HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 14, 2006 Regarding Thomas Keyes rebuttal of article by Mike Haran. Because a Jordanian court finds Chalabi guilty Thomas Keyes automatically himself assumes that he is. Is the decision upheld by any higher court in Jordan? How many of the decisions made by Jordanian courts have been adhered to by courts having an international reputation for being unbiased. Twenty years of hard labour sounds harsh even for bank fraud. Does Thomas endorse the decision and the sentence? Would the decision and the sentence based upon the evidence stand in a US court or one of similar reputation? Why do accused felons in the US (and Canada) so often fight extradition to Middle East jurisdictions on the grounds that they will not receive a fair trial. Regarding the bit concerning the UCLA and the Democratic national Committee which I used as a means of illustrating my point. I asked which where the agencies that had bought charges or were investigating Chalabi. I stand by my comments. I was not trying to act the smart aleck but merely to illustrate a point. It is an old tactic to accuse using flimsy evidence, one apparently used to great effect in the US which seems to allow this sort of thing.I know that in Canada if you tried such tactics one could be charged under the criminal code for Malicious prosecution. Regarding Rove and Bush allegations regarding the leaking of classified information. This is not irrelevant to the discussion as I used the analogy as a means of probing the reasons for so many charges, accusations and investigations against Chalabi. Those in high places in the political arena often come under scrupulous investigation by those looking for a means of smearing their reputation. Bush and Rove can no doubt vouch for the effectiveness of this tactic. I am merely surmising that this tactic is now being used against Chalabi. Keyes goes on to say that Bush lied about WMD. Again a fine legal point. That the Senate Intelligence Committee has demonstrated that there is good reason to believe that he did lie is apparently not good enough reason to impeach. (As an aside I would like to point out that this committee is one of the reasons for the US dismal record regarding intelligence gathering. Foreign intelligence agencies are loath to share intelligence with the US as they never known when the head of their department is going to show up in a photograph on the front page of the New York Times). The whole world believed Sadam had WMD. It is all very well to Monday morning quarter back but you have to look at history in the context of the time it occurred, not from the point of view of your own pet peeves and beliefs. For a decade or so Sadam had not allowed in UN inspectors who believed strongly that he had WMD. The World Trade Center was attacked during this period. The military were asked to come up with a plan which they did involving the attacking of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Military plans do not evolve out of the blue .Re-enactments are played for all contingencies. When an event occurs the most relevant is bought out and then modified to suit the actual circumstances. I myself have often wondered regarding the invasion of Iraq. I think that the point was to dilute the forces of al Qaeda forcing them to spread over a large area thus denying them the advantage of mouth to mouth communications which require human intelligence to intercept, a thing the US lacks as it is against US law for its citizens to engage in espionage. Was there a connection between Al Qaeda and Sadam Hussein? Well what can I say: war is war. What are the legal criteria for attacking during a state of war? If you want a precedent you can go back to World War Two where after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the forces of Japan the US attacked German forces in Tunisia ,Germany having had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbour.Obviously there was a connection, one we will probably not hear about for twenty years or so. I wont even bother getting into the Jewish conspiracy paragraph regarding Israeli pressure for the Iraq invasion as I now some how feel guilty of taking advantage of the mentally unbalanced. Events in the real world are not based upon news paper articles. If Thomas would but get his head out of the New York Times and from in front of the television set he could perhaps get a broader view of the world. He must first ask him self first why the particular article was written? There is no need to elaborate on the left leaning bias in the popular media despite the odd puff piece friendly to conservatives. The media are hell bent in getting rid of Bush and the conservatives as even child would know after but a cursory glance over any of the major US news papers. I stand by my premise that there were sound military reasons for invading Iraq, the subsequent Al Quda attacks in the country vindicating me in this belief. ------------ About the author: Read Mike Haran's essays on history at http://www.geocities.com/manzikertca/ Email: manzikertca@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
