The Iraq Thread

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) While it perhaps didn't create it, it used it fully, referenced to it and transmitted it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, but as I hope I've finally made clear, that's not my point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) This is one example. How do you know that there are not thousands of other deceptions that didn't come out.<span id='postcolor'>

You know the flip side of this argument.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It leaves only two options. US intelligence is either

1) Grossly incompetent

2) Grossly incompetent and malicious.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd suggest a third option:

3) Human and therefore imperfect.

I don't buy 1) because these are the same people who (among other things) brought NK's nuclear program into the light while in-country UN nuclear inspectors didn't.  Not the sort of work riders on the short bus would be capable of performing.  

Ignoring the "grossly incompetent" part of 2), I don't buy the malicious bit either, because as has been repeated ad infinitum in this very thread, U.S. intel is on record as downplaying the likelihood of an Iraq-AQ connection.  Not the action of a group of warmongering assassins.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US and UK governements has shown that it is both willing and able to both forge evidence and to support forged evidence to further their cause.<span id='postcolor'>

What evidence has the U.S. or UK forged?  The Brit's intel report?  Plagiarized but mostly accurate, yes.  Forged, no.  I can't say who forged the Nigerian docs (and neither can anyone else on this board), but judging by the conniptions the CIA and FBI are having right now, I don't think we made 'em.

As for supporting forged evidence, the question is whether the information was known to be forged at the time it was presented.  

Semper Fi

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 19 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Has the U.S. ever used propaganda?  Who hasn't?  This particular example, however, does not support the case being presented.  At least make sure the reasons for distrusting us are accurate.<span id='postcolor'>

In my opinion, recruiting and coaching the Kuwaiti ambassador's 15 year-old daughter to misrepresent herself and tell lies to the US congress goes a bit beyond "propaganda."  Sorry, if you disagree.

[Bernadotte 0]

Robin Cook is a former British foreign minister and was the leader of the House of Commons until Monday, when he delivered the following resignation speech.  He received an unprecedented standing ovation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as leader...

It was frequently the necessity for me as leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present prime minister[, Tony Blair,] is the most successful leader of the Labour Party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution [at the United Nations]. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of [French] President [Jacques] Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner -- not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The United States can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: The European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbors in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the U.S. warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the Western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf War, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons program and halted Saddam's medium- and long-range missiles programs. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf War.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralized and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify preemptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term -- namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s, when U.S. companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of U.N. inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to Middle East peace, but Britain's positive role in the Middle East does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the U.S. and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: It reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a U.S. administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favorite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

-- Robin Cook<span id='postcolor'>

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 19 2003,16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tarik Azis, vice premier of iraq possibly shot. Latest reports indicate he was shot at while trying to flee a governmental bunker. It is not confimed yet. Also it is unknown if he was injured or killed.<span id='postcolor'>

Tarik Azis says otherwise

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 19 2003,08:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 19 2003,07:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well put, but I think you're wrong in a few areas. Should we find (legit) WMDs, it would be a direct breach of the ceasefire arrangements circa 1991. Hence, Iraq will have been in breach of their post-war obligations, and any military action is merely a continuance of the 1991 conflict (which was UN sanctioned and therefore *cough* legal).<span id='postcolor'>

But that's like breaking into someone's house without a warrant, and then finding evidence.

In most courts (especially in the USA), this would be "case dismissed" - the evidence would be inadmissable.

You can't go in on a hunch, and then claim you were in the right if you happen to find something.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but does 1441 actually state that if Iraq doesn't comply it is justifcation for war? I think the exact wording is "serious consequences", which in UN lingo doesn't neccessarily mean armed resolution of the problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually the cops can. It's called "probable cause."

It's based on the assumption that the police have "reasonable" evidence and/or suspicion that illegal activities or items are located at said location.

