World News 世界新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | Global News 環球財經 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭與恐怖主義的新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁 | |
| |
  | Translate: 翻譯：               The Legal Advice to Wage War on Iraq was not just “sexed-up”, it was concocted法律諮詢工資伊拉克戰爭不僅是“誇大”的，有人炮製 Saturday, November 29th, 2008 星期六， 2008年一十一月二十九日
By C Stephen Frost | 用C斯蒂芬弗羅斯特| Mary Bedworth, Christopher Burns-Cox, Lou Coatney and David Halpin co-signed this article, which appeared as a commentary in The Guardian following the publication of an article by Richard Norton Taylor (see below). 瑪麗彼得沃爾斯，克里斯托弗伯恩斯，考克斯，樓Coatney和大衛哈爾平共同簽署了此文章，這似乎是評論中衛發表後的文章理查德諾頓泰勒（見下文） 。
Iraq war: Time for a full inquiry 伊拉克戰爭：時間進行全面調查 Some of this scepticism is well-founded. 有些懷疑是有根據的。 But not all of it. 但是，並非所有的。 In the first place, Lord Bingham is not just any old lawyer. 首先，賓厄姆勳爵不僅是舊的律師。 He is the most senior judge of the modern era. 他是最高級法官的現代的時代。 He is regarded by many as its finest legal mind. 他是許多人認為，優秀的法律銘記。 Though Lord Bingham only retired a few weeks ago, he has been at the pinnacle of English law-making for a decade and a half and has clearly been pondering the war’s legality for years. 雖然賓厄姆勳爵退休不僅在幾個星期前，他一直在巔峰英文法律制定了10年半和已明確一直在思考戰爭的合法性多年。 It may raise some eyebrows that he should be so quick to engage on this supremely divisive issue so soon after leaving the bench - but if the issue is so important, why not? 它可能引起一些眉毛，他應該這麼快就參與這個極具分歧的問題後這麼快就離開替補席-但是，如果這個問題是如此重要，為什麼不呢？ The simple fact is that, when Lord Bingham speaks on the law, it is always a good idea to listen. 一個簡單的事實是，當談到賓厄姆勳爵的法律，它始終是一個好主意聽。 Just because it is now more than five years since the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, advised that an invasion would be lawful, it does not follow that his advice or the decision are less controversial or momentous now than they were in 2003. 只是因為現在是五年多以來，總檢察長戈德史密斯勳爵，通知說，入侵將是合法的，但這並不意味著他的意見或決定是爭議較少或重大現在比他們在2003年。 It is hard to think of a more serious decision than one to go to war. 這是很難想像的更嚴重的不止一個決定對伊拉克發動戰爭。 Particularly in circumstances other than national self-defence, it is essential to know what is lawful and what is not. 尤其是在情況以外的其他國家進行自衛，但關鍵是要了解什麼是合法的，哪些不是。 In a world increasingly and rightly regulated by international law, all nations need to be clear about the lawfulness of war and the obligation to obey that law. 在這個世界上越來越多地和正確地受國際法，所有國家都必須清楚了解的合法性的戰爭和義務服從法律。 Lord Bingham’s conclusion that the Iraq invasion was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law” - which ministers are required to uphold - has already been vigorously challenged by Lord Goldsmith and Jack Straw. 賓厄姆勳爵的結論，即美國入侵伊拉克是“一個嚴重違反了國際法和法治的” -這部長必須堅持-已經大力挑戰戈德史密斯勳爵和斯特勞。 Yet this is such a serious subject, with such immense implications for Britain’s standing, that the argument cannot be allowed to rest there. 然而，這是一個嚴肅的話題，這種巨大的影響，英國的地位，該論點不能讓那裡休息。 When such senior figures of the legal establishment are at odds in this way, it enhances the case for a full public inquiry into the lessons of the Iraq war. 當這些高層人物的法律設立不一致這樣，它增強的情況進行全面公開調查的經驗教訓，伊拉克戰爭。 That inquiry should have been established long ago. 這項調查應已成立很久以前。 But when someone of Lord Bingham’s stature says the war was unlawful, the case for such a scrutiny, already compelling, becomes irresistible. 