I'm curious what planet you are living on? Odds are high that Tony Blair is going to be voted out of office for so vigorously supporting the United States in this little excursion. The 'Coalition of the Willing' is supported by extensive bribes by the United States.
He was definately a threat to the citizens of his own country, but only if they voiced dissent. He was not a threat to anyone else. His military was severely degraded in 1991, and with the United Nations sanctions, replacement parts for his weaponry was unavailable. The only possible threat he could have posed was with Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. As we have seen, those just didn't exist.
Certainly, bin Laden is a lunatic. No argument from me on this statement.
Gitmo? Who mentioned Gitmo? Now, since you bring it up. That the United States is holding indefinately, without charge, without rights, without status human beings is a disgrace and an embarassment. If they are criminals, charge them and try them. If they are prisoners of war, name them as such and provide them the rights granted to POW's.
Abu Ghraib is a prison in Iraq. The detainees in this prison are being detained for questionable reasons. Some are supposed to be criminal, but others just happen to be living on the same block. When the US military executes a 'sweep', they detain all of the people in an area, detain them, and then are supposed to vet those who do not belong in the prison. However, due to manpower related shortages, many remain detained that should be released.
Thirdly ... 3000 murded (actually 2948) ... ahh, gee, haven't you heard, THE IRAQI's weren't involved with that ... Why don't we start randomly arresting Canadians?
Forthly ... "would you not rather error on the side of safety" ... well, No. You see, if we do not provide every guarantee to our enemy, our enemy will feel justified to deny our soldiers those same guarantees. This begins the escalation of violence. Yes, the US Military can destroy all the other militaries on the planet, but unless you are going to destroy all of the people on the planet, the problem is not going to be solved.
Our country has done pretty well for itself guaranteeing the rights of citizens to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why should we abondone this noble concept, that has served us so well for 225 years?
No, I am not an international attourney at law. I am going to assume that is a rhetorical question.
It is not written that 'socio paths' such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds.
Also, he should not use it on the Iranians. Also, the United States should not provide intelligence data to Saddam Hussein so that he may effectively use his chemical & biological weapons against his enemies and citizens. ... But we did.
In 1949, the world adopted the 'Geneva Conventions'. These Convetions function as 'International Law' and deal directly with armed conflict. In 2001, apparently, the George Bush Administration decided that we no longer need to operate within the guidelines of the Geneva Convetions (Kyoto, anyone?).
Here are the Geneva Conventions
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Here is the US abondoment of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/
Mike