The definition of "reasonable" is argued in court all the time. What you speak of is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" idea. A legal fact that says if evidence is discovered, however damning, but the processes followed or the way in which it is obtained is illegal, then the evidence is inadmissable. Anything AFTER the illegal process is inadmissable.<span id='postcolor'>

what about the US law(and i think a similar one was intruduced here,UK) that if there is evidence found on someones property(even if its someone just staying at that persons house) of specific laws being broken the police can then take(steal) that persons assets without that person beingg convicted of the crime

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 19 2003,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, it is actually. Soldiers are not always free to speak about everything they see and learn. In fact, most of the time, it is a punishable offense to speak about such things.

<span id='postcolor'>

I've served in our military for 6 years, and E6Hotel is currently serving.  Both of us have argued that you are wrong about this.  Who's in a better position to make that argument, us or you?<span id='postcolor'>

Then you should have read the UCMJ. Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888 makes it a crime for a military officer to use contemptuous words against the President, Congress, etc. Not to mention the usual restriction on talking about classified materials.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Give me a break. All the miltary could do is discharge him dishonorably. He can't be locked up, remeber I mentioned the 1st Amendment? <span id='postcolor'>

The constitution is not applied for members of the armed forces, you should know that. And yes, he can be locked up because releasing classified information is a serious crime no matter if you are civilan or military.

As for the capabilities of hiding some nasty things from the public, I have two words for you: My Lai.

If you want more recent history, take Kosovo. How come that NATO claims 12 planes were shot down, the Serbs claim 200 and KFOR has found and confirmed 67?

There is plenty of evidence of USA making things completely up during war-time without anybody blowing the wistle. That's not just USA, that's just about everybody. And why doesn't it surface? Because people are as unwillig to see it as you are: "No, our boys would never do such things. They are the good guys!"...

[cam0flage 0]

Well, this is it, I guess ... I thought Saddam still had five hours before the deadline.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084275,00.html

[Schoeler 0]

This is going to be a rather long post, but here is why the word would get out.  I've included the relevant sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Oath taken by all American service members, some definitions of legal terms, relevant sections of the Constitution, and some important Supreme Court decisions on the subject.  Happy reading!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uniform Code of Military Justice

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

805. ART. 5. TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY OF THIS CHAPTER

This chapter applies in all places.

809. ART. 9. IMPOSITION OF RESTRAINT

d) No person may be ordered into arrest or confinement except for probable cause.

810. ART. 10. RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES

Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

SUBCHAPTER VI. PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE

Sec. Art.

831 ART. 31. COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

© No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence in not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

832. ART. 32. INVESTIGATION

(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.

(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.

837. ART. 37. UNLAWFULLY INFLUENCING ACTION OF COURT

(a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts. The foregoing provisions of the subsection shall not apply with respect to (1) general instructional or informational courses in military justice if such courses are designed solely for the purpose of instructing members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of courts-martial, or (2) to statements and instructions given in open court by the military judge, president of a special court-martial, or counsel.

846. ART. 46. OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN WITNESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE

The trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe. Process issued in court- martial cases to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence shall be similar to that which courts of the Unites States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue and shall run to any part of the United States, or the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions.

* 867a. ART. 67a. REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT

(a) Decisions of the Unites States Court of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28. The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Military Appeals in refusing to grant a petition for review.

SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES

Sec. Art.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;

shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

931. ART. 131. PERJURY

Any person subject to this chapter who in a judicial proceeding or in a course of justice willfully and corruptly--

(1) upon a lawful oath or in a form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, gives any false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty or perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, subscribes any false statement material to the issue or matter of inquiry;

is guilty of perjury and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct

A duty to disobey all unlawful orders:

The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:

"I,__, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

From Black’s Law Dictionary:

Probable Cause:  A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime.  Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause – which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction – must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.

Lawful: Not contrary to law.  

Excerpts from the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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 offense 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 defense.

