Think Tank Report: Iraq WMD Not Imminent Threat

That's from October from my favourite think-tank. I think the positions won't change whatever. But I'm delighted to have been informed on their front page, that parts of Europe are more densly populated then parts of North-America and therefore, the average American has more space at his disposal, isn't that great to know !

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/HL802.cfm

But I think nothing will change, the positions stay the same and the frcitions between the Continenantals and the Americans won't be mend. I mean not on this board, but I mean everywhere.

 

Secret news on Saddam's WMD program! The US went to war against ... a paper tiger (might explain the quick victory in the conquest ... perhaps). These deadly, secret sketches are probably part of the secret weapons programs Mr. Kay claimed to have found instead of actual weapons when he left Iraq.

And at the same time at the home front: Report: White House misled public on WMD - an analysis on CSMonitor, with links to other newssources.

*************************************************

And in response to BTA, and the concerns about political motications ... well, Bush told the world that Saddam's WMD are such big a threat, that they had to violate international law to pre-empt the menace.
They claimed exact to have pretty exact knowlegde, exact enough to say the WMD are ready within 45 min (Blair/ Bush), and that they are in the area of Tikrit (Rumsfeld) - however, at the same time they found none, not during the war, and not in the subsequent months of occupation with unrestricted access to scientists and sites.

Their troops went into, when you believe administration figures, a potentially chemical war without order of battle of their enemies WMD capabilities, blind.

Either the gvt was iresponsible in putting their soldiers lifes in harms way blindly, or they knew and lied. Of course, they might have been wrong, but as they still insist in having been right and that evidence underlined their claims ... that barely holds to any scrutiny.

It is very easy to claim political motives to anyone telling something that conflicts with gvt utterances. However, there is a very good chance, this time in particular, they have been not only right but that their outrage is justified.
With the major official rationale for the war fallen apart, the WMD, the US administration and its claims have become much less credible.

It's quite simple: Without WMD, no imminent threat. And then the war was not necessary, especially not in defense of the US, much less in its pre-emptive and illegal form.

It's not all about party bias, even though the cons like to tell that. It is, when the gvt claims that someone is armed and dangerous, and the opposition points out that he in fact was, while still being a crook, naked and unarmed, well, that can as well be the statement of a simple, if inconvenient fact.

There is a basic information operations aim ( a more in depth analysis): Degrading hostile intelligence. You can do so by attacking or restricting a tv station like Al Jazeera in Baghdad. In the US that doesn't work, there are free media, so you have to switch over to Plan B: The adversary is biased, that's why you can't believe him - why? - because he's an adversary, he has an interest in damaging me. Works like charm

[ January 09, 2004, 15:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, maybe then you got the Carnegie Endownment wrong. It painstakingly tries to stay nonpartisan. Among it's members is Robert Kagan, a reputed Neocon and one of the founders of PNAC.

Carnegie releases the Journal "Foreign Policy", which is pretty much mainstream in US foreign policy, in tone and direction comparable with "Foreign Affairs" - the publication of the Council of Foreign Relation (which gives advice to the President).

To say they are biased, because they're by program multilateral, is funny. Actually, even in US foreign policy mainstream, the militant unilateralists are considered a minority of extremists. Just read some of the Foreign Affairs articles since September (available online). Unfortunately these people for quite a while had the upper hand, and offered the "easy" solutions so appealing to Bush Jr, and have the ear of the president - that especially applies to Cheney.

The return of Baker, fortunately, signals possible change.

Carnegies concern for US foreign policy is honest, because the damage done by the unilateralism is very real. And their conclusions are valid.

 

Well, indeed Carnegies hav some self-interest to bring forward their cause of multilateralism by staing Iraq was a failure. But face it: A full or even partial success, measured at the metrics administration lined out predicted in March - a welcome with roses, greeted as liberators,plug & play invasion, reconstruction on the cheap - all that never happened.
Carnegie also adresses the abysmal failure of the US to gather sufficient evidence on Iraq, and lays the finger on the major shift after which intel quality deoriated (or became more and more alarming), coninciding with the foundation of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.
Yes, they point out OSP did in fact propaganda, by cherrypicking the pieces they needed for the case to go to war in Iraq.

