Ambassador Joseph Wilson...

Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
...is an interesting character.

He jumps up and down and makes alot of smoke and seems to be drawing more and more attention to his role in all of this; a role that seems to be begging more questions than offering, as he seems to wish, answers.

I have a question;

Anyone know State Department rules on ambassadors and/or their spouses spying?

It seems to me there is a rule against ambassadors having anything to do with CIA. I think it is understood, by all nations, that everyone HAS spies in their embassies, but aren't ambassadors and their families suppose to be beyond reproach?

Anyone?
 
Spoiled

Spoiled

Active Member
and we arent suposed to violate the geneva conventions... doesnt stop us though, does it? we arent suposed to violate UN charter law, doesnt stop us... what makes that any different?
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
Larry Gude said:
...is an interesting character.

He jumps up and down and makes alot of smoke and seems to be drawing more and more attention to his role in all of this; a role that seems to be begging more questions than offering, as he seems to wish, answers.

I have a question;

Anyone know State Department rules on ambassadors and/or their spouses spying?

It seems to me there is a rule against ambassadors having anything to do with CIA. I think it is understood, by all nations, that everyone HAS spies in their embassies, but aren't ambassadors and their families suppose to be beyond reproach?

Anyone?
Click to expand...

As the wife of an ambassador, isn't she now a "public figure"? Isn't she no longer protected from any type of violation of privacy? Doesn't the fact that we have a CIA agent married to an ambassador imply that none of our ambassadors can be trusted?
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Spoiled said:
and we arent suposed to violate the geneva conventions... doesnt stop us though, does it? we arent suposed to violate UN charter law, doesnt stop us... what makes that any different?
Click to expand...
Ahhh. You're defensive. I can understand that. If I were constantly being embarrassed by my corrupt political party, I might be defensive as well.

Trot over to the DU. They'll tell you what to say. :huggy:
 
Spoiled

Spoiled

Active Member
vraiblonde said:
Ahhh. You're defensive. I can understand that. If I were constantly being embarrassed by my corrupt political party, I might be defensive as well.

Trot over to the DU. They'll tell you what to say. :huggy:
Click to expand...
how many idictments does it take to become corrupt?
 
Spoiled

Spoiled

Active Member
BuddyLee said:
This grammar/spelling/ect. is corrupt, you go to Towson?
Click to expand...
Not an english major and i hit spell check before i hit print....

kids these days, have it so easy...
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Well...

Spoiled said:
and we arent suposed to violate the geneva conventions... doesnt stop us though, does it? we arent suposed to violate UN charter law, doesnt stop us... what makes that any different?
Click to expand...

...as long as you're in a charitable mood today, you can see how, if it's OK for ol' Joe to break the law with his wife that maybe he should be a little more understanding of 'ol Scooter?

We hates us some hypocrites, don't we?

PS: When did we violate the UN charter?
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That's the point...

MMDad said:
As the wife of an ambassador, isn't she now a "public figure"? Isn't she no longer protected from any type of violation of privacy? Doesn't the fact that we have a CIA agent married to an ambassador imply that none of our ambassadors can be trusted?
Click to expand...


...that spies are understood and accepted with SOME rules; one being the actual ambassador is off limits for spying which would obvioulsy include his wife and family.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Spoiled said:
and we arent suposed to violate the geneva conventions... doesnt stop us though, does it? we arent suposed to violate UN charter law, doesnt stop us... what makes that any different?
Click to expand...
We're talking two things, here. One is regarding our own laws; it's obviously a conflict of interest to have an ambassador working in collusion with the CIA.

The other is whether or not we violate international laws and agreements. I don't see violation of Geneva convention, because the enemy combatants in the war on terror do not fit any criterion for whom it is meant for; I've always maintained that in this era of international terrorism, new conditions need to be drafted for terrorists, because they're not the same thing as regular enemy combatants in a war with another nation. Right now, the best way to regard them is international criminals - they don't represent the policy of any nation officially, and don't wear uniforms.

Further, regarding the UN - it WAS given the go ahead to engage Iraq with the use of force. They just would rather have leaned back and make more pronouncements and condemnations than actually ACT on resolutions they kept passing.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
First, Wilson is not an ambassador. He was an ambassador. At the time his wife sent him to Niger he was a private citizen and could do whatever he wanted to. From what I've heard, prior to the trip Wilson was an unemployed social gadfly who's wife probably just wanted out of the house and working again.

Speaking of Wilson, I wish people would realize there were two completely different Niger issues. First was the claim from the Brits that Iraq was seeking yellow cake in Niger. The second was the forged documents that the CIA received from French agents showing that the Iraqis had bought yellow cake in Niger. Bush never referred to the fake report in the address, only the confirmed British report, and stated that the Iraqis had sought the yellow cake. Wilson, in his response letter to the SSIC even admits that his report never debunks the claim that Iraqis were seeking yellow cake, only the forged document report that the CIA had that said they had actually bought it.

Second, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent working overseas. She had been under light cover overseas several years before the situation arose, but she was not at the time her name was revealed. Her status as a CIA employee, like all CIA employees, is confidential but not really classified.

Third, the Geneva Convention rules only apply to uniformed members of a signing nation's military. That's why it's perfectly legal to shoot an enemy spy or military member found on your soil wearing civilian clothes. Under the Geneva Convention if you're engaged in combat, and not wearing a uniform, you can be rightfully shot, so a little torture isn't so bad.
 
Spoiled

Spoiled

Active Member
We violate the UN charter by going into Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Article 2 of the charter:
...All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Click to expand...


and as for the definition of POW:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
...

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Click to expand...
I understand terrorism isnt a law and custom of war, however being a militant in faluja using their AK may very well be...
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Spoiled said:
We violate the UN charter by going into Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Article 2 of the charter:



and as for the definition of POW:

I understand terrorism isnt a law and custom of war, however being a militant in faluja using their AK may very well be...
Click to expand...
Fortunately the UN authorized use of force in 1991 by resolution, Iraq lost and failed to meet the terms of the cease fire, thus the original authorization was still in effect and within the guidelines of the charter.
 
Spoiled

Spoiled

Active Member
Pete said:
Fortunately the UN authorized use of force in 1991 by resolution, Iraq lost and failed to meet the terms of the cease fire, thus the original authorization was still in effect and within the guidelines of the charter.
Click to expand...
I maybe missing it, but where in resolution 687 does it authorize the US to go into Iraq, violating its sovereignty and setup a new government without further resolutions being passed? Resolution 687 gave UNSC support of a war to end the occupation of Kuwait. It did also setup provisions of the ceasefire; however it did not explain repercussions of them being violated.

ylexot said:
So they are not POWs :yay: Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...
As I said, the inhabitant of faluja, it could be argued met the criteria of being
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top