Supreme Court Decisions on the abridgment of free speech:

Dennis v. United States    341 U.S. 494, 71 S.CT. 857 (1951)

Chief Justice Vinson:

“The rule we deduce from Schenk v. United States  . . . is that where an offense is specified by a statute in non-speech or nonpress terms, a conviction relying upon speech or press as evidence of violation may be sustained only when the speech or publication created a ‘clear and present danger’ of attempting or accomplishing the prohibited crime.â€

“Chief Judge Learned Hand, writing for the majority below, interpreted the phrase (Clear and present danger) as follows: ‘In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’  We adopt this statement of the rule.â€

Brandenburg v. Ohio   395 U.S. 444, 89 S.CT. 1827 (1969)

Per Curiam:

“[The Court’s] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.â€

United States v. Robel   389 U.S. 258 (1967)

Chief Justice Warren:

“Faced with a clear conflict between a federal statute enacted in the interests of national security and an individual’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, we have confined our analysis to whether Congress has adopted a constitutional means in achieving its concededly legitimate legislative goal.  In making this determination we have found it necessary to measure the validity of the means adopted by Congress against both the goal it has sought to achieve and the specific prohibitions of the First Amendment.  . . . We have ruled only that the Constitution requires that a conflict between congressional power and individual rights be accommodated by legislation drawn more narrowly to avoid the conflict.â€

<span id='postcolor'>

As you can plainly see, any order given to plant false evidence is illegal and unlawful and the service member has a DUTY TO DISOBEY it.  If he does not, he can be court marshalled.

The U.S. cannot summarily punish him for speaking out against such an action.  It can only punish him if his speech is false, illegal or an incitement to revolt.  The same goes for any reporters who speak out.

He cannot be arrested or charged without a warrant supported by probable cause.  He is entitled to a fair trial where all evidence is admissible unless it was illegally obtained.  He may present witnesses, evidence or testimony creating mitigating circumstances and may cross-examine witnesses and challenge evidence presented against him.

The U.S. may in no way unfairly or illegally influnce the trial.

The Supreme Court can review his case upon appeal.

The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the government may abridge free speech, even in cases where national security is at stake, only when that speech presents a clear, present and imminent danger to the survival of the nation.  Additionally that speech must be suppressed by Congressional legislation which is narrowly tailored to meet the interests of the government and offers the least amount of restriction to the right of free speech.

Since speaking out about an illegal action performed by the military is required of all service members, the government does not have a compelling enough interest to justify the suppression of the speech under the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny doctrine.  Additionally, there has been no law passed by Congress to suppress such speech, and if it were passed, the Court would strike it down on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored enough in advancing the government's interest over the individual's interest in free speech.

Don't fuck with the guy who is going to law school next year.

Oh, by the way, we also have the Freedom of Information Act, which prohibits access of all classified materials and documents whose exposure does not pose an immediate threat to national security.  Read about the Pentagon Papers and you will see that a surprising amount of embarrassing information about military and government activities are made available to an enquiring public upon request.

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Mar. 19 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, this is it, I guess ... I thought Saddam still had five hours before the deadline.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084275,00.html<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, as if he was gonna leave.

[Renagade 0]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,124)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the second part I agree with you. On the first part, I don't. You don't need extensive logistics to make a ballistic nuclear first strike. Russia has over 20,000 long range nuclear missiles. With NORAD minimized USA would not know what hit them. While such an attack is extremely improbable, the Russians are indeed capable of it. If they wanted, they could level every city and every military base. (USA could of course do the same to Russia, but the question here was how 'powerful' those who oppose a war really are).<span id='postcolor'>

Wouldn`t a grid of high power emp attacks be able to neutalise incoming missles and isn`t their emp emitters designed to be used in war to disable electronics.

In one of the cheapy newspapers they had a 2 page article on all the bombs they said that was being used one of them cuagght my which was called a graphite bomb said to delevired loads of carbon particles to fuk up electronics,now wouldn`t and emp device do a better job ?

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 19 2003,12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many Intelligent Things<span id='postcolor'>

*ding*

That is the correct answer. Thank you.

[Longinius 1]

"Since speaking out about an illegal action performed by the military is required of all service members, the government does not have a compelling enough interest to justify the suppression of the speech under the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny doctrine. Additionally, there has been no law passed by Congress to suppress such speech, and if it were passed, the Court would strike it down on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored enough in advancing the government's interest over the individual's interest in free speech."