With the same right you can say that the administration denying the substance of the report is covering their asses. Like Powell, who is about to lose his credibility as the report draws in question the honesty of the performance at the UN. Would he admit he lied, or exaggerated, he would be doomed. Denial is the administrations only option, or, of course, sitting it out by ignoring questions (Bush Jr.'s choice).
Whatever the administration tells: Mind they are in an election year and they have to loose the essence of what is Washington about: Power.

As I said: Without WMD, and Al Quada connection - no imminent threat. And that means the US did not need to put US soldiers lives, not to mention Iraqi lives, in harms way. It is about Accountability for Dubya’s War (and that's a very much conservative opinion).

[ January 10, 2004, 17:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

It astonishes me that so many people are so quick to take the side of a murdering dictator (Saddam Hussein) known to have had WMD (because he used them to kill 10,000 Iraqi Kurds) and attack the democratically elected leaders of the UK and the US. Where is the verbal assault against the leaders of spain, who also backed taking action in Iraq?

So many here talking about 'invasion' and 'war' when in fact Saddam Hussein had been acting as if he had WMD for years after the first gulf war (when he invaded Kuwait). Since the US and UK have been so loudly criticised for arming Saddam Hussein originally, how can any of you now claim that Blair and Bush are wrong to think he has such weapons? haven't you been shouting that they *sold* them to him? Incidentally, the conservatives were in power at the time of the first gulf war, not Tony Blair. Besides which, would you like your national leaders to sit back and allow Saddam Hussein to break all the UN agreements he signed up to? If so, what is the point of the UN?
No one can blame Bush or Blair if it turns out that somehow Saddam Hussein *hasn't* got any such weapons. He had been continually preventing weapons inspections for 12 years and it was this noncooperation that aroused suspicions! The UN either took action, or endangered itself by allowing Saddam Hussein to act unrestrained, when the other nations *were* restrained.
Note also that while Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bush and Blair led 'serious consequences' - as defined in the UN rules - against Iraq. The only *genuine* invader of countries is Saddam Hussein. What the US and UK did was perfectly legal according to agreements that Saddam Hussein *himself* signed up to! There was no 'war' declared. There was no intention to kill civilians. That civilians died is Saddam Hussein's fault. he could easily have prevented the 'serious consequences' he was threatened with - but he didn't. The only alternative for the UK and America et al. was to *not* act and 'wait to see what happens next'. Yet Saddam Hussein was known to work with, and be sympathetic to, terrorist organisations. So what do you imagine would eventually 'happen next' if Bush and Blair were to sit about and do nothing? In the light of 9/11, how many of you Americans would rather Bush had sat on his hands?

As I say, I am simply amazed that so many people cannot see things how they really were. 50,000 people marching in London, waving banners effectively supporting a man who invaded Kuwait, aids terrorists, used poison gas on his own people, had men thrown into threshing machines, had members of his own family executed, even killed people personally. Astonishing!

 

Ah yes, if you are not with us are surely a murdering madman supporting diabolic dictators around the world and eating babies for breakfast. Such a wonderful view on the troubles in this world, makes everything so easy.

 

But you can see behind the strawman ? No they were not supporting a madman, they just saw things different then you. But you could lend me your eyes, for I might see things then as they really are, which I obviously do not right now.

Oops, I might be a traffic-hazard, I mean with all those delusions blocking my view.

 

Keldor,
it is more the worry of conflict of interest and interest in conflict on sides of the US: Being self appointed prosecutor and jolly violator of law at the same time is IMO questionable.

So found the serbs when the US demanded they should immediately deliver their war criminals to the balkans war crimes court. The serbs were plainly furious when the US at the same time demanded Serbia should please sign one of the infameous treaties with the US, not to extradite US soldiers to the ICC.

And the question of necessity of the war remains: The US invasion killed an esitmated 55.000 Iraqis, soldiers and civilians, during the conquest and the occupation, easily ten times more than 911 cost - without Iraq having been an imminent threat, no WMD, without Al Quaeda link or linked to 911.
So what thee silly Euros said wasn't "Please don't hurt our dear Saddam" but "Sure we need to do it, but why this hurry all of a sudden? Aren't you first of all in a war on terror? We aren't yet finished in Afganistan."
The US position was along the line: "Don't ask, f*cking appease me and don't stand in the way or we'll walk over you."

