[extropy-chat] what can you show us?

[Robbie Lindauer]

The very idea that the President pretender would have a day in court is 
absurd.  It would cause a coup.

But his day in court belongs in the Senate under impeachment 
proceedings for taking us to war on false pretenses.

R

On Jul 11, 2005, at 5:48 PM, c c wrote:

> This is all true yet still it appears international
> law is too undefined to do much with. Even domestic
> legal process is vague-- few get a jury of their
> actual peers, as they are supposed to. Judges aren't
> usually impartial, they are chosen to uphold very
> conservative community standards.
>
> By 'scatter' I meant innucleate; enough of the regime
> remains to pose a threat.
>
>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In american courts, points of fact are found out in
>> court.
>>
>> That's why we have discovery.
>>
>> On the moral point, it's not clear that "scattering
>> the iraqi regime" is
>> a justifiable pretense for slaughtering civilians
>> wholesale and
>> launching two or more countries into an extended
>> military quagmire with
>> daily deaths and mayhem ensuing.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>>
>> beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, there were certainly options other than the
>> war,
>>> on humanitarian grounds, but no better way to
>> scatter
>>> the Iraq regime. That line in court, along with no
>>> evidence of deliberate malice beforehand in killing
>>> civilians, would be enough to acquit the
>>> administration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very
>>>> different standard of law
>>>> well established here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Since technically Iraq was in violation
>>>>> of agreements made previously with the UN, it
>> would
>>>>> have to be shown America invaded to entirely
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> subjugate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Iraq and commit war crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It hasn't been determined by the UN security
>> council
>>>> that Iraq was
>>>> definitively in violation. In fact, we invaded
>> over
>>>> the objections of
>>>> the security council and the UN weapons
>> inspectors.
>>>> It turns out they
>>>> were right and we were lying, apparently
>>>> intentionally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you look backwards to
>>>>> 2003 so you can say, "now that we know America
>>>>> couldn't win the peace, then overthrowing the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Baathist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> regime was futile, and the administration had to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> know
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a sustained resistance to occupation was
>> inevitable
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> &
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> unbeatable", that is to say you are attempting to
>>>>> prove the course of the war was inevitable and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> America
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> knew so in advance. If you can demonstrate this
>> you
>>>>> have a solid case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, I'm claiming it was obvious then as now that
>> war
>>>> is bad and that
>>>> there were other options and that the American
>>>> Presidential group
>>>> decided to go to war over the objections of the
>> CIA,
>>>> the UN and many,
>>>> many, many citizens apparently on trumped up
>>>> "evidence" of Iraq's
>>>> capability of delivering weapons of mass
>> destruction
>>>> (such as having
>>>> rockets or nuclear or biological or chemical
>> weapons
>>>> ability). As a
>>>> result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died
>>>> (baathists and
>>>> non-bathists INDISCRIMINATELY) and more than a few
>>>> thousand americans
>>>> have been killed or maimed. That there were other
>>>> options was obvious
>>>> and continues to be obvious. That this was a bad
>>>> choice was obvious then
>>>> and continues to be obvious now.
>>>>
>>>> This point was made at length, even in this forum,
>>>> BEFORE the war
>>>> attempt. It was made strongly in the UN, strongly
>> by
>>>> military advisors
>>>> to Bush who were subsequently fired, and strongly
>> by
>>>> American
>>>> Intelligence agents who were subsequently
>> illegally
>>>> "outed" by someone
>>>> in the White House apparently as retalliation.
>>>>
>>>> How is any of this controversial in the slightest?
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What evidence of wrongness are you looking for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> other
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> than piles of dead
>>>>>> bodies?  Why aren't they sufficient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> items.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat