Wolfowitz in charge of Military Tribunals...

[sarettah]

from:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/24/wolfowitz.tribunals/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has delegated his role as "appointing authority" for military commissions to his deputy, according to Pentagon officials.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a delegation last weekend putting Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in authority over the tribunals that will try al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, the officials said.

---------------------------------------------

As appointing authority, he also will select military officers to sit on commissions. If commission members cannot resolve matters related to procedures, motions or facts, Wolfowitz will make the final decision.

[Mike AI]

Sounds good to me, Wolfowitz is a very capable guy!

Him and Rumsfield are 2 people in gov't I actually have confidence in!

[sextoyking]

Mike,

I won't even comment on Rumsfeld, he needs to send himself back to the tricky dick days.

Wolfowitz is another hawk and right winger who wouldn't mind trimming a little off the constitution if it suits his political belives.

A Jew I can't def. stand

[Vick]

Originally posted by sextoyking@Jun 24 2003, 08:45 PM
He needs to send himself back to the tricky dick days.

Todd there you go fucking with (my hero) Richard M. Nixon again

This was a damn good country was Nixon was president and Nixon was a damn good president


That is all, thank you

[sextoyking]

Vick,

I will give Nixon credit on 1 thing, International Affairs, our China Policy, etc.

What he did domesticly and subverting the constitution is a whole nother ball game

[Vick]

Todd, you know I always have to give ya a little nudge when ever Nixon comes up, you being a somewhat liberal Democrat

Actually if I had political heroes they would be Thomas Jefferson (amazing mind and writer) and some of our founding fathers
You have to remember our (the USA) first form of government failed and was revamped in 1787 to the form we now know with 3 branches of which the house and senate are a part

The USA was a crazy experiment that worked

Now back to subject

I don't see a problem with Wolfowitz, what else should I know about him that he should not be in this position?



Last edited by Vick at Jun 24 2003, 09:18 PM

[sarettah]

Wolfowitz scares the hell out of me..... To have him personally in charge of this stuff, imo, almost guarantees that there is going to be a whole lot MORE secrecy involved in all the proceedings....

We cannot hold our government responsible for it's actions if those actions are hidden from view....

I still have concerns about the whole legality of the issue of "unlawful combatants" in the first place....

If your country is invaded.... and you protect yourself, how is that "unlawful" ?

I understand that we had good reasons for going into Afghanistan, going after Al Queda and the Taliban as Al Queda supporters.... I supported it and would do so today if it were an issue... However, I feel that we should be treating the prisoners as what they were... Combatants, the enemies... They should have all the protections that the Geneva convention affords them as such.....

Just because we are a superpower does not give us the right to do whatever we want to do, whenever we want to do it.... Imo, it actually bestows upon us a responsibility to use our powers wisely and humanely...

I believe fully that Wolfowitz would have no problem ordering every prisoner in gitmo executed with no hearing because it would meet his personal agenda of a "region wide" war that would allow the U.S. and Israel to take control of the Middle East and all Oil production in the region...

[Almighty Colin]

Why does Paul Wolfowitz scare you?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 25 2003, 11:14 AM
Why does Paul Wolfowitz scare you?

Because I feel he has a "personal" agenda that is more in other countries favor than our own...

****************************************
From: http://www.antiwar.com/rep/utley4.html (one month prior to 9/11)

"England," observes Editor Owen Harries in the Spring 2001 National Interest ("Anglosphere Illusion"), "was the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile coalition against itself. It avoided that fate by showing great restraint, prudence and discrimination in the use of its power in the main political arena by generally standing aloof and restricting itself to the role of balancer of last resort. In doing so it was heeding the warning given it by Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was beginning: 'I dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread being too much dreaded.'"

Notes Harries, "I believe the United States is now in dire need of such a warning."