The stated morality of toppling Sadddam is a conversation killer and it is used that way: To silence dissent, and to denounce the anti-war fraction of being cynical and gutless. That is beside the point. Moral talk is a big whitewash for the war apologists.
Because when the war was morally justified, the missing primary reasons aren't so important. That is quite convenient for the pro-war pundits.

And that is dead wrong. In a democracy it is of utmost importance that a gvt is held accountable for their actions. Nothing about the way the US went to war honored the US' democratic ideals. It was a vast shakedown front to back, and it did do damage to American democracy.

At the end of the day, the saved lives of Iraqis are no small thing to weigh against the debasement of "mere" ideals. But the latter concern deserves far more attention than it's been getting. You cannot say that it didn't matter what Bush's reasons for the war were -referring to the proclaimed "morality" of your personal cause that in the end only matters for you.

The point isn't that Saddam was a criminal. The point is that Bush & Blair have become some too.

 

Ragusa,
Quote: it is more the worry of conflict of interest and interest in conflict on sides of the US: Being self appointed prosecutor and jolly violator of law at the same time is IMO questionable.

“Self-appointed prosecutor” – wrong: the US is a member of the UN and Iraq violated the rules of this coalition. They acted *after* the UN had voted to take action – some 12 years after all other methods of getting Saddam Hussein to follow order had failed.
“Jolly violator of law” – wrong: there was no war, and war wasn’t declared. The action in Iraq, which is specific to this thread (so spare me any digressions to other parts of the world where we may actually be in agreement) was perfectly legal – Saddam Hussein himself signed Iraq up to the UN agreements. Also, to add the word ‘jolly’ is just pure rhetoric.


Quote: So found the serbs when the US demanded…

A different situation. If you hate the US, fine, but do so for sound reasons or be ready to be made to look ignorant and foolish. This is a thread about WMD and whether they exist or not (or more accurately, a thread for those in the ‘isn’t the US a big bag of ****e’ brigade to preach their ignorance to the converted. I’m gate crashing the party, so to speak, and pointing out a few facts).


Quote: And the question of necessity of the war remains: The US invasion killed an esitmated 55.000 Iraqis, soldiers and civilians, during the conquest and the occupation, easily ten times more than 911 cost - without Iraq having been an imminent threat, no WMD, without Al Quaeda link or linked to 911.

You personally know nothing of what weapons the west sold to Saddam Hussein or where they might be. You know nothing of the contents of the documents the Allied forces found burning when they reached the Iraqi bases. You know nothing of Saddam Hussein’s efforts to prevent the west from knowing what he was up to. Thus, the fact is that you cannot say for certain that there are no WMD. Neither can you be certain there were no links specifically to Al Quaeda.
What we *do* know is that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and his purpose for this was thwarted by western forces. It stands to reason that he hates us for this alone. It stands to reason that if he could, he *would* take revenge against the west, e.g. with nuclear weapons, most likely targeted against the US or the UK, London. If that occurred, the 3000 or so lost in the appalling attack of 9/11 would look like a wasp sting at a picnic party. Imagine waking up to the news that London no longer existed and the UK was awash with radiation; 9 million dead and the figure set to rise. Or the equivalent in New York – not ‘the twin towers have been destroyed’ but ‘*New York* has been destroyed.’
The ’55,000’ you quote are known as ‘casualties of war’. Their blood is all on Saddam Hussein’s hands. He could have stopped the action, had he wanted to. Is Winston Churchill held accountable for the millions of innocent civilians who died because Britain chose to wage war on Hitler? No – because most people understand that sometimes war (or serious consequences) have to be carried out.

Quote: So what thee silly Euros said wasn't "Please don't hurt our dear Saddam" but "Sure we need to do it, but why this hurry all of a sudden? Aren't you first of all in a war on terror? We aren't yet finished in Afganistan."

A pathetic claim. The US proved itself perfectly capable of waging ‘war’ both in Afghanistan *and* Iraq. Just because you aren’t hearing about Afghanistan in the news everyday, doesn’t mean the US is finished with it. They *are* still bending over backwards to catch Osama Bin Laden.
Why all the hurry? Because the US was *angry*. She had never suffered such a terrorist attack before – weren’t you watching the reaction on the television at the time? I was amazed the US didn’t immediately fire nukes at someone! I seriously believe that *had* America responded within *hours* of the 9/11 attack *with nuclear force* against Iraq (on the insane grounds that ‘it must have been them’) the international community would have merely shook its collective head and shouted for calm and concluded that it had been a terrible atrocity after all and someone had to pay i.e. WWIII would *not* have broken out. If the US tried such a thing now, I think WWIII would break out. So US anger was the major factor. The second major factor was that the international community had been fighting Saddam Hussein since the early 90’s! The first gulf war was still rumbling! The reason most people shouted ‘why now’ was because most people are ignorant of the deeper political scene. It *seemed* like action blown out of all proportion.


