SL-Mark: To add some info on “the man”, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was in clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

Tuesday: Care to elaborate on that? Are you saying that Clinton had no responsibility as the US leader and the commander of US forces? Or do you intend to convey something else? Or anything at all? Have you ever thought about taking a communications class?

Tuesday: Please do google and check. It is OK with me indeed.

I have no idea where you got the info that I hate you (whatever “us” is) or that am giving Clinton credit ot blaming him for making that decision (whatever “this decision” is). My posts on this subject have been, so far, the following:

1. Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

2. To add some info on “the man”, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was in clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

Artful Dodger:

> The libearal mind in the US wants to pin the "War Criminal" charge on George Bush and
> when pressed for reasons, they cite a number of things Bush authorized that were
> criminal in the eyes of International Law or simply against US standards. And yet, when
> it's pointed out that Obama is doing EXACTY THE SAME THINGS, they look at you as if
> they don't understand the connection.

I think that ultimately the legal implications of the war in Iraq are a moot point. Was Iraq a threat, and if so, how? The Bush administration made two claims about Iraq. First, that it was a "terrorist state" that supported Al Qaida and presumably other terror networks. Second, Iraq possessed WMDs in quantities that were a direct threat not just to the US, but to the rest of the world.

On the first point, even before the war Bush was dismissed as being wrong because nobody could prove a link between the Baathist regime in Iraq and Al Qaida. The Baathist Party was a secular organization and Saddam Hussein had traditionally oppressed Shiite moslems because he saw them as a threat against his power. The link between Iraq and Al Qaida was never proven and to date it has not been proven conclusively.

On the second point, as is well known now, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities was for the most part manufactured and both before and after the war no WMD stockpiles were ever found in Iraq. In most cases what the military found were abandoned installations, run down laboratories and the like. The large stockpiles of WMDs claimed by the Bush administration were never found. That is an undeniable fact. No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq before and after the invasion.

So we are left with a war in which the political motivations were never proven. At the same time between 400,000 and 1.5 million people have died, depending on whose statistical data one believes. The US military confirms about 380,000 killed, while other things like the Iraq Body Count project project deaths into the 1.5 million range.

The American government has never publicly admitted the number of casualties before the American public. Either they don't care, or are embarrassed by this.

Added to this, is the fact that the main economic beneficiaries of the war were closely linked to the president and the immediate cabinet:
- Haliburton (Dick Cheney)
- Chevron (Condoleeza Rice)
- Exxon (Lee Raymond, the largest contributor to both of George W. Bush's campaigns)
- G.D. Searle (the largest supplier of biotechnology to Iraq, at the time run by Donald Rumsfeld)
- The Carlisle Group (where the Bush family and the Bin Laden family invested their funda privately, this company benefitted greatly by investing in oil and defense during the war)
- Arbusto Energy (a drilling and oil service company belonging tot he Bush family)

There are also defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. They profitted greatly from the war and gave massive donations to both Bush campaigns.

So, weighing the things that went on, one has to wonder if the war was motivated by fear or greed. Regardless of that, a lot of politicians voted for the war because they did not want to seem unpatriotic. Not so with Barrack Obama:

"Barack Obama ... was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring."

Now, is Barrack Obama a cause of the current problems or is he merely trying to deal with all the situations left behind by the previous administration? The Bush administration left behind a series of problems that will not be solved in the 8 years that Obama will be in office, and Iraq is one of those problems.

Are George W. Bush and his cabinet a bunch of war criminals? Each person must make up their own mind. Considering the evidence and the actions of the Bush administration, I would say that he is. The cabinet was neither blind nor dumb. They knew what they were doing, and they did it callously and without regard for the human cost of the war. Everything else seems to me nothing but excuses.

Übergeek 바둑이: I don't think the military can dictate. Not this time. As to what kinda government ... let us hope democracy will at last have a chance in Egypt. Something they have been denied to 30 years odd, the young adults are doing something the older Egyptians have not had the guts to do.

why.. because the right to revolt is spreading throughout the middle east.

Artful Dodger: So it's constitutional for the likes of BP to poison and create havoc with the lives and businesses of non oil related industry?

(V): Another great post of yours. Every time I think you cannot surprise me any more, you prove me wrong.

It is illegal for anyone in the USA to import goods created by prisoners. Yet.. the USA depends on it's inmates to create many goods.

.. double standards.

The three strikes and your out rule. On QI last night to incidents were brought to light of people getting life sentences for minor crimes like nicking video tapes... 25 years for shoplifting.

ie the USA imprisons more per capita then any other nation in the world.

Pedro Martínez: Why thankyou. It's nice to know I can still surprise such a knowledgeable person such as yourself.

Care to share why you are so surprised?? Or would that be a bit naughty in dialogue for this and other BK boards??

(V): I am surprised by your excellent understanding of what is and what is not constitutional and what makes unconstitutional actions constitutional. Maybe you can provide me with some insight into the matter as well. Am I correct in thinking that when I do something that is prohibited by law or other standards, the government authorities will be authorized to act contrary to law or even constitution in order to take a remedial measure?

Pedro Martínez: I'm surprised that in light of recent events in Egypt you keep on about constitution!!

"Am I correct in thinking that when I do something that is prohibited by law or other standards, the government authorities will be authorized to act contrary to law or even constitution in order to take a remedial measure?"

If you have broken the law you seem to think and feel that you are above the law and get away with it, based on some old constitution that (in the matter of deep oil drilling) never was designed to deal with some of the problems that in todays day and age we face?

... by the laws of the UK I can still as an Englishman go and shoot and kill a Scotsman with a Longbow (so I was told by a soldier about a year ago)..... does that make such a killing lawful and right?

.... in UK law...

Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned

Placing a postage stamp of the queen upside down, is also considered treason.

If it's so unconstitutional Pedro.. why can a petition be raised to get a constitutional amendment added to Florida's state constitution in the 2012 ballot?

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110210/NEWS01/102100319/Groups-campaign-to-ban-oil-drilling

Technically under the Geneva Convention.. every single President of the USA since the beginning of the Cold war is a war criminal. More specifically since the CIA started getting involved in the killing of folks outside the USA in the name of democracy. As the CIA are civilians and not soldiers and therefore wear no uniform whilst either taking part in killings or supporting killings.

Which makes the CIA ... "illegal combatants"

and if you voted for any of these, are you not then an accessory war criminal? also every leader initiating any military action can be considered.Saddam attacked both Iran and kuwait, so was bush in his right to Attack another war criminal? The possibilities throughout history are endless depending on how one wants to twist things

GT: .. more so when the US admin of that time gave Saddam the ability to attack Iranian forces with chemical weapons etc.

But you are right.. The possibility throughout history, especially recent history is endless.

Bush is just being had a go at for what's happening in Pakistan?? Golly...... whatever happened to the Iraq war!!

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-22.htm

Subsequent lawsuits addressing the detainee issue were considered and resolved by the Supreme Court. Rasul v. Bush found the US courts did have jurisdiction over the detainees. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said detainees have a right to contest their detention: they are entitled to habeas corpus protections. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld tested the military tribunals President Bush created to bring the detainees to justice. The Supreme Court found the tribunals in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and their existence to be illegal, absent a basis in federal statute. The decision was handed down June 29, 2006.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld put on display the Bush Administration's guilt in committing war crimes. This is one of the huge dots. It will be connected to another one shortly.

Artful Dodger: The context of the discussion was about the wearing of the niqab in public places, particularly in schools. A law has just been voted, now it's forbidden.

Artful Dodger: Oh yes, but I just wanted to specify the origin of the discussion here in France.

Artful Dodger: No... if you took the time to read rather than quote, you'll see that in the case of British Prime Minister David Cameron he was talking about "state multiculturalism"

David Cameron has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

don't you think it's time you started checking on what you quote!!

Artful Dodger:

> The claim being made here is that Bush is a war criminal. My ONLY question has to do
> with Obama. Is he also a war criminal? If yes, how so. If no, why not.

The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

" 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:
a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes."

Now we turn to a definition of crimes against peace.
"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing"."

The Bush administration can be justified in the war in Afghanistan since Al Qaida attacked the United States (9-11). However, the war in Iraq is a different matter. While the administration tried to make a case for going to war, by refusing to act with UN support, and then using manufactured and faulty information deliberately, the Bush (and Blair) administrations commited a war against peace. Barrack Obama has tried to end the conflict in Iraq. Obama cannot be blamed of a war against peace.

Now we turn to the issue of war crimes:
"The basic rules of International Humanitarian Law:
1. Persons hors de combat (bystanders) and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3. The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4. Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives."

Although one cannot conclusively prove some of these:

Considering the conflict in Iraq:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Whether the Obama administration continued with some of those violations is yet to be seen.

Considering the conflict in Afghanistan:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The Obama administration has apparently violated principles 6 and 7 by using drones to attack targets that were not always military.

Well, on this point we can say that almost every war involves violations of International Humanitarian Law. Once the military are in control, they throw those principles out the window, and then go on to make excuses for their actions.