Instead of understanding the limits to its power, however, America is forging a world alliance against itself. Russia is now allying with China and India and Iran against American hegemony. Much, if not most, of the Muslim world fears and hates American policies, if not Americans. Europe is going neutral and America's Asian allies want no part in a conflict between China and America. New embassies are built like Star Wars' fortresses and the US Navy has fearfully cut back shore leave in much of the world. And now a multi-billion dollar missile shield is sought to protect America mainly from all the new enemies it is making for itself.

How did the "world's only super power" become so isolated and fearful?

The "Wolfowitz Doctrine" is named for the No. 2 man at the Defense Department and key Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld confidant, Paul Wolfowitz, former director of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, known for his support of NATO expansion and the attack on Serbia.

As the New York Times explained it, the Wolfowitz Doctrine argues that America's political and military mission should be to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism." Its core thesis, described by Ben Wattenberg in the April 12, Washington Times, is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it."
---------------

Ruling the world is not even a "conservative" position. "It is a policy" writes William Ruger for Reason Magazine ("Foreign Policy Folly,"June 2001), "that will threaten rather than preserve many of America's traditional values, such as individual liberty, small government and anti-militarism. As has been pointed out by a number of historians, war and preparing for war are the soils that nurture the growth of state power, burdensome taxation, conscription, and militarism. If American conservatism should stand for anything, it should be the goal of limited government. Yet the primacist policies offered here guarantee the opposite: a leviathan." The first cost of empire will be the loss of many of our own freedoms. The second will be our prosperity. Empires are expensive.

Many conservatives are showing a passion for confrontation with China. Answering those "crying Wolfowitz," Craig Smith pointed out in the New York Times (May 15), that China and Taiwan are actually thriving together economically -- not the image one gets from those who want confrontation. This anti-China sentiment is comparable to anti-German belligerence in England before World War I, when street demonstrations demanded war. The desire of American hawks to "contain" China resembles England's efforts to prevent Germany from gaining its "place in the sun." England's "Wolfowitz Doctrine" led to the end of the British Empire, even though England "won" the war. Not coincidentally, during the half-century after 1914, most Englishmen lived in poverty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Repor...003leopold.html (February this year)

February 20, 2003—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime, claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.

This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush administration's desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?

The existence of the Rumsfield and Wolfowitz "war" letters is just another reason to question the Bush administration's desire to go to war with Iraq now instead of dealing with other pressing issues. Because the letters were written in 1998 it proves that this war was planned well before 9–11 and casts further doubt on the claims that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9–11 terrorist attacks

-----------------------------------------------------------
From:
http://slate.msn.com/id/117227/ (one month after 9/11)

Wolfowitz is frequently called a conservative ideologue, and while it's certainly true.......
------------
In 1992, by contrast, he horrified many when he suggested that the United States dispatch troops to Lithuania if Russia tried to stop the republic's secession.
--------------
Wolfowitz favors American unilateral action and doesn't particularly worry about how that destabilizes the rest of the world.
--------------

From:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2841...1wolfowitz.html (one month after 9/11)

Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the "Wolfowitz cabal," named after Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland, falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist "war" into a full-blown "Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the "enemy image" in a "new Cold War."


Though Perle was only recently appointed to head the Defense Policy Board, he and Wolfowitz have been collaborators for more than two decades, as agents-of-influence of the right-wing Israeli war faction. In 1985, when it was clear that Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American convicted that year of spying for Israel, could not have been working alone in stealing such high-level U.S. secrets for Israel to sell to the Soviet Union, top-level intelligence officials told EIR that an entire "X Committee" of high-level U.S. officials, was being investigated. Wolfowitz and Perle were on the list of "X Committee" suspects, and Israeli spying against the United States was so thick that investigators told EIR they had found "not moles, but entire molehills." Pollard and his Israeli defenders later claimed that Pollard "had to" spy against the United States because the Americans were soft on Iraq and other Arab countries.

---------------------------------------------------

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 25 2003, 11:55 AM
America's Asian allies want no part in a conflict between China and America.

I missed the news today. Are we at war with China?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 25 2003, 12:15 PM
I missed the news today. Are we at war with China?

Nopers that was before 9/11....

we did Afghanistan and Iraq instead..................