Quote: The stated morality of toppling Sadddam is a conversation killer

Because it has no come-back; because you know it is right. I don’t use this as a cheap form of winning my argument! To suggest that is to deny me the right to point out *facts*!

Quote: …and to denounce the anti-war fraction of being cynical and gutless.

You know it.

Quote: That is beside the point.

So it’s ‘beside the point’ that Saddam Hussein has used WMD before, is a known supporter of terrorists, has reason to hate the West, is an invader of countries, and has billions of dollars at his disposal? Yeah right.

Quote: Moral talk is a big whitewash for the war apologists.

Justify this statement if you can, if you *dare*. I say ‘dare’ because I’m confident you *couldn’t*, and would make yourself look a mug if you tried.


Quote: Because when the war was morally justified, the missing primary reasons aren't so important. That is quite convenient for the pro-war pundits.

How can you blame us for pointing out the obvious justification for the action? Of course you would prefer it if there weren’t damn good reasons for taking the action because then you wouldn’t have to feel so guilty about being confused. It’s no crime being unable to understand the complexities of politics. All you’ve got to do is keep your mouth shut. If you opine ignorantly, your ignorance will out and you might be made to look foolish.

Quote: And that is dead wrong. In a democracy it is of utmost importance that a gvt is held accountable for their actions. Nothing about the way the US went to war honored the US' democratic ideals.

And in what way exactly are the gvts. concerned unable to be held to account? Can we not vote the politicians out? Can their replacements not enforce reparations and punishments if they want to? Where is your problem? Were the soldiers *conscripted*? Were they *forced* into the action? Did you see any conscientious objectors?

Quote: At the end of the day, the saved lives of Iraqis are no small thing to weigh against the debasement of "mere" ideals. But the latter concern deserves far more attention than it's been getting. You cannot say that it didn't matter what Bush's reasons for the war were -referring to the proclaimed "morality" of your personal cause that in the end only matters for you.

I didn’t say or suggest that the lives of innocent Iraqis didn’t matter (although it can be said – and I will say it – that they had the power to overthrow Saddam Hussein if they really wanted to); and the lost lives of ‘innocent’ Iraqis (the same ones who were shown jumping in the streets when the towers collapsed) have been used no end by the anti-war lobby. They have a very loud voice. In the UK, the newspapers were filled with exploitative pictures of the little boy who lost his arms and legs, as if Bush and Blair had personally wanted such a thing.

Quote: The point isn't that Saddam was a criminal.

Yes it *is*.

Quote: The point is that Bush & Blair have become some too.

No they haven’t. As I have clearly pointed out to you, the action was democratically voted for. The US, the UK and Spain voted for action, France said it would veto *any* action whatsoever, and every other nation abstained. Thus, in the UN there were 3 votes for, 1 against – and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was signed up to resolution 1441 on WMD – of which it was found to be in *material* breach (by Dr. Hans Blix). Fact.

 

Dear friend Keldor, you should go back and read a little of what has been discussed here and generally read up on the subject you claim superiour knowledge of. It is not becoming for you to appear so arrogantly ignorant.

 

keldor, as joacqin has said, there has been extensive discusison on this matter here, morally and factually, and Ragusa is perhaps the most productive supplier of concilliaory evidence and articles that I have ever met.

If you do a quick search here, you should find the correct answers to those erroneous statements you have made.

But this too is beside the point, nothing excuses you to be so rude. I do not want to be over-stepping my bounds here, as I am aware I have been guilty of the same things myself, but I think I speak for all when I say that that kind of response, especially concerning a subject matter where copious amounts of discussion and hard evidence have been provided, is not appreciated.

 

Well, according to the UN charter - that is the consensus of all members of the UN, thereby alone common international law - a country has no right to attack any other country - national sovereignty is untouchable. It states the right of self defense - and in some cases even prevention. And it allows measures of force, allowed by the UN security council. That, and that alone are allowed reasons to go to war.

