Stage2 said:
He's the one that didn't address my response.
Incorrect.
I fully addressed your response, with facts and links to the sources of those facts.
I faulted you for using the word "lie", when the word "lie" was not in my statements at all, were they?
You can deny the facts of the wars basis all you want, but understand that as the facts come out, you will only be proven wrong moreso than you currently believe you were, and if your mind is made up as it seems to be, information is not going to help you.
The facts are all there, in the links, from both independent, media, official and other sources.
Stage2 said:
Even if Osborn is correct and justifications for the war are trumped up, it is still a legal action.
Obviously it isn't.
Its called fraud, deceit and manipulation of information, in the highest levels of our government, between the seated administration and the other three branches of government, not to mention violating laws that even Nixon didn't dare encroach.
For information that is more specific, in relation to the comparison between Watergate and Bushgate, please refer to the book "Worse than Watergate" by John W. Dean, who served in and under the Nixon administration. If that doesn't suit you, perhaps you could make personal contact with Edwin Viera, Constitutional Scholar?
What you are saying is nonsensical, and lacks any factual backing to support it.
Stage2 said:
Thats the only thing that matters for this puke soldier to get off. Watada HAS to show that this was is illegal. He won't be able to do that for the reasons I outlined.
Reasons you outlined:
However this doesn't change that fact that the cerase fire agreement signed at the end of the first gulf war was violated HUNDREDS of times by Saddam.
Are you saying any violation of treaty is grounds for unprovoked war of massive national scale and regime change? Even without international approval?
What about our treaty violations my friend? Where did the chemical weapons dictator Saddam used to gas the Kurds come from? Us. Were there treaties in the global theater to prevent this? Yes.
Don't make me break out the list of treaties we have broken in foreign policy, or domestic policy.
What is the Constitution? A treaty? A contract? A Pact?
Please, elaborate sir.
Stage2 said:
But since we are talking about Watada here, whether the war was baed on trumped up inte or not isn't the issue.
Yes, indeed it is, because it will call to question the legality of the order to war. This man, and every other soldier like him have become pawns in a legal shell game played by the Bush administration. The shell game has been busted, and found to be rigged, constituting fraud without a license to fraud.
(as if there is a license to fraud, hopefully you "get" the analogy.)
Stage2 said:
Whether WMD's were ever found (and there were small amounts of chemicial weapons found which do qualify under the traditional definition of WMD's) doesn't speak to the legality of the war.
Firstly, it matters if the WMD were the vehicle of support for the war, which the adminstration made it to be, with constant fear-mongering after 9-11, and false claims made about links between Saddam and Al Quaeda. The WMD found was a joke, and was only shown so that they could say "see, we did find something", but it was in NO WAY a national threat, ESPECIALLY to our nation, regardless of whose hands they made it into.
Secondly, this administration shaped the path for war, and built it on the best information they had at the time (their words, not mine). They failed, as did their interpretation of the intelligence, as well as the planning for the war.
Add to that, the fact that the only time "acknowledges" the UN, is when it suits his agenda. It suited his agenda to site the resolution, but he has ignored every other plea FROM the UN about that issue, as well as every other UN issue.
(I am no UN supporter, so don't try to paint me that way. Facts are facts.)
Stage2 said:
From an AMERICAN legal standpoint the war is legal. The checks and balances were met, and the votes were cast. And it is the American system that will be judging Watada. He may have a case at the Hague (though not really for reasons I have already discussed) but he won't here in our courts.
Well, what type of american are you talking about, when talking about the American standpoint?
Have you never read of the argument of war powers, or studied it?
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/subjects.xpd?type=crs&term=War+and+emergency+powers
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
Have you heard of, or read the "War and Emergency Powers Act"?
Do you know what Unitary Executive Authority refers to, or when it was introduced?
Do you understand the precedents set, before these pivotal, EXECUTIVE changes were made?
Obviously, you think all Americans support your idea of law, but that is not the case, even among scholars of the very subject.
I would reccommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Powers-Imperial-Presidency-Constitution/dp/0805075933
Stage2 said:
As a result Watada has nothing to stand on.
According to a smaller and smaller INFORMED percentage of americans everyday, in all circles, legal, political and social.
Stage2 said:
But whats more, this guy signed up AFTER the conflict in both Afghanistan AND Iraq began. That makes him both in violation of military law and a moron. What in the hell did he think was going to happen if he joined the army while the war in Iraq was going on?
You obviously haven't read much about his case.
I encourage you to do so, if you wish to have a respectable position in this debate.
As of now, you have shown nothing but subjective opinion, and one point about the UN resolution. Not much of an argument you have, not from the style of posts, and resolution to namecalling (puke soldier), or the lack of facts with exception to the UN resolution.
As a sidenote, relating to the topic.
Do you agree or disagree that an "Executive Order" is an order by proclamation, something that goes against every idea we have of "checks and balances"?
