Skip to comments.Blair, Bush as Gulty as Saddam
Posted on 11/07/2006 9:47:44 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot
Compared to current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's former President Muhammad Khatami is regarded in Western foreign affairs circles as a moderate.
When Khatami visited the United States in September, he called on the America and Iran to stop verbally assaulting each other in the interest of dialogue that could build trust and eliminate the frictions between the two countries. Khatami said that the precondition for dialogue was "to eliminate the language of threat."
In an attempt to "resolve conflicts by talking, rather than by aggression," the venerable Scottish University of St. Andrews invited Khatami to the United Kingdom for an honorary degree, followed by a speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. However, a spanner was thrown into the works by two Iranian exiles who claim to have been unlawfully imprisoned and tortured in Iran during the period of Khatami's presidency.
Under Section 134 of Britain's Criminal Justice Act of 1988, torture wherever committed in the world is criminal under British law and triable in the United Kingdom. Thus, Khatami might still be arrested as he tours Britain in the interest of opening communication.
If Khatami can be arrested in the United Kingdom for torture, how does British Prime Minister Tony Blair escape arrest for the torture of Afghans and Iraqis by coalition forces? Why are not U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Richard Cheney and President George W. Bush arrested when they visit Britain?
Does the British law excuse Anglo-Americans from its reach? Does it exclude government officials while they are in office and pursue them only when they have become private citizens?
Or are we witnessing the operation of the neoconservative assumption that there is one rule of law for the United States and its allies and another rule for countries that do not support the neocon agenda? Neocons maintain that whatever the United States and its allies or puppets do in the interest of U.S. hegemony is defensible and permissible, but is a crime if any other country does it.
When the president and vice president of the United States publicly defend and advocate torture and ram torture legislation through the U.S. Congress, it is hypocrisy for the United States to condemn others for torture.
Perhaps Americans don't notice, but the rest of the world does see the double standard applied when Saddam Hussein is put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, while U.S., U.K. and Israeli government officials commit far greater crimes by illegally invading countries, targeting civilian populations and torturing detainees.
Considering the enormous bloodshed and destruction of civilian lives and infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq by U.S. and U.K. troops, why do British left-wing academics and human rights activists want to help the neoconservatives in the United States and United Kingdom spread the war to Iran?
Helping to spread war is what the British left is doing when they agitate for the arrest of Khatami, while leaving Labor Party Prime Minister Tony Blair free to commit more crimes against humanity. Could it be that the two Iranian exiles are acting as neoconservative agents to block any possible rapprochement with Iran?
This is not a wild speculation in view of the role Iraqi exiles played in deceiving the American public and making false accusations against Iraq that Bush used to justify his invasion.
The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have turned out to be a catastrophe for the United States and United Kingdom, as well as for the Iraqis and Afghans. Only a totally deranged political leadership would want to spread the catastrophe to Iran.
According to an Oct. 30 BBC news report, British private security firm personnel - mercenaries, to some - outnumber British soldiers in Iraq six to one. A British charity group accuses Blair of "allowing mercenary armies to operate completely outside the law."
In Britain, it is no longer permissible to hunt foxes because it is "cruel and inhumane," but it is perfectly all right for private mercenaries and British soldiers to murder Iraqi and Afghan men, women and children for the sake of Anglo-American-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Hussein was overthrown and indicted, and Iraq largely destroyed, in part because Saddam is "an evil man who tortured political opponents." Evidence of U.S. torture of Iraqis is all over the Internet in vivid photos.
According to Amnesty International, "Adequate safeguards against torture and ill-treatment are not in place in Multinational Force detention facilities, and thousands continue to be held without charge or trial." The president and vice president of the United States advocate torture not only of Iraqis but also of everyone declared, correctly or incorrectly, by some U.S. government official to be a "terrorist suspect."
Why are not Bush, Cheney and Blair on trial? Their crimes dwarf any that could possibly be attributed to Khatami.
The only possible answer is that "might makes right." Yet, Bush, Cheney and Blair parade around, draping themselves in moral justifications for their inhumane deeds and despicable acts.
The fact that Americans tolerate crimes against humanity by their own leaders is evidence that Americans are exceptional only in their hubris.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
That's a relief, I thought he said they were as Guilty as Saddam.
is evidence that Americans are exceptional only in their hubris.
I know you are, but what am I? You assclown.
What an utterly idiot statement coming from person in a nation whoese troops Saddam used posion gas against.
I can't wait for executions of traitors to make a comeback. this limp-dicked moron should be near the front of the line.
GULTY?? What the hell does that mean?
I am stunned that anyone--even Newsmax--will still give this lunatic a forum.
Newsmax descredits itsslf by affiliating with Roberts in any way.
And Paul Craig Roberts is as dumb as a stump. There.
I don't know who this Paul Craig Roberts is, but all I know is that he's an f'ing idiot.
That they hang around fishing piers, screech a lot, and crap on people's heads.
These guys sit in their cushy little offices and write this crap with such moral superiority and righteous indignation and bash those few, good leaders who keep us safe from experiencing TRUE "crimes against humanity". I fear these people are too far gone, but hopefully they don't drag the country down with them.
If the American Psychiatric Association wasn't dominated by liberals they would add "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to their list of pathologies. This dude is Exhibit A (hole).
they are gulty for desiring to protect human life and promote the priciples of democratic civility.
perhaps Iran wants that to change. Praise Allah. May they enjoy nuetrinos, atomic, subatomic particles and piss be upon them. allah akber!
At some point in the last 10 years or so, he turned into a flake. Kind of like Pat Buchanan, only more so. Maybe he had a stroke, or some other mental problem. I think Charlie Reese is in the same catagory. Also that guy Richard Brookheiser (who used to write for National Review).
C'mon guys. PCR is just trying to point out that Saddam is nnocent untl proven gulty .
Roberts is an ex-Reagan administration Assistant Treasury Secretary. He also used to write for Businessweek as its token conservative. (And he was pretty conservative). I think his columns have really gotten weirder and weirder over the past several years. I hope it's not something in his personal life.
This will be a nice example for the textbooks of "moral equivalency" is.
Next? We gotta call it something else. It's a fifty dollar term for age-old logic cheating.
Only imbeciles see any relevancy in such "tricks". And only fools argue with imbeciles.
Got an interesting post from home this morning; someone asked Tony Blair why he liked Americans his reply - "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in ... And how many want out."
He still writes for National Review. What makes you think he's gone crazy?
Maybe Paul is dating David Brock?
Medical problem, maybe?
While this may be true, he has not been proven gulty n an Iraq Court
Just to let you know I got help for the H thread, thank you just the same!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.