但是，當有人賓厄姆勳爵的地位說，戰爭是非法的，如此這樣的檢查，已經令人信服，成為不可阻擋的。 We make the following comments on the Guardian article and editorial: 我們提出以下意見的衛文章和社論： Look, it is this simple - the Intelligence was not just sexed-up, it was concocted - further, the legal advice was not just sexed-up, it was also concocted - so, “the supreme international war crime” (according to the Geneva Conventions) of waging aggressive war on a sovereign state, was indeed committed by Blair, Goldsmith, Straw, Hoon, Falconer, Morgan and others. 你看，這是這個簡單-情報不僅是誇大的，有人炮製-進一步的法律意見不僅是誇大的，也有人炮製的-所以， “最高的國際戰爭罪”（根據日內瓦公約）的發動侵略戰爭對一個主權國家，的確是由布萊爾，戈德史密斯，稻草，胡恩，福爾克納，摩根和其他人。 The British war criminals knew that Iraq posed no threat to the United Kingdom, and that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could not be claimed to be necessary in self-defence, which was why there was a need for the Intelligence to be sexed-up, nay concocted.英國的戰爭罪犯知道，伊拉克不構成威脅聯合王國，而且先發製人入侵伊拉克不能聲稱是必要的自衛，這就是為什麼有必要的情報是誇大，行動，不編造。 Furthermore, because the British war criminals knew that they could not obtain the further United Nations resolution required (if they were not acting in self-defence, as they knew they were not), it was necessary to sex-up/concoct the legal advice.此外，由於英國的戰爭罪犯知道他們無法獲得進一步的聯合國決議要求（如果他們不採取自衛行動，因為他們知道他們不是） ，有必要sex-up/concoct的法律意見。 Further, the then Chief of the British Armed Forces, Sir Michael Boyce, asked on 13 March 2003 for assurances from the Government that the proposed invasion was legal and that his forces would not be committing a war crime by invading Iraq.此外，當時的首席英國武裝部隊，爵士邁克爾博伊斯，要求3月13日， 2003年為保證該國政府提議的入侵是合法的，而且他的部隊將不會犯下戰爭罪的入侵伊拉克。 That was why the Goldsmith 7 March 2003 written legal advice (which itself represented Goldsmith’s first change of mind), with all its caveats, had to be so drastically changed (with a little help from Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan who had an unminuted meeting with Goldsmith at 10 Downing Street on 14 March 2003, at which the latter conveyed his “verbal view”) to the infamous 17 March 2003 Parliamentary Answer on a single sheet of A4, devoid of all previous caveats, purporting as it did at the time to be the definitive legal advice, when it was no such thing.這就是為什麼戈德史密斯2003年3月7書面法律諮詢意見（這本身就代表史密斯的第一個改變的心態） ，其所有的警告，不得不如此急劇的變化（有沒有幫助福爾克納勳爵和男爵夫人摩根誰了unminuted會議戈德史密斯在唐寧街10號於3月14日2003年，後者轉達了他的“口頭意見” ） ，以臭名昭著的2003年3月17議會答單一資產負債表的A4規定，沒有以前的所有警告，看來是因為它在時間是最終的法律意見時，沒有這回事。 In any case, it was not for Goldsmith to decide whether Iraq had or had not complied with a combination of previous United Nations resolutions - that was always something for the United Nations to decide.在任何情況下，它不是為戈德史密斯來決定伊拉克是否有或沒有遵守的結合以前的聯合國決議-這是總會有一些聯合國來決定。 The “legal advice” on the single sheet of A4 (which we are not even sure was written by Goldsmith) was what was shown to Sir Michael Boyce and the Cabinet.在“法律諮詢”的單頁A4規定（其中我們甚至還沒有確定，由史密斯）是什麼結果顯示，邁克爾爵士博伊斯和內閣。 Robin Cook (former Foreign Secretary) resigned on 17 March 2003, and the second most senior lawyer at the Foreign Office, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned the following day.羅賓庫克（前外交大臣） 17日辭職， 2003年3月，第二次最高級律師外交辦事處，伊麗莎白Wilmshurst辭職，次日。 Those two, Robin Cook and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, were alone in resigning - the rest, who could have made a difference, just sat on their hands.這兩個，羅賓庫克和伊麗莎白Wilmshurst ，單獨在辭職-在其他方面，誰能夠作出了差別，只是坐在自己手中。 