Any comments on the new round of inspections going on? I just heard on the radio Bush remark on how unlikely he feels they are to accomplish anything, saying that it's "up to Saddam" to disarm. I can't really understand the logic in that, but ah well. Oh yea, and also now Saddam is accusing all the inspectors of being Israeli spies:

“THE INSPECTORS have come to provide better circumstances and more precise information for a coming aggression,” Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said at a meeting with an Egyptian delegation. “This is not an accusation, because the inspectors, from day one, their foremost work was spying ... for the CIA and Mossad together,” Ramadan said, referring to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s Mossad intelligence service.

MSNBC news (hehe)

I'm confused. I heard that the U.S. wanted the inspectors out in 1998. (Because of death threats and/or ineffectualness.) Now I keep hearing another contradictory thing, that Russia wants less stuff on the list of "food for oil" UN program, then Bush says he wants MORE stuff allowed through that program. It is almost like he WANTS Saddam to get his hands on stuff that can be used militarily...hmmm.... :bugeye:

Well, this isn't really contradictory. It goes along with our U.S. tendency to piss off weapons inspectors at every turn. I believe that Bush as actually delaying weapons inspections under pain of military "intervention" until we got exactly what we wanted, all the while talking about how "time is of the esscence." I'll try to dig up a link for that,

Meanwhile, we never really wanted inspectors, because disarming Iraq has never really been our main goal. If it was, then we probably would be supporting these weapons inspections a lot more than we are now. Bush's logic again is out of wack, assuming he has the people of both Iraq and the US's best interests in mind, if he thinks airstrikes are going to find what meticulous inspections have missed.

Also, do you have a link for the Food for Oil info? Seems like that could be pretty interesting. Not quite sure what you mean by stuff though :D . Thanks

Oh yea, and also now Saddam is accusing all the inspectors of being Israeli spies

Saddam didn't say that, a minister guy made a comment that they were us and israeli spies. Iraq isn't = Saddam. :rolleyes:


Moderator Edit – there is no need to insult other members of SciForums

What I find funny is that the US keeps saying "If we don't see proof of the closure of Iraq's nuke programme, we're going to invade". And the UN inspectors keep saying "We've never found any proof of Iraq having a nuke programme". So if the US is to be satisfied, Iraq must first start developing nukes, then shut it down, and have the UN inspectors there to watch it all.

The US wants war. There is no evidence of Iraq having a nuke programme at this time. The US doesn't care, it just wants its war.

Several weeks ago, the Administration said that the absence of evidence did not mean that the evidence was not there; it just hadn't been found. They have already put in a door that will let them go to war, whatever happens. Bush has already stated that he answers to no one.

There is no denying that Saddam needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history, but I feel that we lost our chance 11 years ago. Remember it was the allies who called it off first, not Saddam. It was us who cried “enough” not Saddam. We offered peace to his regime, and he eagerly accepted the offer. He reneged on it in 1998 we did nothing about it.

It's a bit rich to cry "foul" eleven years later and say to the public, "look... he really is a monster."

Peace.

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to US citizens apparently. So it would apply to Iraq if it accepted US rule, became a US state...

Adam:

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an admonishment to members of a sitting jury in a court trial. Outside the US courtroom there is no legal or ethical requirement to assume innocence before guilt.

One more way you and too many others don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the US.

You have no idea what you're talking about...

From: Amendment 5 - 12/15/1791.

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...


This is the pertinent section. The US government is not allowed, by its Constitution, to take life, liberty, or property unless due process of law is followed.

Now, international law is what exactly? It's nations and organisations signing treaties with each other. The US signed one with the UN. If the US goe sto war on Iraq without UN approval, without waiting for full and complete UN legal inspections and such, then the US will be acting against the standard it applies by law to its own people. That is what is commonly known as a double standard. The US is saying quite clearly "Americans are more important than other people, so we only need to abide by the laws we choose, not all of them". While they choose to abide by the law they keep inside the US, they are trying very hard to ignore the international laws they are involved in.

Earth to Adam:

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a legal operant outside the courtroom, no matter what you contrive to believe.

Where in the US Constitution or the US Bill of Rights does the term "Innocent until proven guilty" written?

Not in:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Even international law says:

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

"An individual's right to due process was born in late thirteenth-century European jurisprudence. By the fifteenth century, this right had become absolute. Every "person" was entitled to a public trial, had the right to present witnesses, to have a lawyer, and to have a judgment delivered in the public forum. The jurists commonly defined this bundle rights with the maxim "A person was presumed innocent until proven guilty."

"Innocent until proven guilty" in the Court Room of Law, but not in the court room of the public square.

Earth to Adam....

Or you could simply admit that I'm right, coz I'm such a friggin genius and you're all such lowly pathetic beings in comparison.