We move onto crimes against humanity. For that we look at the definition. The International Criminal Court in the Hague gives a definition:

" For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[17]
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

The Bush administration violated a, e, f and g knowingly. Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition violated some of those statutes at some point or another during the course of the war. The Obama administration has exposed some of those things, in particular extraordinary rendition by the CIA. However, the Obama administration has not punished any of those involved and some of those involved in those crimes have actually been promoted and now advise the president on national security matters.

All in all, one could argue that by using drones and harming civilians, the Obama administration violated some of the principles of International Humanitarian Law. In practice, who is going to prosecute? It is like the Bush administration. If people in the Bush administration commited crimes, who is going to prosecute? A law is meaningless because in war there is such a thing as "The Law of the Victor". Those who win the war make the laws, and if they break a law, nobody prosecutes them.

Artful Dodger:

> French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed,
> joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

Being in Canada all I can say is that multiculturalism can mean a lot of things. Going out in the street here is like going to the UN. I drive a bus (city transit) for a living. In the bus I can hear 20 languages spoken at the same time. People here rarely care. Racism exists (as everywhere) and once in a while there will be trouble, particularly in some high schools where young kids get into fights motivated by race. People are sometimes discriminated when applying for jobs. However, legal protections are relativley strict. People here are all "something-Canadian". For example, French-Canadian, German-Canadian, etc. It is generally understood that people are proud of their individual communities, as well as of being Canadian.

Canada moved away from the "melting pot" approach in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead they talk of this "multicultural mosaic". All cultures and races trying to get along. It works most of the time, although there are problems such as discrimination against first nations people (natives) and blacks.

I can also understand how the French feel since much of their immigration comes from North Africa, particularly Algeria. When that happens, immigrants become clearly visible. I doubt the French would have so much of a problem with Latin American immigrants as they have with the Islamic minority. It has to do with cultural and religious similarity.

All I can say is that attempting to force people to melt into a society usually fails. If anything, it makes people more entrenched in the feeling of isolation that immigrants sometimes feel. Forcing moslems to abandon a woman's head dress might sound fine on the surface, but in reality it is a bad idea because it will just make moslems feel targetted and it will make them take a more radical stance. If the French had approached differently, they would have established rules.

For example, bus drivers here wear uniforms. Sikh bus drivers are allowed to keep on their turbans, as long as they conform to the colour of the uniform. So they wear a blue turban that matches the colour of the uniform shirt. They are not allowed to carry their traditional ritual knives. It is a compromise that works. The drivers don't feel discriminated. They are simply made to realize that things are a little different.

If woman wants to wear a head dress at work, she can do so, but with rules. For example, it has to be white. It should not obscure the mouth, nose and neck. It would have been a suitable compromise. You have your culture, and attempt to adapt to ours as well.

Well, if multiculturalism is a failure, then what is the alternative? Forcing people to adapt? How? With prison sentences? Expulsion from the country? Firing them from their jobs?

Tuesday:

Yes, point g is based on the Abu Graib problems. There were also some cases in extraordinary rendition in which prisoners were sodomized during interrogation. However, when those things happened, it is unclear how high in the chain of command knowledge went. There are claims of these things being known by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. However, nobody can prove that. One thing is certain. As the ultimate commanders of the military, the cabinet has its share of responsibility.

Übergeek 바둑이: In France, the scarf is authorized. The niqab isn't authorized because we don't see the person at all, even not the eyes.
The problem began when some young girls, at school, said : " I can't do sport, because of my religion ". Here, school is public, so the government didn't want differences between students : each one had to do sport (except because a physical problem).

Artful Dodger:

> A cultural mosaic is a country divided.

Divided in what sense? I doubt Canadians would see their country as divided. Divisions in Canada have more to do with regionalism than with culture per se. The biggest division is between "Francophone Canada" and "Anglophone Canada", and that has as much to do with local politicians wanting power for themselves than with language and culture. Francophones outside Quebec are more ambivalent about separation. Outside Quebec Canada is unified not by language and culture, but by values.

Well, in my experience people who fear multiculturalism usually are those who have lived in a culturally homogenous environment all their life. The fear stems from fear of change more than a fear of losing cultural identity. Most countries are a lot more multicultural than they would admit. There are always regional differences, differences in languages and dialects, differences in food, dress, music, etc. I doubt all countries are entirely homogeneous.

Artful Dodger: Says someone who has never lived in a multicultural society.

The area I live in is a great mix of cultures. Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, Sikhs, Turkish, Chinese.. even Aussies!!.. We all get along... as we all in our area have respect for each other.

.. And we get a great selection and variety of shops and services based on the various cultures... complimentary medicines, clothes, foods (if you are like me and love cooking a great thing) ... and the shops have transformed certain areas from nearly empty shopping areas to bustling areas of trade which boosts the income of traditional British shops purely from the likes of passing trade.