As has previously been mentioned upthread there is no point in having a public inquiry, because the Public Inquiries Act 1921 was quietly repealed in the dying days of the last government and replaced by the odious Inquiries Act 2005. 由於以前曾提到upthread有沒有什麼意義了公開調查，因為公眾問訊法是1921年廢除悄悄地在垂死天的上屆政府，取而代之的是可憎的問訊處的2005年法案。 It is unlikely that we will see the British war criminals on trial at the ICC in the Hague, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that any one of them could at any time be arrested in a foreign country and put on trial in that country using its own laws.這是不可能的，我們將看到英國的戰爭罪犯的審判在國際刑事法院設在海牙，但它並不是超越可能性，其中任何一個可以在任何時候被逮捕的外國國家和審判在這國家利用自己的法律。 So, for the rest of their lives, they will have to be careful where they travel.因此，其餘的自己的生活，他們將必須小心他們的旅行。 Our suggestions are:我們的建議是： 1) A list should be drawn up of suspected war criminals - the usual suspects would be on that list, but the list could become rather long if one were to include those who were complicit by their inaction (for example, the Conservatives inexplicably as far as I have understood were not concerned about the existence or otherwise of WMD - they wanted regime change regardless (which of course is illegal). So, to isolate the worst culprits, it would probably be best to keep the list as short as possible, confined to the worst culprits, numbering say 10 to 15. 1 ）名單應制定的戰犯嫌疑人-通常的嫌疑人將在這一名單，但名單可能會成為相當長的，如果之一是包括那些誰是他們的同謀無所作為（例如，保守黨就令人費解正如我的理解是不關心的存在或其他大規模殺傷性武器-他們希望改變政權，不論（這當然是非法的） 。因此，孤立最嚴重的罪魁禍首，它可能會保持最好的名單盡可能短，僅限於最嚴重的罪犯，編號說， 10日至15日。 2) A fresh inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly should be secured - this could and should be secured using Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners’ Act, and would represent the best chance of getting the war criminals into a court of law giving evidence this time (unlike at the Hutton Inquiry) under oath - the Hutton Inquiry purported to be an inquest, but it was no such thing - Hutton was not granted any of the statutory powers which a coroner would automatically possess - for example, he did not even hear evidence under oath, and he had no powers of subpoena - further, a coroner can call a jury and he can have witnesses aggressively cross-examined (Hutton possessed no such powers). 2 ）新研成死亡的凱利醫生應保證-這可以而且應該利用擔保第1 3條的1 988年死因法案，將最好的機會讓戰爭罪犯到法庭作證這個時候（不像在赫頓調查）宣誓-赫頓調查的看來是研訊，但它沒有這樣的事-赫頓是不給予任何法定權力，而死因裁判官將自動擁有-例如，他不即使聽到的證據宣誓，他沒有權力的傳票-進一步，死因裁判官可以要求陪審團，他可以有積極的證人盤問（赫頓沒有擁有這種權力） 。 Further, suicide must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (ie a criminal level of proof, which is a very high standard of proof) before a verdict of suicide can be returned - Hutton did not even hear evidence under oath, so it was never possible that he could be satisfied that suicide had been proved to the required standard.此外，自殺必須證明無可置疑（即刑事水平的證明，這是一個非常高標準的證明） ，然後作出判決的自殺可以返回-赫頓甚至沒有聽到宣誓證據，所以這是不可能實現的他可以確信，自殺已證明所要求的標準。 So, David Kelly’s death has not been subjected to the rigours of a proper inquest, and that is in flagrant contravention of English (and European) law.因此，凱利的死並沒有受到嚴格的一個適當的調查，這是公然違反英語（和歐洲）的法律。 So, due process of law was subverted in the investigation of arguably the most important death to have occurred in the United Kingdom in our lifetimes, inextricably linked as Kelly’s death was to the United Kingdom’s highly dubious reasons for going to war with Iraq.