Comment by gnfargbl

3 months ago

I don't think it's being looked at by the UK government through the lens of "right" or "wrong" but simply as a matter of the rule of law. If a course of action is illegal, they have to avoid it.

9 comments

gnfargbl

Reply
anonymousiam  3 months ago

The concept of "law" becomes foggy when you're dealing with state-backed criminals. I'm confident that the US intelligence apparatus has properly identified the perps, what they were transporting, and the cooperation they got from their "government."

  • fatbird  3 months ago

    Just like the IC story about Iraqi uranium refining was a "slam dunk"?

    That's not actually to impugn the US IC, exactly. It's more to call out that the IC can do their job thoroughly and correctly and the powers that be will misuse or misrepresent their work product for their own purposes. Unless you know otherwise, we have to consider (among other things) that the US IC has nothing showing these boats are implicated, but the admin proceeded anyway.

    You're assuming a level of adherence to norms, best practices, and laws that the current administration has demonstrated they do not do. They're not even bothering to present weak evidence.

    • anonymousiam  3 months ago

      Remember that Saddam was not cooperating with UNMOVIC, and not denying that he was building nukes. It seems crazy that he would do this until you recognize that his power depended upon being seen as strong and defiant of "The Great Satan."

      Yeah, it turned out that he wasn't building nukes, but he provably did have WMD (chemical weapons), and had used them.

      I don't doubt that GWB wanted "to finish the job" that his father started, and may have influenced the IC into producing "evidence" to support his goals. Obama did the same thing with the "Russia Collusion" hoax.

      Most civil servants are stand up people who would never go along with anything illegal or unethical. The politicians are a different breed.

      2 replies →