GottaHurt

Your village is calling..

__________________
Pain can be such a beautiful thing

GottaHurt

We're not liable. See below.


Since he was Syrian born:

Maher Arar

So what he became a Canadian citizen, Canada threw the ball in our court. We sent him back to his country of origin.

There were no credibilty problems.

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war.

U.N. inspectors counted, inventoried, tagged, then sealed the bunkers that contained the WMD's hours before the onslaught of the war.

US intel confirmed the WMD's.

British intel confirmed the WMD's.

Israel confirmed the WMD's.

Saddam buried weapons, ammo, artillery shells and equipment in bunkers throughout Iraq.

When we captured Saddam, he had buried himself.

Reasonable conclusion here?

Just because we haven't sent massive teams out to dig up the entire country means, we haven't found WMD's, yet


You didn't list #3.

3. We sent him back to Syria to show others if they make our terrorist watch list, they too could be denied a safe haven in our country, free from retaliation from their own governments.

__________________
Pain can be such a beautiful thing

26 X World Champs

Yet you accepted Bush's claims that Saddam had WMDs and that a damned war was justified when most definitely there was way more than "Reasonable Doubt."

I get it! If the argument suits you then reasonable doubt is irrelevant. But when your violence producing heroes are exposed you then demand proof that we, the USA are torturing and asking for it!

Do you know the meaning of this word that describes your posts?

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

26 X World Champs

It's fuc king unbelievable that anyone would write such utter ridiculousness! YET! OMG! Talk about Chicken Little syndrome!

How many Bushies does it take to find a WMD? None....we've already found them!

akyron

There is no hinge. Universally accepted established legal practices between all nations would be a nice hinge.

__________________

Binary_Digit

How do you figure that? Weren't you getting at whether the current policy is in compliance with established regulations? If not, what did you mean by this: "I did not say the US was free of guilt merely following the current legal policy right or wrong. Bureaucracy is a pain in the you know what."

Yes, in a perfect world it would. But in reality it's like you said, "we cannot get these countries to comply with UN demands all the time. Why expect them to keep their word?"

I'm having trouble figuring out where you're coming from. First you mentioned that we got assurances from Syria that he wouldn't be tortured. Then you said the fact that these assurances are not reliable is "not the issue" because you're merely following the "current legal policy right or wrong." Now when I say that the question of whether the legal policy is right or wrong hinges on whether or not a specific condition in the international regulations was met, you say there is no hinge. Color me confused, heh!

akyron

Not really. The regulations arent established. Maybe they should be. Tradition and custom simply arent enforced.

__________________

akyron

Sometimes you have to work with what you have. Limited options.

__________________