Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda unravelling?

THe Preamble passage that you just quoted from the Hague Conventions of 1907 is not consistent with your other statement, now is it?

Yes it is , as is article 4 . and the Cornflake pact surerceded the 1907 convention , but they ran into a few problems when they tried to use it at Nuremburg didn't they .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

THe Preamble passage that you just quoted from the Hague Conventions of 1907 is not consistent with your other statement, now is it?

Yes it is , as is article 4 . and the Cornflake pact surerceded the 1907 convention , but they ran into a few problems when they tried to use it at Nuremburg didn't they .

---

You really need to call it under its right name - attempts at such sarcasm detracts from honest discourse.

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 does not cover the Laws of War but something else. And that is why it ran into trouble when they attempted to use it at Nuremburg that and the bolded text portion gave them a problem also. Edit: I refer you to the second post where I linked a writing by Dr. Noel Cox which explains how the two treaties are related to each other - and why Kellogg-Briand Paxt of 1928 does not supercede the Hague Conventions of 1907.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Text of Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928

ARTICLE I
The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

ARTICLE III
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.

This Treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at Washington and the Treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as; between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto.

It shall be the duty of the Government of the United States to furnish each Government named in the Preamble and every Government subsequently adhering to this Treaty with a certified copy of the Treaty and of every instrument of ratification or adherence. It shall also be the duty of the Government of the United States telegraphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence.

IN FAITH WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty in the French and English languages both texts having equal force, and hereunto affix their seals.

DONE at Paris, the twenty seventh day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight.

---

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm

It declares that war will not be used as a national policy - so no it did not supercede the Hague Conventions of 1907 which govern the conduct of war. And one could argue that WW2 did indeed in effect null and voided this threaty. Edit: If you see the link to Dr. Cox below you will find out why such an arguement would have difficultly getting by.

Nice attempt but it just does not fly in the way your attempting to intermix the two.

Here is a better write-up of what the different treaties actually mean then what I could attempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Noel Cox

The scope of the law of war

Not every exercise of military force is lawful. Indeed, the tendency over the past few centuries has been to limit the freedom of sovereign states to levy war.(21) The instigation and conduct of war has since the very earliest times been subject to some degree of regulation or control. In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas wrote that, ‘in order that a war may be just three things are necessary. In the first place, the authority of the prince, by whose order the war is undertaken ... ‘(22) His second and third requirements for a just war, like those of his predecessor St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, were a just cause, and right intent. Indeed, USA action could well be said to have qualified as a just war under Thomas Aquinas’ criteria, as it was waged by a sovereign state, in a just cause, and with right intent.(23)

However, the law of war has advanced much since St Thomas lived, and ironically, the UN Charter, designed to promote peace, enshrines a growing tendency to prohibit all wars not waged in self-defence,(24) though it does allow collective self-defence,(25) and the restoration of international peace.(26) This left little room for the ‘just war’, a concept which has nevertheless increasingly once again reared its head in the law of war.(27)

Traditionally the law of war was concerned with the regulation of warfare;(28) usually, though not exclusively, interstate warfare.(29) Additionally, since the 19th century there has been significant growth in the laws of humanity, or human rights.(30) It has been said that these two strands have joined.(31) There has been much concentration on humanitarian law, and especially the punishment of war criminals.(32) But the basic question of when it is lawful to start an offensive war had been examined relatively little.(33) For most purposes, the law of war may be divided into two parts: the legitimacy of the resort to force, and the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, often called jus ad bellum and jus in bello respectively. Both changed markedly in the course of the twentieth century.(34) It is with jus ad bellum with which this article is concerned.

The basic sources of the law of armed conflict are written and unwritten rules, treaties, agreements, and customary law. A treaty is an agreement between entities, both or all of which are subjects of international law possessed of international personality and treaty-making capacity.(35) All sovereign states enjoy the right to make treaties. Some self-governing colonies, protectorates, and international organisations have the capacity to enter into agreements, though their right to do so is usually limited.(36)

Custom is general state practice accepted as law. The elements of custom are a generalised repetition of similar acts by competent state authorities and a sentiment that such acts are juridically necessary to maintain and develop international relations.(37) The existence of custom, unlike treaty-law, depends upon general agreement, not unanimous agreement.(38)

It is now generally recognised that the law of armed conflict applies in all international armed conflicts, regardless of their legality.(39) They have now been extended to the modern phenomenon known as wars of national liberation. These revolutions are defined as armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the UN and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the UN.(40)

There have long been efforts to codify the rules of war, generally those relating to the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), but also those dealing with the legality of the use of force (jus ad bellum).(41) One early modern attempt was by Francis Lieber, whose Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, was promulgated by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863.(42) But articles of war, governing the conduct of national armies in the field, had been issued since early times, and reached their culmination in England in the 17th century.(43)