因此，適當的法律程序中被破壞的調查無疑是最重要的死亡發生在聯合王國在我們的有生之年，有著千絲萬縷的聯繫作為凱利之死是聯合王國的高度懷疑的理由去戰爭伊拉克。 The necessary urgent correction of this incontrovertible subversion of due process of law would provide the perfect excuse to get the war criminals in a court of law giving evidence under oath, under threat of charges of perjury were they to lie.必要的緊急更正這一無可辯駁的顛覆正當的法律程序將提供完美的藉口，讓戰爭罪犯在法庭上提供證據的法律宣誓，受到威脅的指控犯有偽證罪被他們撒謊。 The Coroner would have the power to subpoena any British citizen.死因裁判將有權傳喚任何英國公民。 Here is the 7 March 2003 legal advice (which represented Goldsmith’s first change of mind): 這是2003年3月7法律諮詢（這是史密斯的第一個改變心意） ： Here is the 17 March 2003 legal advice (which represented Lord Goldsmith’s second change of mind); 這是2003年3月17法律諮詢（代表戈德史密斯勳爵的第二次變革的心態） ; “Here is the full text of the 17 March 2003 response: “這是全文2003年3月17答复： Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. 管理局對伊拉克使用武力存在的綜合效應第678 ， 687和1441 。 All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security: 所有這些決議是根據第七章通過的聯合國憲章允許使用武力表示，為了恢復國際和平與安全： In Resolutions 678, the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area. 678號決議中，安理會授權對伊拉克動武，彈出它從科威特和恢復和平與安全領域。 In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. 在第687號決議，其中規定了停火條件後，沙漠風暴行動，安理會繼續實施對伊拉克的義務，以消除其大規模殺傷性武器，以恢復國際和平與安全領域。 Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678. 第687號決議暫停，但沒有終止的權力下使用武力的678號決議。 A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678. 物資違反了第687號決議再度授權使用武力的678號決議。 In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution. 在1441號決議，安理會決定，伊拉克一直是並且仍然在違反第687號決議，因為它沒有完全遵守其義務，解除根據該決議。 The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” and warned Iraq of the “serious consequences” if it did not. 安全理事會第1441號決議給伊拉克的“最後機會遵守其解除武裝的義務” ，並警告伊拉克的“嚴重後果” ，如果事實並非如此。 The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.安理會還決定在1441號決議，如果伊拉克沒有在任何時間遵守和充分合作，在執行1441號決議，這將構成進一步重大違反。
It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach. 這是平原，伊拉克已經失敗，使遵守，因此，伊拉克當時的第1441號決議，並繼續在重大違約行為。 Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today. 因此，當局使用武力的678號決議恢復了，因此今天仍在繼續。 Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. 第1441號決議方面將有規定，進一步安理會決定制裁所需的武力，如果已經打算。 Thus, all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.” 因此，所有的1441號決議要求的報告和討論，安理會對伊拉克的失敗，但沒有明確作出進一步的決定，批准生效。 “ ANNEX 附件 Top judge: US and UK acted as ‘vigilantes’ in Iraq invasion 首席法官：美國和英國擔任'民團'在伊拉克的入侵 by Richard Norton-Taylor 由理查德諾頓泰勒 Former senior law lord condemns ’serious violation of international law’ 前資深法律勳爵譴責，嚴重違反了國際法' 18 November 2008, The Guardian 08年11月18號的監護人 One of Britain’s most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a “world vigilante”.英國最權威的司法人物昨晚發表了起泡攻擊入侵伊拉克，認為這嚴重違反了國際法，並指責英國和美國的行動就像一個“世界民” 。 Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general’s defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed.賓厄姆勳爵在他的第一次重要講話退休後擔任高級法律老爺，然後拒絕了總檢察長的辯護2003年入侵作為根本性的缺陷。 Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith’s advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: “It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.” Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions “passes belief”.矛盾迎頭戈德史密斯勳爵的建議，入侵是合法的，賓厄姆說： “這不是平原，伊拉克沒有遵守的方式證明訴諸武力，也沒有強有力的理由或事實確鑿證據表明它有。 “增加他的體重對身體的國際法律意見，反對侵略，賓厄姆說，爭辯，因為英國政府一直在這樣做，英國和美國可以單方面決定，伊拉克已經打破聯合國決議”通行證的信念。 “ Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said.