Iraq did not attack the US, self defense is ruled out. There was no such a thing like an imminent attack, rules out prevention. Leaves measures of force.
You misunderstand the nature of the UN resolutions. When Saddam has violated UN resolutions, and he has, it would have been the task of the security council to decide wether to go to war or not. It has said no, very clearly. There was no resolution allowing the US to attack Iraq. Questions of soverignty, of war and peace, are points so grave that it needs to be explicitly stated. There was nothing like that.
The UN security council has not, and that was underlined by Annan and the other members, empowered the US to go to war against Iraq.

That means the US were not justified in violating Iraqi sovereignty. That is called war of agression. That is a war crime. In Nuremberg people were hanged for it.

And for the rest, I second Manus point: Read before you rant.

 

joacqin, calling me ‘dear friend’ is patronising. I’m not your friend. I needn’t go back and read anything. I know full well what I’m saying and I know whom I’m saying it to. I have made no claim to ‘superior knowledge’ – only facts.

Manus, I directed my comments to Ragusa who can speak for, and defend himself. As for your comments, I refute that I was rude. I further refute that I am mistaken in a single word I have said. My only reservation, in retrospect, was to my comment implying that the anti-war faction is cynical and gutless. This is unfair; I think they are, in fact, simply ignorant. They are well meaning but ask them if fighting Hitler was a wrong thing to have done and they all shut up – because that example shows clearly that sometimes war is necessary.

Ragusa, I did not rant, I made a point. Is it so, that when you post you make a point but when someone opposes your views, they rant?

There was a resolution in the UN, which was unanimous - to take action. When it came to *what* action was to be taken, the majority of nations chickened out. They all but four sat on the fence - proving itself useless. I repeat, the coalition forces did *not* invade Iraq or go to war with them. They imposed, as they had every right to, the 'serious consequences' cited under UN resolution 1441.

Please don't try to tell me the 'only reasons when a nation can go to war'. What you wrote is nonsense that would count out the nazis creating death camps within Germany.

Where are the lawyers trying to take the coalition nations to justice for an illegal 'war'? If you are right, where are they? Furthermore, why was there confusion as to what Saddam Hussein was to be imprisoned for? It was because no one knows whether he is a war criminal or something else. This alone shows that the notion that there was a war is not clear. In fact, Saddam Hussein is to be tried for gross inhumanity et al. in breach of human rights acts - not a war criminal.

So I repeat, Blair and Bush are *not* criminals. When the lawyers appear and start saying they are, then I'll listen. In which case, the nations of those who voted them into power are as much to blame, as would be those who carried out the bombings etc. Making Bush and Blair national scapegoats would be as much cowardice as most of the UN demonstrated when it sat on the fence.

[ January 20, 2004, 19:27: Message edited by: keldor ]

 

Huh, was had the outbreack of the second world war to do with death camps within Germany ? I remember vaguely that the war started because of the invasion of Poland. Incidentally, the location of the most notorious death camp some years later. But then, I am ignorant.

I really suggest you make a forum search. Your news is old, not shocking and your tone could stand some improvement.

 

Wow...I don't even know where to start.

@ keldor

Actually, what's astonishing is that some people don't seem to know the difference between protesting a war waged under false pretenses and attending Saddam's birthday party. Saddam was an evil bastard who needs to be dealt with. No one, at least here on our boards, who is against the war has claimed that Saddam is a victim. We have stated, ad nauseum, that waging war on Iraq, which has thusfar proven to be not an immenant threat or in possession of WMD, was a distraction from tracking down people who actually did attack the United States - al Quaeda. What we have a problem with is a government who says "We're going to war because we know for a FACT that he has WMD and he's itching to use them. We must act now," and when, a year later, none of the administration's claims have come to pass (fact), the administration replies - and I'm quoting here - "What's the difference?"

Saying that people who were against the war are effectively showing support for Saddam Hussein is about the worst kind of naivety I can think of. As has been stated - the end of this war has not justified the means, and that's what is being protested.

Well, actually, yes we can. Colin Powell admitted publicly about 2 weeks ago that there was never any concrete proof of a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda. For someone who touts all these facts, you may want to brush up on a few yourself there, bub.

