[ninty]

Your comparison isn't founded at all.

Criminals have a right to a trial. In this trial, they have the right to defend themselves. It is only after they are found guilty that rights are taken away.

The fact is that the discussion was not about what Iraq had done, rather what the US was going to do to Iraq, and if they had a right to defend themselves at the highest levels of international law.

If we go back to your prison example, once someone is convicted, do they lose all basic rights of a human? Are these people no longer human? Should it be legal to beat, mame and kill prisoners because they have lost their rights?

With Iraq, because they have human rights violations, is it appropriate to take away all rights of a country to defend itself legally? The issues between Iraq’s history of UN violations and human rights concerns have nothing to do with the beginnings of the Iraq war. They are two separate issues completely.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I’m wrong, but what I see you saying is that since Iraq has human rights violations, their rights as a country get thrown out. From this, other countries are now, without competition form international law, allowed to do what they please to Iraq because of this loss of rights. More specifically, the US gets to present a case stating why an invasion should take place, while Iraq can do nothing but stand idle waiting for the invasion to come, whether the invasion is justified or not.

Also, you might want to avoid personal attacks and speculation as to what “we” as “liberals” might do in the future because they really have no foundation for discussion in this topic.