If a government ever went so far as to plant evidence in a conflict of this nature, do you really think that:

1. They would use soldiers who would even consider talking about it?

2. Think twice about using any means necessary to make sure the news didnt get out?

3. Make sure that if the news got out, it was quickly disregarded as yet another "conspiracy theory"?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,2109)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the capabilities of hiding some nasty things from the public, I have two words for you: My Lai.<span id='postcolor'>

Once again, this points out the impossibility of keeping stuff like that hidden.  BTW, who blew the whistle about Mai Lai?  U.S. Army Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson.

And re. small teams of SF or CIA planting the WMD's, I hope they make two trips, 'cause carrying 10,000 gallons of anthrax at one time can hurt your back.  Remember, bend at the knees!  

Semper Fi

[Longinius 1]

"And re. small teams of SF or CIA planting the WMD's, I hope they make two trips, 'cause carrying 10,000 gallons of anthrax at one time can hurt your back. Remember, bend at the knees!"

I doubt they would need that much. They could bring in scraps to any bunker, blow it up and point at the remains. That would be a more believable set of evidence than anything so far anyway.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 19 2003,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wouldn`t a grid of high power emp attacks be able to neutalise incoming missles and isn`t their emp emitters designed to be used in war to disable electronics.<span id='postcolor'>

No, guidance systems of missiles are heavily shielded electronically as is most military hardware.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In one of the cheapy newspapers they had a 2 page article on all the bombs they said that was being used one of them cuagght my which was called a graphite bomb said to delevired loads of carbon particles to fuk up electronics,now wouldn`t and emp device do a better job ?

<span id='postcolor'>

Graphite bombs are effective for taking out old power stations and telephone lines. They have however a limited effect since they are localized. The most effective measure for destroying electronics is a high-yield nuclear detonation in mid-air. The air can't absorb the energy so it goes out as high energy EM waves that fry electronics within a large radius.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a government ever went so far as to plant evidence in a conflict of this nature, do you really think that:

1. They would use soldiers who would even consider talking about it?

2. Think twice about using any means necessary to make sure the news didnt get out?

3. Make sure that if the news got out, it was quickly disregarded as yet another "conspiracy theory"?<span id='postcolor'>

1. I think the government doesn't need to go through this much trouble to justify its war in Iraq. I also think it would be hard pressed to smuggle in WMD, plant them as false evidence and conceal it from someone who wouldn't speak out. You guys accuse the U.S. intelligence services of being incompetent in one thread and nefarious in another. You can't have it both ways.

2. Yes, I do. But this is the difference between you and I. As I already stated, I think you have serious misperceptions about the American people and our government. You apparently see us as a warmongering bloodthirsty people who support a government that is evil, corrupt, and willing to go to any length to further its interests. I think that opinion is far-fetched, innacurate and tragic.

3. The press would have a field day with any news of this sort. It would spread so far, so fast, and be investigated so thoroughly that the government wouldn't be able to hide it for long. Someone else would see the balloon going over and speak out to cover their ass from prosecution. If the U.S. was capable of hiding embarassing secrets like this for long, do you think the world would have learned about:

a) The Pentagon Papers.

b) Watergate.

c)The Bay of Pigs.

d)The forgery of the Tonkin Gulf incident.

e)American POWs left behind in Korea.

f)The Iran-Contra Affair.

g)Monica Lewinsky?

There are numerous other embarrasing incidents where someone blew the whistle and caught the U.S. with its pants around its ankles. Perhaps thats why your view of our government is so jaded. We may be the only nation on earth that cannot effectively keep people from revealing embarrassing secrets and therefore you have heard about ours and not those of other countries.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Does anyone have those video clips of nukes being detonated in space? or subspace I think, im not sure, there is a website that sells copies on vhs.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 19 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Since speaking out about an illegal action performed by the military is required of all service members, the government does not have a compelling enough interest to justify the suppression of the speech under the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny doctrine.  Additionally, there has been no law passed by Congress to suppress such speech, and if it were passed, the Court would strike it down on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored enough in advancing the government's interest over the individual's interest in free speech."