政府的約束，國際法多達由本國法律，他說。 “The current ministerial code,” he added “binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to ‘comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations’.” “目前的部長級代碼， ”他補充說： “具有約束力的英國部長，要求他們作為首要職責，遵守法律，包括國際法和條約義務。 ” The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continue to press for an independent inquiry into the circumstances around the invasion.保守黨和自由民主黨繼續爭取一個獨立的調查，各地的情況下入侵。 The government says an inquiry would be harmful while British troops are in Iraq.政府表示，調查將是有害的，而英國軍隊在伊拉克。 Ministers say most of the remaining 4,000 will leave by mid-2009.部長說，其餘大部分將離開4000年年中到2009年。 Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, Bingham said: “If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.處理研究所，英國國際法和比較法昨晚，賓厄姆說： “如果我的權利，入侵伊拉克，美國，英國和其他一些國家是違例安全理事會有，當然是一個嚴重違反了國際法和法治。 “For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council …” “對於影響的單方面行動是為了破壞基礎上， 1945年後的共識已經建造：禁止武力（除了自衛，或者，以避免迫在眉睫的人道主義災難） ，除非正式授權的國家世界有權作出集體決定在安全理事會... “ The moment a state treated the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rested was broken, Bingham argued.目前國家對待國際法的規則為約束他人，但不能本身，契約，法律在於被打破，賓厄姆說。 Quoting a comment made by a leading academic lawyer, he added: “It is, as has been said, ‘the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante’.”競標評論所作的主要學術律師，他說： “這是，作為一直說， '之間的差別的作用世界警察和世界民' 。 ” Bingham said he had very recently provided an advance copy of his speech to Goldsmith and to Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the invasion of Iraq.賓厄姆說，他最近提供了一個提前副本講話史密斯和斯特勞外交大臣的時候，入侵伊拉克。 He told his audience he should make it plain they challenged his conclusions.他告訴他的聽眾，他應該清楚，他們質疑他的結論。 Both men emphasised that point last night by intervening to defend their views as consistent with those held at the time of the invasion.兩人都強調這一點昨晚通過干預來捍衛自己的意見符合這些在入侵之時。 Goldsmith said in a statement: “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq.史密斯在一份聲明中說： “我堅持我的意見2003年3月，這是法律對英國採取軍事行動在伊拉克。 I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view.我不會考慮這些意見如果不是真正的我的看法。 Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event.” Goldsmith defended what is known as the “revival argument” - namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with previous UN resolutions which could now take effect.賓厄姆勳爵的標題是他自己的法律角度看五年後的事。 “戈德史密斯捍衛所謂的”復活的論點“ -即薩達姆沒有遵守聯合國決議前可現在才能生效。 Goldsmith added that Tony Blair had told him it was his “unequivocal view” that Iraq was in breach of its UN obligations to give up weapons of mass destruction.戈德史密斯說，英國首相布萊爾曾告訴他，他的“毫不含糊地認為”伊拉克違反了聯合國的義務放棄大規模殺傷性武器。 Straw said last night that he shared Goldsmith’s view.斯特勞說，昨晚，他同意史密斯的觀點。 He continued: “However controversial the view that military action was justified in international law it was our attorney general’s view that it was lawful and that view was widely shared across the world.”他繼續說： “但是有爭議認為，軍事行動是正當的國際法中是我們的總檢察長認為，這是合法的，這種觀點是廣泛認同的世界各地。 ” Bingham also criticised the post-invasion record of Britain as “an occupying power in Iraq”.賓厄姆也批評入侵後，英國的記錄為“佔領軍在伊拉克掌權。 ” It is “sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr Baha Mousa [a hotel receptionist] in Basra [in 2003]“, he said.這是“玷污了一些事件中，最引人注目的是可恥的毆打致死的議員巴哈穆薩[一家酒店的接待員]在巴士拉[ 2003 ] ， ”他說。 Such breaches of the law, however, were not the result of deliberate government policy and the rights of victims had been recognised, Bingham observed.