All I said originally was that I thought he was a hero for standing up for his principles in spite of the fact that a majority of people damn him to hell both for this action, and because they don’t like his principles to begin with.
The WP was brought up as an example of one of the multitude of human rights abuses and war crimes by the United States. I posted the links as supporting evidence
How about the BBC? Link
WP is only banned when it is used as a weapon for its toxic properties, not for illumination. The military’s use of it in so-called ‘shake-n-bake’ applications is clearly a violation.
The above goes for you too.
Your use of personal attacks instead of debating what I actually said indicates that you should go fuck yourself.
I was not trying to connect the two, I was showing examples of US human rights abuses. Noone said they had to be overseas.
How about testing the effects of nuclear weapons on our own troops?
Smallpox blankets to the indians?
Most of the early activities of the Bureau of Indian affairs?
I can go on and on. I’m not saying Saddam wasn’t a brutal dictator, I’m just saying that the US doesn’t have the best record either, and in fact, has a worse record. We’ve killed far more innocents than he ever did. Besides, we helped him do it!
He was allowed by the US to purchase everything he needed to build his chem/bio program. He was then given political cover by the Reagan administration for his use of it in war and against his own people.
The BBC referenced the Chemical Weapons Convention, so let’s go to the source, shall we?
The OPCW was established by the countries that joined the CWC. From their overview of chemical weapons.
Saying WP is caustic is like saying napalm stings the eyes. It may do that, but the fact that it burns the hell out of whatever it touches is the reason it is being used. If it is being used for some “toxic” property rather than thermal properties, you should have no trouble digging up cites as to what damage the toxin does outside of burning flesh.
The link you provide shows that there is nothing “clear” about it.
[quote]
So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that “a certain way” can easily be defined, if at all.
The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.
…
However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use."
If the US is not a signatory to the treaty, then its use of WP is not a violation of international law.
And continuing to try and hold that Saddam has a better Human Rights record than the US continues to be bizzare arguement. In order to make it you are comparing the record of multiple US administartions covering two centuries of the existance of the US to just Saddam’s reign. That’s a lot of digging. And I still don’t think you’ve convinced any of us that our human rights would have been safer under Saddam.
That’s true, but you left off the purpose of having Justice Tom Clark step down. President Johnson wanted to appoint Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court and this was his way of making an opening.
Amazing, considering that Clark drafted the Civil Rights Act which is LBJ’s most redeeming grace.
Clark was definitely not his worst mistake. Did Johnson say that before or after his lies to the American people about Vietnam and before or after his decisions about the war led to another decision not to even try to run for reelection in 1968?
In truth, we all can only speculate on what Clark’s motives are. He’s the only possible authority.
Increased invasion of privacy
Government corruption
Political prisoners
Increased governmental secrecy
Use of torture
Increased accusations of “treason”
Increasing poverty
John, no one is demanding that you praise Clark. And I don’t think that you are anti-freedom. I’m sure that you understand the difference in “supporting” a person and “defending” his rights in a court of law. If you believe that everyone has the right to a good defense, then I would have no reason to believe that you in particular are anti-justice. I would not want to leave that impression with you. As for “putting up with this shit,” well, that’s what happens when we support freedom. We have to put up with each other’s shit sometimes. But we can always address it – as you and I both have done.
Zoe, I asked you point blank in this other Ramsey Clark thread whether a particular antic he pulled, namely his trip to Tehran in 1980, during the hostage crisis, can be supported. You have not favored me with a reply.
Now, you certainly give the impression as one of Clark’s defenders on these boards, so I have to ask, again, if you support this particular action of his.
Zoe- do you have any cite for that whatsoever? I’ve been searching on-line, and the best I can find is that Clark drafted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, both of which were follow-ups to, and much lesser than, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed discrimination based upon race. Given that Clark wasn’t a member of the administration until 1965, I lean toward the supposition that you’re misremembering.
Absolutey. Now, do you recognize that sometimes there is no difference? And that after a man spends twenty years defending dictators and those who commit genocide, and spends twenty years making public statements denouncing those who are trying to bring dictators and those who commit genocide to justice, some of us might not be willing to assume that Clark is doing this out of some noble cause?
Eh. He’s doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I’m not complaining that he’s doing the right thing. I’m complaining that people seem to assume that because he’s doing the right thing, he must have the right reason; and I’m complaining that people seem to assume that because people are attacking him, they must be attacking his “right thing” rather than his “wrong reasons”.
That, and as I said earlier: many of the people coming to Clark’s defense (and I do not include you in this Zoe, but I certainly include CynicalGabe) are making such outlandish statements about the United States government that I think a light needs to be shone upon them.