1) What happens to to guilty? (deprived of life, liberty, or property)
2) What does US law require before that happens? (due process of law)
3) What do you call those who are not 1 because of 2? (innocent)

You can focus on semantics all you want, but that won't change the facts:

1) US law (supposedly) maintains the freedom and safety of its people UNTIL they are proven innocent, as described quite clearly in the bit of their constitution I provided.
2) The USA is party to the UN treaty, which is international law.
3) Disobeying UN resolutions (which fall within the agreed upon UN charter) is breaking international law.
4) Iraq has not been found guilty by due process of law regarding these weapons of mass destuction.

Adam:

"You can focus on semantics all you want, but that won't change the facts"

I'm not out to change the facts, just to state them. You're free to ignore them for whatever reason you can imagine.

In two consecutive posts, you have completely avoided discussion of the entire matter of Iraq being absolutely innocent of possessing nuclear weapons, and the US threatening war as thought they have been properly found guilty. Well done.

Once again:
- Iraq is NOT threatening to harm anyone.
- The USA IS threatening to make war.

Probably because I was discussing your interpretations of US law and popular assumptions about same.

Having adequately dispensed with the necessity to further correct your misconceptions therein,...

....can you prove that the US does not have evidence that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction -- including most components of some nuclear weapons and the means of their future manufacture and assembly and is therefore justified in aggressively confronting it?

Remember now, according to your application of the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" outside a court of law, you must consider the US innocent (that is, in possession of such knowledge) before you can draw the conclusion that the US does not possess such evidence and thus is unreasonably threatening the Iraqis and perpetrating a hoax on the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.

Well, can you?

Iraq isn't = Saddam.


I just read this and wanted to know what other people thought. I wasn't trying to make any points with that quote. And from how the article I read presented it, it seemed as if that was the stance of the Iraqi government.

Probably because I was discussing your interpretations of US law and popular assumptions about same.

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... "
You have not actually corrected anything, nor responded to these logical points:
1) US law protects the innocent against deprivation of life, liberty, and loss of property unless or until due legal process finds them guilty.
2) The US does have obligations under international law, such as its treaty to the UN.
3) The UN is the body conducting that "due legal process" regarding Iraq.
4) There is no evidence of Iraq possessing nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons development programme.
5) The US is preparing for war (the ultimate deprivation of life, liberty, and property) against a party which has not been found guilty by any "due legal process" of the accused offence.


Having adequately dispensed with the necessity to further correct your misconceptions therein,...

If you insist. However, it is quite clear you have not addressed any such points.


....can you prove that the US does not have evidence that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction -- including most components of some nuclear weapons and the means of their future manufacture and assembly and is therefore justified in aggressively confronting it?

1) You're an idiot. I just want to make that clear at the start.
2) Have you entirely missed all the many discussions about proving a negative??? I can not prove that the USA does not have hidden in some deep vault under the Penatgon a single small picture of Saddam holding a nuclear warhead inside his palace. However, I invite you to attempt here something we call "logic". I can not prove that YOU have not murdered some small child at some point in your past and hidden the corpse and all evidence where it will never be found. By your reasoning, you should be locked up in prison for murder, simply because I can't prove you never did that. Think about it.
3) The majority of components required for building a nuclear weapon are available here (http://www.radioshack.com/). I have no doubt that Iraq has them. I have no doubt that Australia has them, and Zimbabwe, and Ireland, and probably half the users of sciforums.


Remember now, according to your application of the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" outside a court of law, you must consider the US innocent (that is, in possession of such knowledge) before you can draw the conclusion that the US does not possess such evidence and thus is unreasonably threatening the Iraqis and perpetrating a hoax on the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.
[/B]
See above, about you being a murderer. Dim-wit.

Sure, Adam. Whatever you say. You da' man. :rolleyes:

BokononistMartyr

Here is a link for the website on the UN "Food for Oil Programme" (http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/).

Now I keep hearing another contradictory thing, that Russia wants less stuff on the list of "food for oil" UN program, then Bush says he wants MORE stuff allowed through that program. It is almost like he WANTS Saddam to get his hands on stuff that can be used militarily...hmmm....

I made a mistake above. Bush wanted less stuff allowed on the list, not more. Russia wanted more or the same amount as there presently is.

The whole Food for Oil thing seems to be a bunch of crap because the Iraqi people are still having a hard time of it. The man who used to be UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in 1998 to protest the UN sanctions because of the misery it was inflicting on Iraqi civilians. If they are allowed to use oil to get necessary stuff for civilians, why are so many people in Iraq having these problems? Once, I heard Saddam was just keeping the supplies out of civilian hands, but I don't think that one is true. The main reason people revolt is because they are hungry. Hunger drives humans to things they normally would not do. I think that the situation in Iraq is desperate, but I'm not sure they are hungry enough to butt heads with their government any more than they already do. (And contrary to popular American belief, they do butt heads with their own government--people were being jailed and/or executed in Iraq for speaking out against Hussein during the Gulf War and I cannot imagine the Iraqi people have grown anymore loving towards their dictator since then. They have every reason to have become more dissatisfied than ever.)

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

-- 60 Minutes (May 12, 1996)