Also, you're right I suppose - we can't say with any certainty that there are no WMD. It's impossible to prove that something does not exist. But we weren't the ones who stated with 100% certainty that there were WMD in Iraq. The case for war, and specifically the urgancy, was based on this assertion. So here we are, almost one year later, and nothing. Even finding one single warhead would silence critics worldwide. Has one single warhead surfaced? No.

In my book, if you insist on waging war based on a specific reason, a reason that apparantly overrides any misgivings that not only the American public has or the international community, but also the US's own intelligence community, you better damn well better be able to deliver on your promises. "Just trust us...we'll show you where the weapons are when we get there. It's that simple!" And it's becoming readily apparent that they can't.

No, it is cheap. Because no one wants to look like they're in support of Saddam, just like you're accusing all of us of supporting Saddam. Because it clouds the issue. Because there is no provable link between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Because it's a distraction going after people who actually posed a threat to us. Because it silences dissent, one of the virtues my great nation was built upon. And that's cheap.

Do you honestly believe that Iraq was as much of a threat as my government made it out to be? Really? Think about it. We (the Coalition) toppled Saddam's army in just over 2 weeks. That's the fastest military victory in history. After almost a year of searching, no significant stockpiles of weapons have been found, outside of the standard military munitions every nation with an active military has. Saddam knew damn well he wasn't a threat, but the last thing on earth he was going to let happen was let his neighbors know that. We devastated his army in Desert Storm. He never fully recovered. THAT's a fact. He rattled his sabre and talked tough because he knew that if any of his neighbors - all of whom his enemies - realized this little fact, he would cease to hold sway in the region.

Charm school drop out, are we? You were very rude and unnecessarily condescending to nearly everyone in this thread. If you can't see that, you need a serious lesson in manners. You've been a member of these boards for what...about 2 weeks? Show a little more respect to those who've earned their place here. You owe an apology or two. If you don't feel like conducting yourself in a polite, adult manner, scuddle off and find some other forum to annoy. Or...keep going like you are. You'll get banned soon enough.

[ January 20, 2004, 20:03: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

keldor, as I feel we have a lot to work up here, I'll do it in little portions, first of all International law because I understand there's a dire need for explanation:

International law is between countries. Equal sovereignty is the cornerstone of international order. The US, France, Switherland, the Vatican or Iraq - all are legally equal - sovereign.

So, as a matter of fact, the reasons I gave are the only undisputed and allowed reasons for war, and I was generous including prevention because this a very disputed issue.

The resolution 1441 you named threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" in case of non cooperation. While war is indeed a serious consequence, that does not mean "then the US can go invade you". The formulation leaves no doubt that the final decision on war and peace was to be made in the security council.
In other words: There is a reason why Britain wanted this second resolution - the one that failed - because they had evidently doubts wether 1441 was a suitable base for the war. 1441 was just a fallback - and a weak one: The overwhelming rest of the world disagrees with this view. And as international law is made by consensus, that means: The US and the UK weren't justified.
There was no security council resolution empowering the US/ UK to go to war with Iraq. 1441 wasn't enough.

And then there is the overlooked fact that Saddam did cooperate with Blix in the end ... even though the war faction in Washington denied that, ironically still unable to bring up proof of their own for Saddam's alleged WMD ...

Maybe it's easier to understand that way: Under international law war always is forbiden, except when one of the "justifications" kicks in.

And as for rant: You don't even try to persuade me that the war was legal - you flatly state that your view is right. That doesn't give me the feeling you really grasped my arguments. As I'm one of those igorant anti-war dudes, please enlight me.

I *DO* tell you - because so is the law. Nazi Germany building concentration camps in germany was an internal german problem. Sad but true, but understand that. It only becomes subject to international law when there is a cross-border element - because international law regulates relation between countries. Maybe there is movement to individual rights with the ICC treaty, but it is yet to early to say that.

Understand that internal problems are a question under national soverignty - basically like: "None of your business." To illustrate that: Canada can't go to war against the US because it takes offense on them setting up CCs in their military zones or violating rights of prisoners there. The US can't go to war with china for what they do in their prisons - because it is a sovereign internal issue.
It becomes an international issue again, when it, as in the case of Guantanamo, might violate existing international reaties - namely the hague conventions on the rights of POWs.

And then, I can only second Iago's point ...

[ January 20, 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: Ragusa ]