are outside the rules by choice. I am sure you can find international lawyers who disagree, but nobody within the US military establishment does - and therefore their decisions are logical from that interpretation. As a side note, if the Geneva Convention applied to these type of individuals - the US would have never signed the agreement. Given how they could have been treated, the US government has demonstrated overall restraint (I am sure there are individual examples beyond our cultural norms and those have been prosecuted) with individuals dedicated to our destruction.
As for your position on the illegality of the Iraqi War, refer to the peace agreement the Iraqi government signed at the end of the Gulf War - it empowered any of the signatories to take independent action if the peace treaty was violated, and that fact was documented by 17 UN Resolutions.
That doesn't make the Iraqi War popular, just necessary.
The case against Rumsfelt/ Henk Luf 2007-02-05 09:10:04
Hi pryvateer. The opinion, upon being put to them, comes from the various International Law experts and I have some expertise in the areas of international law myself. You are correct in relation to the Geneva Convention area as you you put. The problem for the US is that it went outside international processes for a purpose. As to avoid srcutiny.Hence Guantanamo Bay hence the rendition flights. Not one person would ever ask the US to give up its sovereignty apart from the the US, or any other country for that matter, signs to comply with international stipulations agreed, rights of the child being an example. However, US sovereignty ends at the departure gate of Kennedy Airport, so to speak, beyond which International or third country law applies. The people captured by US forces and then transported to third countries were captured illegally and transported illegally. In fact, whatever one thinks of former Iraqi regime, and it was a nasty piece of work, the fact remains that the whole conduct of the US and its allies, was illegal and the case indeed exists for follow up on what I put. Thanks for your comments though, they are sound ones. Greetings
Rumsfeld/ pryvateer 2007-02-05 08:10:53
Interesting reporting/editorial, is he just stating the opinion of others or his own? I will comment on the one topic that I have familiarity with - Geneva Convention. None of the people captured are covered, they are not signatories and their behavior in the field excludes them from its provisions.
Besides when did the United States surrender its sovereignty to an international body?
Look who we found!/ hek 2007-02-04 21:20:40
It appears that someone in the Bush administration has located and managed to successfully read this document.
Congratulations "Buss" on your incredible insight.
My opinion ?
Rumsfeld = War criminal
The Case Against Rumsfeld/ David F 2007-02-04 20:27:48
Thank you Henk. I agree. As an Attorney in Law, your argument is well put. As a major country, we in the US, need to follow up on your views and opinions.
The Case Against Rumsfeld./ Henk Luf 2007-02-04 19:55:03
T David and Mick. Thank you gentlemen. All I am really doing here is to put a legal argument that needs to be put and needs to be put firmly and on a worldwide basis. I am not really interested in what the US Government does, provided that Government does so within internationally recognised confines and within the confines of international laws and conventions. When these confines are breached, it is the duty of journalists, lawyers and the wider international community to ensure justice prevails. And to Abu. I will take the case of beer. I could do with one. Thanks
The case against Rumsfeld/ David f 2007-02-04 19:35:56
Your comments are right Mick. It appears to me that when it comes to human right, war crimes etc, there is one set of laws from rich country and one set for all the others. That needs to change. All Mr Luf appears to be doing is to set those changes in motion. As to his training. You could well be correct.
The case against Rumfeld/ Mick 2007-02-04 19:27:12
David is correct. The argument Mr Luf put is legally without flaw. It is also refreshing to see that some within the media, and I suspect the author might be legally trained, are now starting too at the legal aspects.
Well done Mr Luf
The case against Rumfeld/ David f 2007-02-04 19:17:20
The manner in which the author puts the case is legally sound. The manner in which the United Nations and the International Criminal Court will deal with such a case remains to be seen. The legal argument is there. The will of the international community to deal with these abuses by the US appears not to be. A good piece of legal argument.
rumsfeld/ buss 2007-02-04 18:14:20
it's up to you mr. luf to shut the fuck up
The Case Against Rumsfeld/ Abu 2007-02-04 07:48:43
Don't just give this author a beer. Give him a case full of beers. Very well put and legally correct.