The first major international attempt at codification was the Hague Peace Conference in 1899, where a number of conventions on the law of war were adopted.(44) Then in 1907, another conference at The Hague revised the rules and made them more detailed. It also gave greater emphasis to the legality of the use of force – rather than being simply confined to questions of the legality of actions on the battlefield. The resulting Law of The Hague recognised that the total avoidance of war should be the ultimate goal. But it recognised that war is sometimes unavoidable, and was to this extent a legitimate means of settling disputes between nations.(45)

The Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 (Pact of Paris) codified the customary law of war with respect to jus ad bellum. It was signed by 65 countries, including the USA,(46) who all thereby renounced aggressive war as an instrument of national policy.(47) In Article 1, ‘the high contracting parties condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another’.(48) The Treaty had the effect of outlawing war as an instrument of national policy (with respect to the signatories), and advanced the concept of aggressive war as being contrary to international law(49) – though it did not give rise to it – as this could be traced to Thomas Aquinas if not earlier.(50)

In 1945 and the years that followed, almost all nations signed the UN Charter, thereby promising to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN’.(51) Hence, aggressive war, as such, had been eliminated from among the lawful means of conducting international relations. Yet, the use of armed force has not ceased.(52) International law has recognised this. In particular, the jus in bello part of the law of armed conflict applies not only to situations of declared war, but to any situation of international armed conflict and, to a more limited degree, armed conflicts which are not of an international character. Furthermore, armed force may be used pursuant to a decision or recommendation of the UN, in accordance with Article 42 of its Charter, and yet is not ‘war’ in the strict technical sense.

---

The whole write-up can be found here - an interesting read by the way. Edit to add: Dr. Cox argues against the legality of the Iraq invasion by the United States but has an interesting ending statement that I thought I would share with everyone that might still be reading our little exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Cox

In his State of the Union address in 2002 President Bush announced that the USA would use military force against any state the administration perceived to be hostile.(187) This is at odds with the UN Charter, and poses difficulties for determining the future of the world legal order. But it is a difficulty which must be addressed, for the UN Charter is not, nor can be, the last word in public international law.

---

http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Iraq.htm

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 does not cover the Laws of War but something else.
Yes it does , it is , as was needed under the Hague treaty , a more complete code of the laws of war , in fact it is the complete code .
Don't do it , simple complete definitive .



Again what distortion what lie - your claiming this statement is a lie - but again Saddams actions in the the past demonstrate something else.

Red ....That was a long bit so I only quote the end .look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 does not cover the Laws of War but something else.
Yes it does , it is , as was needed under the Hague treaty , a more complete code of the laws of war , in fact it is the complete code .
Don't do it , simple complete definitive .

---

Well I defer to Dr Cox's explantion again because the Kellogg-Braid Pact is not a more complete code of laws of war - but code of international relationship and policy concerning the use of warfare to solve problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Cox

There have long been efforts to codify the rules of war, generally those relating to the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), but also those dealing with the legality of the use of force (jus ad bellum)

---

As he stated above the Kellogg-Briand pact was dealing with the legality of the use of force.

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the rules for the conduct of warfare (hostilities).

Quote:

---

Again what distortion what lie - your claiming this statement is a lie - but again Saddams actions in the the past demonstrate something else.

Red ....That was a long bit so I only quote the end .look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

---

Assumptions that turn out to be false are not lies, they are incorrect assumptions. Again you have not shown the statement I highlighted to be a lie nor is it false in the context of how President Bush used it. Again the statement was

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Again the statement was

No Red the Statement was......
"The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. "a true statement
You posted the whole thing and called it a true statement , it is not a true statement
So look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the rules for the conduct of warfare.

Until a more complete rule is drawn up , after the disaster that later became known as WW1 a complete rule was drawn up .
If for example there were some rules governing the consumption of alcohol , dealing with details like , age limits , measures , taxation , regulation , licensing , availability . Then there were rules drawn up that said no alcohol consumption at all . Which is the more complete ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Again the statement was




No Red the Statement was......

---

Oh you thought I meant the whole thing - now that is funny since I did it for the paragraph that i placed the statement. Oh well I should of stated that.

Quote:

---

"The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

---

And that is what he did in the past with the weapons he had - so this statement is true.

Quote:

---

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

---

An assumption based on past behavior - one that I happen to agree with completely.

Quote:

---

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

---

A misleading statement based upon using the Al Qaida arguement - but not a false statement either.

Quote:

---

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

---

Misleading - yep got to agree with that one

Quote:

---

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

---

An assumption and a scare tactic to gather support - misleading maybe - a false statement nope since its clearly meant to be a possible scenerio - not an actual scenerio.

Quote:

---

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

---

A true statement -

Quote:

---

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

---

Not a false statement now is it?

[quote]
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. "a true statement

Quote:

---

You posted the whole thing and called it a true statement , it is not a true statement
So look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

---

See above - nothing in the whole statement is really a falsehood now is it.

Quote:

---

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the rules for the conduct of warfare.

