= new reply since forum marked as read
Something is not right, let alone democratic, when most people vote for peace and they get more war.
As you noted, Catherina, I remember when the Church Committee (the last time Congress really put the secret government to task) announced the CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Castro became public, the nation's press became quite concerned. Congress held more hearings. Appointed President and Warren Commission fraud artiste Ford came appointed Vice President Rockefeller to look into it and put Poppy into CIA to put the kobosh on exposing any more family jewels.
Back then, those who gave a damn, generally, went ballistic. The missing outrage demonstrates the alienated, media-warped, drug-sotted, depraved nature of the times we find ourselves in.
I knew there was something missing.
But, they were ordered off at Love Field.
PS: The agent throwing up his hands in apparent disgust upon being ordered off the bumper at Love Field was Donald J. Lawton, not Henry J. Rybka as originally identified.
Murder, for instance, as national policy.
PS: It's alarming how seldom peace has been the objective of our nation's foreign policy since Dulles and CIA recruited the Mafia to kill Fidel Castro in 1960.
"Money trumps peace" is how "president" George W Bush put it.
The people who rule now -- FDR's enemies -- were the ones who traded then with Hitler.
[font size="1"]Warmonger by John Carroll[/font size]
After the war, many untold thousands, if not tens of thousands, of the vilest and most evil human beings to ever walk the earth were welcomed with open arms via PaperClip and who knows what else to fight the Godless Communists and make a mint on the Cold War.
No way. No how. Not gonna support unconstitutional unitary executive warmonger can't find weapons of mass destruction anywhere horsefeathers.
Of course, Bush had called off the drones to track bin Laden BEFORE 9/11.
Nothing about that, anywhere, anymore, almost.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
"They also don't ask questions."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9580652
... preventive or preemptive self-defense was not a legitimate rationale for invading Iraq, which posed no imminent threat to the United States. The facts that no "weapons of mass destruction" were found, and that their absence was suspected all along within the U.S. government, only serve to demonstrate the sound rationale behind these principles.
The Crime Of War: From Nuremberg To Fallujah
A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression
by Nicolas J. S. Davies
Z magazine, February 2005
In September, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law <1>. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." So, how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere?
The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts, that international law is legally binding upon all countries. In the United States however, international law is spoken of differently, as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations, or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests. For the benefit of readers in the U.S., I therefore feel obliged to preface a review of war crime in Iraq with a look at the actual legal status of international law, both in international terms and in terms of our own national framework of constitutional law.
When the president of the United States signs a treaty and it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, our country is making a solemn undertaking. The seriousness of such commitments is exemplified by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and subsequent international trials, in which individual national leaders have been held criminally responsible for treaty violations and, when convicted, have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or even death by hanging. In our own constitutional system, Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Supremacy Clause," grants international treaties the same "supreme" status as federal law and the Constitution itself. It reads:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
You can visit the State Department website to find a complete list of the international treaties to which our country is a signatory, under "Treaties in Force" <2>. These treaties are enforceable by national court systems in each country, but, without an international court system to ensure universal enforcement, the real consequences of violating international law are often political, economic and diplomatic rather than judicial. As we are finding in Iraq, these consequences can nevertheless be substantial.
It is important to understand that war crimes fall into two classes: 1) war crimes relevant to battlefield conduct; and 2) waging a war of aggression. To explain what was at that time an unprecedented focus on the second kind of war crime, war of aggression, the Nuremberg Judgment included the following statement: "The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
CONTINUED...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Nuremberg_Fallujah.html
Tip o' the pin to DUer NNN0LHI.
A different windshield. A different dashboard...
And they weren't. And this isn't. And you and I and all who give a damn don't want the NAZIs, er, merchants of death to win.
PS: Not calling Obama a NAZI. He may be a captive. Who knows, with all this secret government kill lists and what not?