這種違反法律的，但不是故意造成的政府政策和受害者的權利已經認識到，賓厄姆發現。 He contrasted that with the “unilateral decisions of the US government” on issues such as the detention conditions in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.他對比說的“單方面的決定，美國政府”的問題，如拘留條件在古巴關塔那摩灣。 After referring to mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham added: “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration.”在談到伊拉克虐待被關押在阿布格萊布，賓厄姆補充道： “特別令人不安的主張的法治是玩世不恭的缺乏關注的國際合法性的一些高級官員在布什政府。 ” Have Your Say: The Legal Advice to Wage War on Iraq was not just “sexed-up”, it was concocted 你說：法律諮詢，工資伊拉克戰爭不僅是“誇大”的，有人炮製 Please read our請仔細閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting張貼在發布前的指導方針 . 。 Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以討論這份報告在這裡 . 。 Related News 相關新聞
| Unheard Beatles tape: Revealing archive interview with George Harrison unearthed甲殼蟲樂隊的磁帶聞所未聞：揭示存檔採訪喬治哈里森出土 Last post by Regina @ 09:48 PM 最後員額@里賈納下午9時48分 Go to Forum進入論壇 | Latest Topics最新的話題 Caine reveals Italian Job ending堅揭示偷天換日結束 Last post by Regina @ 09:43 PM 最後員額@里賈納下午9時43分 Human mass Genocide too slow say Bugs!人類大規模種族滅絕過於緩慢表示錯誤！ Last post by ZingPao @ 08:21 PM 最後職位ZingPao @下午8時21 California Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Compassionate Care加利福尼亞州最高法院規則一致反對同情心的照顧 Last post by ZingPao @ 07:27 PM 最後職位ZingPao @下午7點27分 Us Vs Them我們與他們 Last post by sprucejuice @ 07:19 PM 最後職位sprucejuice @下午7點19分 On Monday I returned from a third-world country named Southern Mississippi.週一我回到從一個第三世界國家命名為南密西西比。 Last post by ZingPao @ 07:18 PM 最後職位ZingPao @下午7點18分 Hey Ashley!嘿阿什利！ Last post by Unregistered @ 06:43 PM 上次未註冊後@下午6點43分 Uncontacted Tribes Said to Face Genocide未與部落說，面臨種族滅絕 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 06:29 PM 最後的思考後人的白痴@下午6時29分 Indigenous People Demand Voice in Climate Talks土著人民的需求聲音在氣候會談 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 06:29 PM 最後的思考後人的白痴@下午6時29分 The Gates appointment: Obama slaps antiwar voters in the face蓋茨的任命：奧巴馬擔負反戰選民在面對 Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 06:17 PM 最後的思考後人的白痴@下午6時17  Email This Page To A Friend 本頁發送給朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的頭條
More更多 World News世界新聞  Archive 存檔
 |
About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD商店 | | Opinion 意見 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員 |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. 中表達的意見RINF新聞電線和通訊是唯一的責任作者（ s ）和不一定反映意見的管理員。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. RINF.COM ：打破新聞和其他媒體的版權-複製及分發自由。 News Forum 新聞論壇 |
From one perspective the answer is: not very much.從一個角度來看，答案是：沒有多大。 Seen from 2008, after all, the Iraq war is history.從2008年看，畢竟，伊拉克戰爭已經成為歷史。 With the Iraqi government’s backing this week, the troops will soon be on the way out.與伊拉克政府的支持在本星期，軍隊將很快對出路。 Chastened by the whole experience, no western leader is likely to go down the Bush-Blair route any time soon. 352整個經驗，沒有西方領導人可能走布什布萊爾路線任何時候很快。 Like it or not, the original advice was sincerely offered and sincerely acted on.喜歡還是不喜歡，原來的建議是真誠地提出並真誠地行事。 And Lord Bingham is in any case no longer a lord of appeal.賓厄姆勳爵是在任何情況下，不再是一個領主的上訴。 In short, his Grotius lecture this week may be a powerful piece of legal reasoning.總之，他的格勞秀斯演講本週可能是一個強大的一塊法律推理。 But it is a footnote to a decision that cannot now be reversed.但是，這是一個腳註決定，現在不能得到扭轉。