If a government ever went so far as to plant evidence in a conflict of this nature, do you really think that:

1. They would use soldiers who would even consider talking about it?

2. Think twice about using any means necessary to make sure the news didnt get out?

3. Make sure that if the news got out, it was quickly disregarded as yet another "conspiracy theory"?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if we're going to go sprinting through the realms of baseless conjecture, maybe the government could also:

1. Use robots. They could be programmed not to tell.

2. Time travel, I've already said to much.

3. Hold the families of all the soldiers hostage so that they wouldn't dare tell the truth. Hey wait, isn't someone already doing this???

It would be no small task to plant the amount of evidence needed. There would have to be so many people involved (whoever is working in the weapons depot state side, the crewmembers of the cargo planes needed to transport it, same for ground transportation people) in the "evidence planting" that it would be a self defeating secret operation.

Regardless, I'm sure there is alot of document destruction (and preservation, but shhh) going on about Iraq right now. Probably alot of frantic phone calls from outside of the country also.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 19 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once again, this points out the impossibility of keeping stuff like that hidden.  BTW, who blew the whistle about Mai Lai?  U.S. Army Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, two years after it happened. The only reason why it became a scandal was because the war was still going on.

When KFOR took over responsibility over Kosovo they made a number of investigations, trying to get an accurate picture of the war. The results contradicted just about every of the NATO reports, everything from military accomplishments to NATO & civilian casualties. Those reports were published, but nobody cared. It wasn't current any more.

If it is a short war, we won't know much of the truth. If it is a long drawn out war, we will know more.

More US servicemen died in Kosovo then in GW1 but that never came out. When it did, nobody cared.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion, recruiting and coaching the Kuwaiti ambassador's 15 year-old daughter to misrepresent herself and tell lies to the US congress goes a bit beyond "propaganda."  Sorry, if you disagree.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I agree.  I think that Citizens for a Free Kuwait, the Kuwaiti lobbying group that recruited "Nayirah," was out of line.  Hill and Knowlton, the American P.R. firm, was equally guilty.  HOWEVER:  If you're going to blame the U.S. government for believing the story, make sure you spread some of that blame over to Amnesty International, who validated the story as well.

Semper Fi

[Schoeler 0]

Denoir, I've offered otherexamples of U.S. whistleblowing. The point is not when it comes out or how long it takes, but the odds that it will be revealed eventually. It isn't worth the risk or the trouble of faking it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 19 2003,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I've offered otherexamples of U.S. whistleblowing.  The point is not when it comes out or how long it takes, but the odds that it will be revealed eventually.  It isn't worth the risk or the trouble of faking it.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't deny that some things are bound to come out. I am however very sure that there are at least as many examples of situations that never got out. The only thing what we can say is that USA is known to plant evidence before. That makes it not unlikely and certainly not impossible that it will happen again.

[turms 0]

You can consider me as a conspiracy theorist,but what reallyhappened in John Fizgerald Kennedys murder?

[Schoeler 0]

Allright, then consider this:

Do you think that the Democrats who suffered stunning defeats in the last two elections wouldn't hesitate to leap on this opportunity to totally annihilate and discredit the Bush administration and the Republican Party?

Revelation of this sort of material would be a boon to the Democrats and virtually guarantee them the White House and both houses of Congress for the next 30 years.

you seem like an educated person to me Denoir, so I'm going to assume that you are aware that the U.S. isn't some political monolith united behind one common cause. No way is someone with that kind of political leverage going to keep it a secret, its a godsend politically and financially for anyone to reveal something that damaging to their opponent. You could literally sweep the next election at a fraction of the cost.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 19 2003,166)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tarik Azis, vice premier of iraq possibly shot. Latest reports indicate he was shot at while trying to flee a governmental bunker. It is not confimed yet. Also it is unknown if he was injured or killed.<span id='postcolor'>

Tarik Azis says otherwise<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah right, I think we all know who that was.