Until a more complete rule is drawn up , after the disaster that later became known as WW1 a complete rule was drawn up .
If for example there were some rules governing the consumption of alcohol , dealing with details like , age limits , measures , taxation , regulation , licensing , availability . Then there were rules drawn up that said no alcohol consumption at all . Which is the more complete ?

---

And again there is not more complete set of rules drawn up for the conduct of warfare - Dr. Cox explains it very well - and I again refer to his document and link.

And that is what he did in the past with the weapons he had - so this statement is true
No as he didn't have the weapons .
An assumption based on past behavior - one that I happen to agree with completely.

But he didn't have the weapons and in the past when he did have the weapons he still got his arse handed to him on a plate , twice . Though of course if he did have the weapons that he didn't have he could have caused havoc until he once again got thrashed . So an assumption , not a true statement
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Speculation .

Oh you thought I meant the whole thing
I thought that was why you posted the whole thing and put true at the end of it .~;)

And again there is not more complete set of rules drawn up for the conduct of warfare
Yes there is , don't conduct warfare , complete , absolute and definitive .
In fact you cannot get more complete than that can you ?
Way to go Mr. Cornflake ,~:cheers: pity it turned out to be a pile of crap .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And that is what he did in the past with the weapons he had - so this statement is true
No as he didn't have the weapons .
An assumption based on past behavior - one that I happen to agree with completely.

But he didn't have the weapons and in the past when he did have the weapons he still got his arse handed to him on a plate , twice . Though of course if he did have the weapons that he didn't have he could have caused havoc until he once again got thrashed . So an assumption , not a true statement

---

You realize of course that you just contradicted yourself in the above statements.

Quote:

---

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Speculation .

---

Yes indeed it can be considered speculation by some - and a valid assumption based upon past behavior by others.

Quote:

---

Oh you thought I meant the whole thing
I thought that was why you posted the whole thing and put true at the end of it .~;)

---

Quote:

---

And again there is not more complete set of rules drawn up for the conduct of warfare
Yes there is , don't conduct warfare , complete , absolute and definitive .
In fact you cannot get more complete than that can you ?
Way to go Mr. Cornflake ,~:cheers: pity it turned out to be a pile of crap .:shrug:

---

Like before that is not exactly what it states - but its obvious we won't agree.

You realize of course that you just contradicted yourself in the above statements.

Not at all , as the first is to the assumption that he had the weapons at the time the statement was made .

Like before that is not exactly what it states - but its obvious we won't agree.
Not until you can find a more complete law on war than no war . It is the most complete law you could possibly have .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You realize of course that you just contradicted yourself in the above statements.

Not at all , as the first is to the assumption that he had the weapons at the time the statement was made .

---

Nice save

Quote:

---

Like before that is not exactly what it states - but its obvious we won't agree.
Not until you can find a more complete law on war than no war . It is the most complete law you could possibly have .

---

And you believe that Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 accomplishes that - well and fine - but we won't agree at all. Kellogg-Briand did not pass muster when it was attempted to be used in an international tribunal for war crimes, now did it?

Interesting discussion never the less.

Kellogg-Briand did not pass muster when it was attempted to be used in an international tribunal for war crimes, now did it?

Yeah its a bit of a bugger when the prosecution cannot lay charges as they are also guilty .

Returning to the topic at hand... ~:)

An Italian senator has just reported that the Italians told the US goverment that the documents were forgeries around the time of the infamous 'sixteen words':

Quote:

---

Italian lawmaker: U.S. told of WMD forgeries

Updated: 1:46 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005
ROME - Italian secret services warned the United States months before it invaded Iraq that a dossier about a purported Saddam Hussein effort to buy uranium in Africa was fake, a lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by the nation's intelligence chief.

"At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they (Italy's SISMI secret services) said that the dossier doesn't correspond to the truth," Sen. Massimo Brutti told journalists after the parliamentary commission was briefed.

Brutti said the warning was given in January 2003, but he did not know whether it was made before or after President Bush's speech.


The United States and Britain used the claim that Saddam was seeking to buy uranium in Niger to bolster their case for the war.

The intelligence supporting the claim later was deemed unreliable.

Italian lawmakers questioned Premier Silvio Berlusconi's top aide and an intelligence chief Thursday about allegations that Italy knowingly gave the United States and Britain forged documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.

Berlusconi, in an interview with the conservative daily newspaper Libero published Thursday, said Italy had not passed any documents on the Niger affair to the United States. He added that La Repubblica's allegations were dangerous for Italy because "if they were believed, we would be considered the instigator" of the Iraq war.

The Niger claim also is at the center of a CIA leak scandal that has shaken the Bush administration, leading to last week's indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.

Libby was charged with lying to investigators about leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

Wilson accused the administration of covering up his inquiry into whether Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger after he found the claim had no substance.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

---

And now the same senator is backtracking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4402594.stm

FYI